Senate Floor

Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuletta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballaro, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limon, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk.

A quorum is present. Good afternoon, everyone. Would the Members on the floor and our guests be on the rail and in the gallery please rise? We will be led in prayer this afternoon by our chaplain, Sister Michelle Gorman, after which, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Sister Gorman.

So today let us pray. Psalm 23 for busy people. With apologies to the psalmist. The Lord is my pace setter. I shall not rush. God helps me stop and rest for quiet intervals. He provides me with images of stillness which restores my serenity. God leads me in ways of efficiency through calmness of mind. God's guidance is peace. Even though I have many things to accomplish today and crisis may pile upon crisis, I will not fall apart, for God's presence is here.

God's timelessness will keep me in balance. God prepares refreshment and renewal in the midst of my activities. God anoints my mind with the oil of inspiration. Surely harmony and effectiveness will be the fruit of my hours. And I shall walk in the peace of the Lord this day. Amen.

Members, please join me in the Pledge. I pledge allegiance United States of America Members, I'm pleased to tell you that on behalf of Senator Wilk can I get everyone's attention, please? We're going to first begin with privileges of the floor. On behalf of Senator Wilk, we'd like to recognize Robert Paris who's on the board of directors of the Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency. He also serves as Chairman of The Antelope Valley Water Master Board and Chairman of The Antelope Valley State Water Contractors Association.

Please give him a warm welcome to the California State Senate. We'll move next to messages from the Governor. They will be deemed read. Messages from the Assembly will be deemed read. Reports of Committee will be deemed read and amendments adopted. Moving on to motions, resolutions and notices, I'm going to recognize Senator from Berkeley. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President. I am requesting unanimous consent to submit a letter to the Journal. It is related to SB 114, the Education Budget Trailer Bill, and it included changes to charter school law. The letter is to clarify that the changes are technical and clarifying without objection.

So noted. Thank you, Senator Skinner. We're going to move next to consideration of the daily file. Begin with a second reading file. Please read.

Assembly Bill 1175 with amendments 342-454-541-682-760-783-873

2nd reading file will be deemed read. Members, we're going to next turn to unfinished business. Let me review the matters on unfinished business that we're going to take care of today. We're going to begin with file item 52, followed by file item 53, 54, 55, 56, and then 58. That's the unfinished business that we will begin with now.

So we'll start with file item 52. This is SB 124. Would the Clerk please read

Senate Bill 124 by Senator Skinner an act relating to energy and making an appropriation, therefore to take effect immediately Bill related to the budget.

Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, SB 124 is the Energy Trailer Bill, and it includes items necessary to implement the budget, including extending the CPUC's authority to convene the Diablo Canyon Independent Peer Review Panel if plant operations continue through 2030. It also authorizes the Ibank and the Department of Water Resources to access and utilize federal funding provided in the Inflation Reduction Act to finance projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And it clarifies data access for the Energy Commission's independent Consumer Fuels Advisory Committee so that data is aggregated anonymized and not open to public disclosure. And it clarifies that distributed electricity backup assets. Program participants are required to participate in the Demand Side Grid Support Program. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Members, any discussion or debate on this matter? Any discussion or debate? Seeing none. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members one last time.

[Roll Call]

29 to two, the measures adopted. We're going to move next to file item 53, Senate Bill 145. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 145 by Senator Newman, an act relating to transportation and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to present SB 145, which includes two proposals from the Governor's infrastructure package impacting the Department of Transportation, also known as Caltrans. First, SB 145 implements several recommendations from the AB 1282 Transportation Permitting Task Force to accelerate and streamline the implementation of environmental mitigation measures for Caltrans projects, which, under existing law can often be a time intensive process laden with multiple administrative barriers.

Second, SB 145 will authorize Caltrans to enter into an enforceable contract with the Brightline West Company for the construction of three wildlife crossings over Interstate 15 and the future Brightline West high speed Railway between Southern California and Nevada. These dedicated overcrossings will provide a safe and sustainable route for indigenous wildlife, including bighorn sheep, to safely transit the existing highway. And the future high speed railway.

Integrating the construction of the wildlife overcrossings into the larger Brightline West High Speed rail project will ultimately avoid construction delays, save time and taxpayer dollars altogether. SB 145 offers two important streamlining proposals for state transportation projects which will allow California to be competitive for federal dollars, while also making clear that the state remains committed to the highest standards of environmental protections. I am respectfully asking for your I vote today.

Thank you. Senator Newman, any discussion on this matter? Any discussion on SB 145? Senator Wilk?

Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. President. You're doing a great job today. Yes, so far. Good point. So, yeah, I'm standing up to rise in support of this. I really appreciate the appointment from the Pro Tem to sit on last week's Select Committee on Infrastructure. Found it very informative. I always talk about the co equal branches of government here when the governor's doing stuff I don't like and I think a lot of you don't like, and we still capitulate this time.

The governor's proposals are actually better than the proposals that we're voting on today. I just want to put that out there. Nonetheless, I support most of these. This one is particularly important to my district, and that's the Brightline rail system.

It's going to go from LA to Vegas, which is great, but the other things that's going to do to provide economic development to my community is from hysteria down to Rancho Cucamonga, there'll be another line, which will be a commuter line to take people out of their cars off the 15. And then from the multimodal facility in Palmdale out to the Apple Valley station, Again, to generate economic development and keep people off the road.

So I'm really excited that the Governor decided to put the wildlife crossing streamlining in there. It's going to benefit the whole state, but particularly my region, and that whole region, about 4 million people. So I'm happy that we're doing this and urge everybody to cast their aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Wilk. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Senator from Fullerton, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. So this is an exciting project. I appreciate my colleagues' comments the provisions contained in the Bill will help expedite the project and also save taxpayers substantial amounts of money. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Senator Newman has closed. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

please call the absent Members.

38-0 on the urgency, 38-0 on the measure. We'll move next to file item 54. This is Senate Bill 146 by Senator Gonzalez. Clerk, please read

Senate Bill 146 by Senator Gonzalez. an act relating to public resources and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I'm here today to present SB 146, which will expedite and streamline the delivery of critical infrastructure projects across the state and will allow California to leverage billions of federal dollars. SB 146 has three main components it authorizes, first, the Caltrans and Department of Water Resources to use progressive design build for certain public works projects. Number two, it authorizes Caltrans to utilize job order contracting for highway maintenance and safety projects.

And three, it extends the Secretary of Transportation's Preexisting Authority to assume NEPA responsibilities for rail transit or multimodal projects to January 1 of 2034 and expands authorization to include local projects. SB 146 will allow California to rapidly and efficiently deliver projects that we need to meet our climate and mobility goals and improve the conditions of our statewide infrastructure. I respectfully ask for an I vote on SB 146.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Senator from Bakersfield. Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, today I rise to express my support for the infrastructure package, including SB 146. But I'm rising in support of it with some concerns. This package really should have been a no brainer for me, because I have been an advocate for water infrastructure investments from the moment I arrived here in the State Senate.

My first year in the Senate, I sponsored Senate Bill 559, a Bill that would help Fund subsidence repairs on our conveyance projects, including the State Water project. And that effort, as many times as we tried, we were lucky and got some funding for it, but never got signed. And then my second year in the Senate, I sponsored Senate Bill 974, which exempted small disadvantaged communities from certain sequoia requirements for small water projects.

And then the years that followed, I also had the honor of being invited to the signing of the Federal Infrastructure Bill and the celebration of the Inflation Reduction Act at the White House. So I wanted to really emphasize my support for infrastructure investments, but also emphasize my concerns. I wanted to explain my concerns and hope that there will be some oversight and accountability that follows. And I want to give a little bit of background.

Back before 2020, water was selling to some communities for about $200 an acre foot. Then, when the California water futures was launched on the market in 2020, some of those same communities were now having to pay over 1000% increase in their water, which some communities were now having to pay about $1,000 an acre feet of per water. So you don't have to take my word for it, really. Ask the City of Coalinga.

The City of Coalinga is an example of that significant increase before 2020 and after 2020. Now, I know that God has blessed us this year with an abundant amount of water in the conversation of water. And water storage is a hot new commodity. And the conversation we're all trying to get behind. And I'm all for water storage, but I have to admit, I'm not really for water as a commodity.

SB 146 authorizes the Department of Water Resources to use progressive design build for the construction of up to eight public works projects that are each over the amount of $25 million. And my understanding is that projects are funded based on the project and how much public benefit the project will have if it comes from Prop One. So my question is, will Prop One funds be used to Fund these projects?

And the other question I have is, will these projects before the Water Commission, which are about seven of them, are they going to be fully covered 100%, or is it going to be 40%? And if it's just going to be less than the full amount, then who will make up the difference? Will it be water users? Will it be investors? Will it be the contractors? Who will it be?

Now, the Water Storage Investment Program under Prop One that lists seven projects is expected to boost state water storage capacity by 2.7 million acre feet. And I have to admit, it's really hard to not get behind that. I support that wholeheartedly. But again, who will pay for what is left on the cost to complete the project? Will it be Wall Street? Will these investments lead to the creation of a groundwater futures market? Will these investments build an economy from the bottom up and middle out?

Will these investments possibly create antitrust issues? Will farmers be pushed out of farming? Will these investments impact the spot price of the California Water Futures Index? These are all questions that I believe need to be answered. But perhaps I am wrong about my concerns. So I'm left to make a decision based on the language in front of me. The language in front of me includes concepts, again, I have supported in the past.

So, colleagues, I hope that I'm wrong on all my assumptions and concerns that I have regarding the infrastructure package. But I believe in this institution. I believe in my colleagues, I think all of my colleagues that were on this work group that made these bills much better. And I know and trust and believe that all the Members in this chamber will support oversight, transparency, and accountability. And for these reasons, I will support the measures before me. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Hurtado, any further discussion on this matter? Any further discussion? Seeing none. Senator Gonzalez. You may close.

Yes. I want to say thank you to my colleague from the Central Valley. I know she brings up very thought out concerns, and I certainly understand those for progressive design builds. I just want to give the assurance that this actually provides an additional assurance. Those eight projects won't be selected just yet. But it does provide assurance in that there will be a collaborative approach. In the beginning, 50 to 60% to 75% of the way.

There will be another check in by this group, the designers, the builders. And then hopefully along the way, there'll be maximum costs that we can't go over as a state to be able to ensure that most of those dollars, all the dollars that we're investing, go back into this process and ensure that we are doing it the right way by our California residents across the state. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an ay vote, and I look forward to more conversation.

Senator Gonzalez has closed the debate on SB 146. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Please call the absent Members. 39 to zero on the urgency. 39 to zero on the measure. We'll move next to file item 55. Members. This is SB 147 by Senator Ashby. Secretary please read.

Senate Bill 147 by Senator Ashby an act related to Protected Species, and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. Thank you all for your hard work on SB 147 and for giving me the opportunity to present it here today. SB 147 establishes a robust permitting process for specific types of projects under the California Endangered Species Act, CESA, and protects environmental mitigation efforts.

This Bill authorizes, until January 1, 2034, the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a permit under CESA that would authorize the take of a fully protected species resulting from impacts attributable to the implementation of very specific projects only if certain conditions are satisfied under existing law. CESA allows the Department to permit projects pursuant to terms and conditions to avoid, minimize and mitigate the take of and impacts to species.

However, the Fully Protected Species Statutes prohibit the incidental take of any legislatively designated fully protected species, and existing law does not facilitate the permitting of those projects. Over the last decade, the Legislature has amended CESA to carve out specific projects from the Fully Protected Species list. By authorizing the Department to permit take. SB 147 would allow take of fully protected species and permitting by the Department for critical specific infrastructure projects.

The types of infrastructure projects included in this Bill are state and local water projects, but it does not include the Delta tunnels, nor does it include ocean desalinization project. It does include transportation, wind and solar projects, but only as defined in the Bill. This approach is modeled after prior legislative bills that have already been enacted for specific projects. While the Bill allows the Department to issue permits, it also requires specified mitigation be undertaken as part of the permit approval.

And lastly, SB 147 requires the Department to develop two things in conjunction with this spell. First, they must develop a plan by July 1, 2024, to assess the population status of each fully protected species. And second, starting July 1, 2025, they must annually prepare and submit a report to this Legislature regarding specific information relating to each individual permit to take a fully protected species.

Under this Bill, SB 147 reconciles existing CESA statutes with a modern approach to project permitting, while also ensuring that conservation and mitigation efforts are still in place. Colleagues, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Ashby, we'll begin with discussion. I see microphones up from Senator Dahle and Senator Men. Senator Dahle, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise in opposition, and it's because, as I said, maybe 11 years ago, I'm looking for a true environmentalist, one that actually cares about the species. I do. Not one that can get mitigated. If the labor agreements are there and the lobbyists are there for solar and wind in California, we turn a blind eye to the environment. Not me, but many environmental groups. Where are they opposing this?

We are taking protected species, and only for a few projects, though, where we're excluding desalinization, which is something which would create water. We don't use it for water. We're not using it for water storage projects. We're using it for wind and solar. The environmental community ought to be ashamed of their self for not stepping up against this kind of abuse of our Protected Species Act.

Last week in EQ, we heard about Nicanoids for Robins, and we're going to regulate the seed producers, but we're going to give wind producers and solar producers a pass to kill bald eagles. Takings this is the wrong approach. Members, I want to support this kind of legislation, but I can't support it when it doesn't look at all different forms of generation, all different forms of storage. It just picks winners and losers.

And the winners are the labor unions who have backed this, the people who donate to campaigns. That's who's winning. The environment is losing. And for those reasons, I can't support SB 147. And I hope that we find some true environmentalist on this floor and is in this Legislature soon before we continue to just destroy species without taking into account the full picture.

We'll next recognize the Senator from Irvine, Senator Men.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise as someone who considers myself a true environmentalist, and I just want to thank the staff and the other Members of the working group for their incredible work on not just SB 147, but all of the budget trailer bills. The Committee on Natural Resources and Water, which I chair, held a robust informational hearing back in early June on this particular item, as well as nine others.

And I think that at the end of the day, much of this was about finding the right balance between our need to quickly deploy clean energy projects and infrastructure while balancing that against legitimate concerns here, the concerns of biodiversity, wildlife, endangered species. And so for over 50 years, California State law has recognized that 37 species of wildlife are fully protected, that they merit and enhance protection from take.

Now, the administration's original proposal, I think, went too far in one direction, in the direction of trying to quickly deploy infrastructure and clean energy. And perhaps that balance was off, I think, in a lot of hard work. I want to thank, in particular the budget staff and my staff on the natural resources and water Committee for many, many long hours of work on this particular Bill. But this ended up in a good compromise, in my view.

This Bill takes a similar approach to previous legislation that this body has passed, leaving the fully protected species statute intact. And that's important. But while providing some authorization for the take of these species to facilitate important water, clean energy, and other important projects, this tries to find that fair balance.

And I think successfully does so between the need to accelerate our transition to decarbonized economy, which is so critically important, because if we don't decarbonize our economy, if we don't get to zero emissions, we're going to end up with a lot more extinction. We're accelerating that crisis with the warming temperatures right now, but also trying to balance that with our long standing commitment to species protection. So I'm in support of this Bill.

I thank the author for bringing it forward and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Min. We'll next turn to Senator Grove from Bakersfield. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise in opposition, and I do want to thank my good colleague, the Senate Pro Tem, who allowed me to at least the honor of participating on this Committee, this hearing, this legislative hearing process that we had, which was just an informational process hearing. But my colleague and my good friend knows me well enough that sometimes I just can't tolerate stupidity at all in any level.

And I'm calling it stupidity because the bottom line is I would hate to think that any of my colleagues were doing this on purpose. There are 500 golden eagles or eagles, bald eagles in the State of California and on swift decline. So says the federal government. Now, the Department of Fish and Wildlife says there are a few more than that. Over 150 have been taken by wind turbines.

So wind turbines are killing the natural progression of adult eagles in their flight path, and they're also killing those. And then those that lose their lives can't go back and raise the young in their nest. So this Bill and the gentleman that spoke at the hearing bless his heart. I felt so bad for him because I felt like he was forced up there.

When he was giving us the information, you could tell that he was really struggling with the fact that he's going to have to issue permits for wind and solar companies, mostly wind companies, to be able to use a taking for mitigation purposes in reimbursement. So all of you guys know what this is, but I'm just going to talk to the General public.

So now they're going to remove the bald eagle, the golden eagle, and several other fowl and other animals off of this fully protected species list. And they're going to say, we're going to give you a take permit. Meaning you can take that eagle's life if you build a wind turbine and the eagle flies into the wind turbine, you can take that eagle's life as long as you mitigate, meaning pay a certain dollar amount.

So once you pay that money, the company pays the money to the State of California, they will be legally authorized to kill these eagles. That are ironic. We're having this debate now with the 4 July yesterday and this is our nation's model of freedom. And like my colleague from Bieber says, where are the environmental groups and where are my colleagues on the floor that are environmental representatives? I by no means, I have a zero voting record with all these environmental groups.

But it really does disturb me the fact that we are going to actually take all of these species listed on this analysis off of the fully protected species list. So that a company to further the green ideology that comes out of this building and the federal government can install wind farms and allow them to kill the bald or golden eagle along with all these other species. It's pretty ironic.

Know, I did another Google search and actually checked with a lot of people in the environmental industry and actually the energy industry and the oil companies haven't killed any bald eagles that they can find anywhere. Oil again, is a cheap, reliable energy. You guys are on an ideology farm with green energy.

When you think about where cobalt comes from, from the Democrat republic of the Congo, where they use slave labor and child labor to produce this cobalt needed for electric batteries, and you just turn a blind eye. And then now you're allowing wind companies and sequa and everything to be circumvented. So that these wind companies. Can do whatever they want to do as long as they pay for it.

But they're technically not paying for it, including the 50 plus $1.0 million lawsuit that one company just went into, according to the Associated Press on an article dated May 17, 2023. Permission to read, Mr. President?

Without objection.

So in the article, it says it comes amid growing concern that proliferation of wind turbines to feed the growing demand for renewable energy is jeopardizing the golden eagle populations already believed to be declined in most areas of California. You're going to allow these wind companies to just file for a permit to take the life of the eagle as long as they pay a price. But where I was at before I got into the reading part.

I want you to know that it's not the wind energy companies that are going to pay that because the State of California funds, under the General Fund these above market rate accounts that the wind energies and the solar companies because they can't provide renewable energy at an adequate price for our rate takers. They access these resources, which are taxpayer dollars. This is a vicious, vicious circle.

And I can't believe that you guys have already made a deal and you're going to vote on this Bill that is going to allow these endangered, endangered species like the bald eagle, the gold eagle, the golden eagle of California and the Southern California bald eagle. You're going to allow a company to just pay their, I don't know, 50 grand and then they can kill them when there's less than 500 of them left in this state, respectfully ask for a no vote.

And it's really ironic that being one of the most or the most conservative Legislator on this floor, 100% oil, we have renewable, 58% of the state's renewable energy in my district, and I'm standing up defending stuff that my colleagues say they defend and care about on a continuous basis. Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you, Senator. We'll next turn to the Senator from Berkeley, Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Mr. President, Members, I had to respond a bit from our colleague from.

Bakersfield, having spent many, many hours vetting this Bill, meeting with stakeholders, meeting with our colleagues in the Assembly, with Senators, with stakeholders and others, I just want to put on the record a few corrections. What this Bill does is aligns our fully protected species lists with our endangered species, so that we're dealing with the provisions of an alignment in effect, rather than trying to have two different ways of approach.

And additionally, while, yes, it does allow for a taking, if it can be fully mitigated, if it cannot be fully mitigated, then the taking would not occur. So it was presented by our colleague as a fake accompli that absolutely these species would be taken if this clean energy project were to proceed. But that is not the language of the Bill. And I just wanted to clarify and put that on the record.

Thank you, Senator, any further conversations? Recognize again the Senator from Bakersfield, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. President. Question of the author.

Will the author take a question?

In rebuttal to my colleague from Berkeley's. Comments does this Bill remove certain species, including the golden eagle and the southern bald eagle, away from the fully protected and align it with endangered species which is less than fully protected?

There are three species removed as a result of this Bill. None of them are the species that you have identified, but I'm happy to tell you what they are and why they have been removed. The first is the peregrine falcon. The second is the brown pelican. Both of those two are removed because they are no longer endangered species, because SB 147 did its job and those species are now no longer considered to be endangered. The third, unfortunately, that is removed is a thick tail chub, which was placed on the list in SB 147, unfortunately too late and is now extinct.

Thank you, Senator Ashby, Senator Grove.

Thank You for the comments on my own time. The fully protected species, the list does include the bald eagle, the southern bald eagle, and the golden eagle. There are less than 500 of them in the entire State of California. When recently, a wind turbine company killed over 100 of them.

So we would have had a plus 100 bald or golden eagles, but over 100 of them were already killed by wind turbines, which cost that wind turbine company, I believe, roughly about $50 million and $8 million on some other type of fee, and roughly $8 million there. And criminal liability proceedings are going forward. So I think that the comments that you gave are incorrect.

I fully respect all the diligence that you've done in this Bill, but to take these species, specifically the golden eagle and the bald eagle, off of the fully protected, meaning you can't kill them at all because there are so few of them fully protected list is just not right. And for you to further the project and only do it for wind and solar companies. And I know you put a little thing in there on water, but there's so many restrictions on the water infrastructure.

They'll never get a water infrastructure take permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It'll be very difficult. So again, I don't understand why this Bill is being supported when we do have and if you ask the everyday Californian, even somebody that's completely conservative to the regular tree hugger person, they would agree that the bald eagle should be protected and I again respectfully ask for a no vote.

Just a moment please. We have a speaker's list and you'll get an opportunity in the close. Senator McGuire.

Thank you so much, Mr. President and just wanting to be able to add and grateful to the leadership of the good Senator from Sacramento on this really critical Bill and what she has been very focused on is current law versus what enhancements will be advanced. I think it's really clear to be able to clear the air on this issue. So right now under current law with fully protected species, the only thing that is allowed is for take.

So when an animal is killed, bird, a mammal is killed, then a penalty is issued for that corporation, that business or government that is advancing the project. That's it. You can kill without consequence under Senator Ashby's leadership and the leadership of this working group, this law establishes new conditions, in fact enhancements, enhancements to the fully protected species law that allows for protections, advanced mitigations when it comes to endangered species in a manner that will actually protect species throughout this state. So now corporations, local government, you name it, state government can no longer simply just kill an endangered species, they have to be able to advance a plan and there has to be advanced mitigations. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Senator, any further discussion on this matter? Any further discussion? Seeing none Senator from Sacramento, you may close.

Thank you Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity and I also appreciate the robust dialogue from my various colleagues here on the Senate Floor today. Look, SB 147 draws an appropriate balance between a multifaceted approach to many of California's goals and if the truth be told here on this red carpet today here it know the fully protected species Bill actually provides more protection of species like eagles, not less. Under current law, fully protected protections do not allow a take of species.

So when they're killed, as the majority leader stated, the only thing that happens is a violation, meaning a fine. You can't save the species after they're gone. This proposal however, establishes in law conditions for protection in a manner that will protect an enhanced species, not simply kill them and then impose a fine or a fee later. That's a better outcome for those who are conscientious of their environment.

I've spent the last 12 years of my life helping oversee one of the largest habitat conservation plants most aggressive habitat conservation plans in this region. It's called an Natomas Basin Conservancy, and it's protected over 32 species and an acre for an acre on every amount of development. I consider myself to be well tested in this area. I ask my colleagues for an aye vote on this well balanced Bill today.

Senator Ashby has closed. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

33-5 on the urgency, 33-5 on the measure. We'll move next to file item number 56.

This is Senate Bill 150 by Senator Durazo. Clerk please read.

Senate Bill 150 by Senator Durazo an act relating to construction and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, we're in the midst of an industry changing moment in the infrastructure, manufacturing, and sustainability sectors. While public's works construction requires the payment of prevailing wage and employment of apprentices, we need similar and comparable framework for taxpayer funded programs in the manufacturing sector. As we all know, most poor people work, often full time and more than one job. So the problem isn't that people don't have jobs or that our historic investments won't create jobs.

It's that more people need access to good jobs. Our state is aggressive about combating climate change, using all the levers of government to shape markets to reduce carbon. We need to bring the same intentionality to fighting poverty.

The federal government, through IIja Ira and CHIPs Acts, are estimated to invest over $750,000,000,000 in infrastructure investments to rebuild roads, bridges, and rail improve access to clean drinking water, expand access to reliable and affordable high speed Internet climate change and bolster U. S. Leadership in semiconductor research, development, and manufacturing. California's share of federal funds provides an opportunity to promote equity in access to construction and manufacturing careers.

It is the intent of the Legislature to develop procurement models to enhance the state's training pipeline for quality jobs and community benefits with projects of over $35 million. Community benefits could include local hire provisions, construction careers programs, hiring of veterans formally incarcerated, and youth and women. SB 150 requires the labor and Workforce Development Agency, government operations agency, and transportation agency in consultation with labor, business, manufacturing, women in construction and reentry programs, and provide recommendations to the Governor and our Legislature.

Lastly, the Bill requires the Department of Transportation to Reserve $50 million for my IJA funds to support high road construction careers, progress programs. I want to thank the Governor and our leadership, the Pro Tem, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, Gonzalez, and Cortese and everyone who worked on this. I appreciate all your work and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. We'll begin the discussion and debate with Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you so much to my colleague from Los Angeles for her leadership in this space. I am a proud joint author of SB 150. This Bill is before us today as the product of a collaborative process of Senators and Assembly Members, strike teams, and work groups. Discussion groups really interrogating the question on how infrastructure dollars in this year's budget can create positive impact on communities most in need.

I want to remind folks that coming out of COVID there was a study done by the UCLA Center for the Advancement for Racial Equity at Work that found, for example, that 85% of black folks in this state had to apply for some sort of unemployment benefit. 85%. That's nearly almost every black person needed support because they had lost their jobs.

And at the same time, we still struggle with the fact that we are the third highest population in poverty in the nation, second behind Arkansas, and our communities are still struggling. As the good Senator said, our families are working, but the ends are not meeting. And this package of infrastructure bills that we are considering today has presented all of us with an incredible opportunity.

And there are opportunities for new projects that we've heard building roads, bridges in our communities and to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. But we also have the enormous opportunity to create equitable, family sustaining jobs and career pathways for our state's working families, especially those disadvantaged in Low income communities of color. And we know that we have those communities that are, unfortunately, growing in my district and in yours.

So far too long, we have been not careless, but we haven't been intentional with how we're using our funding for large infrastructure projects without consideration for the numerous policy goals we could be advancing by being intentional and thoughtful in how our projects are managed and who has access to them.

Providing direct, real economic opportunities to underserved communities, improving representation, particularly in sectors that have been underrepresented when it comes to women and people of color, and creating career pathways for those that are experiencing that are in danger of homelessness and compounded poverty impacts. I represent South Central Los Angeles, and I like to tell this story because folks forget how much of an industrial corridor South Central was. We were the second highest producers of automobile behind Detroit in the nation.

We have tremendous infrastructure in my district that have transitioned from large industrial good union jobs to, unfortunately, sweatshops in our communities. By providing direct and real opportunities through this policy, we have the opportunity to reimagine what these corridors can look like and also reimagine what and repair the harm that has happened to the communities that lost those good industrial. Jobs and who, unfortunately, were pushed into a service sector that didn't have the same regulations, that didn't pay those good wages, that didn't have union representation.

And far too many of those kinds of communities, and I represent them, have been dying on the vine. And the example I'll give, and I like to give examples because for me, it helps really see the impact. In 1970, the number one employer of black men in LA County was heavy and light manufacturing. Fast forward to 2000 and the number one employment is customer service and retail.

So it tells you what kind of shift that we have made and the impact on the working families and those communities around those jobs that we have the opportunity to improve. Right now. We cannot make the similar mistakes of the past where we've had to come back and try to raise standards in the service sector, right?

50, 40 years later, we have the opportunity to make sure that these green jobs start as good jobs, and we have the opportunity to center those communities that have been left behind to make them a priority. The Biden and Harris Administration has already identified this problem and has taken steps to ensure that these dollars have access to them by everyone, by including metrics for good jobs and also gender equity, racial equity, and economic equity.

They have spelled out through the President's Executive orders and certainly through our Governor's Executive orders on this whole question of equity, that we are making sure that these are going to be inclusionary dollars that reach the hardest hit communities and give us, as California, a competitive edge when we apply for these infrastructure funds. Because of SB 150, to both serve our workers and to keep California competitive for federal funding, we need to prioritize equitable hiring with these infrastructure dollars.

And SB 150 is the next and very important step in a long journey to ensuring economic justice for all Californians in full participation and opportunity. By requiring projects over 35 million in value to focus on helping these communities where our most vulnerable populations are located, we can help historically marginalized communities realize their fullest benefits of these projects and bring them back into our hardest hit neighborhoods. Of course, this is only a first step. We have many more to take.

But SB 150 recognizes that by looking to the future, we are ensuring that California is on the right track. We will in this process, be engaging stakeholders representing labor and business and organizations that represent marginalized populations will come together through SB 150, and we will provide the policy frameworks that are needed to shape the future workforce and how we build and do infrastructure in the State of California moving forward.

This is what makes our vote today so historic, so special around SB 150 that we will finally have the overdue conversation on equity in our infrastructure so that we can move closer to bringing all of our economies together in this state. I am proud to be with you co presenting this Bill today with my colleague, my good colleague from Los Angeles, and I enthusiastically ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Senator. We'll turn next to the Senator from Long Beach, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. President. And Members. I too would like to express my sincere gratitude and, of course, urgent I vote on SB 150. But my gratitude to Madam PT for ensuring that we get this done and it's incorporated in this major infrastructure opportunity, but also to our great Senators from Los Angeles. My seatmate, Los Angeles, Senator Burason, of course, San Jose, as well as our work group and leadership team, as well as the Senate team, who has also encouraged us to ensure that this moved through.

As been stated before, I mean, this is really critical. We see this not just in Los Angeles, but up and down the state. Everyone asks us $750,000,000,000 that we're maximizing here of federal dollars. We look to our left and right. Where are these jobs? Where are these jobs and who's getting employed and who's going to get to benefit from this? And we want to make sure that every one of these dollars that we get as the State of California is maximized.

Of course, to ensuring underrepresented small businesses, builders, designers, organizations, as well as people in our labor workforce that they can take advantage of these incredible investments while simultaneously protecting the environment and maintaining our stance as a state that can do all of these things while remaining competitive. Everyone thinks you can only do one, you can't do the other. We can do it all. I know we can.

And again, I want to thank the Senators for bringing this forward from Los Angeles and San Jose, who were unrelenting and made sure that we got this done. Because I know that what we want to do is go back and be able to tell many of our communities across the state that we can do this. And I also would like to say that as the fourth largest economy, we have to ensure that every single person sees these dollars.

And in this fourth largest economy, we can leave nobody behind. I thank everybody for participating this. I can't express my gratitude enough. And once we move this forward, we'll continue to have more work in ensuring that high road partnerships continue to be uplifted and that we still ensure that small businesses and again, our labor workforce has a crack at these dollars and that we maintain the course with them. So with that, I say thank you, and urgent I vote.

Thank you, Senator. Next up is the Senator from Menlo Park, Senator Becker.

Thank you. I'll keep it brief. I just want to say, I was on the state workforce board for seven years, and I think we did make a lot of progress towards high road jobs. Get that start but as the stats that we just heard from my colleague from Los Angeles, we have a long, long way to go. So that's why I'll be supporting this Bill.

And I really appreciate all the thought and effort that's gone in to make sure that the dollars that we get and we still have to make sure we win these projects, but the dollars that we get in all the state projects as well, that we put these provisions in place to benefit all communities.

Thank you, Senator. Next up, the Senator from Santa Cruz, Senator Laird.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I appreciate the comments and particularly the fact that the criticism nationally on climate is it hurts the economy and California has proven that wrong. And yet this Bill, and I really appreciate the author, this Bill addresses one of the major things that has not been fully addressed.

Last year, when we had the Climate Working Group, one of the things was a high road labor agreement and it was amended into a Bill, what the Working Group agreed to amended into a Bill in the Assembly and it didn't make it. And yet this year and last year, it was left to individual authors to try to do it. The Senator that just spoke from San Mateo did it in a Bill.

The Senator from Santa Barbara did it last year in a well capping Bill, taking it in. And I really salute the doggedness of the Senator from Los Angeles who has pushed this and pushed this. And I think this closes the loop. This makes sure that there will be equity going forward in climate programs and it really carries forth the commitment that we had last year and couldn't quite cross the finish line. So I strongly support this Bill and really salute the co authors and the author for doing this great work. It will really move us where we need to go in California.

Thank you, Senator. I next want to recognize the Senator from Ucaipa, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. President. So I am listening to the comments from my colleagues and I always say I'm a better listener than I am a speaker. But with regards to these, to the elements that have been mentioned prior to, with regards to project labor agreements and specific union jobs, we talk about having inclusion, economic opportunity and so forth. But I do have a question for the record, if I may, Mr. Chair of the author. Mr. President. I'm sorry. It's in Committee.

Senator Durazo, would you take a question?

Sir, at the end of my when I wrap up.

Okay. Senator Ochoa Bogh, you may ask your question.

Sure. So the question is, we talk about that this would promote and we had all stakeholders at the table that this Bill would include project labor agreements and Labor Force Union, union workforce that would be included in here. But are all unions included in this Bill? Because it's my understanding that we do not have all labor or union and apprenticeship programs in the State of California qualify for this. Only specific apprenticeship programs, specific union based companies are able to bid for these jobs.

The other side, the other component is this a question? Sorry, that is a

So did you want to pause there?

Sure.

Okay. So, Senator Durazo, do you want to answer it now or in your close?

In my close, please.

Any other questions or comments? Comments on this?

So, the other comment, because I believe that not all unions or all apprenticeship programs in the State of California would be qualified to participate in these contracts. The other comment that I wanted to make with regards to the project labor agreements, is that a notion that anyone and everyone is able to bid on these projects. But the reality is that first of all, many of these companies will not bid on these jobs because one of the requirements in order to bid on a job if you're not part of the in crowd as my colleague from Beaver.

I believe Beaver said earlier today we pick winners and losers with this particular Bill because we are asking that, yes, you have certain union companies that are able to bid on these jobs but any other that does not belong to the in group are able to bid on these jobs with the condition that they pay into a retirement system that is in place by the labor unions that are in charge.

But in reality, in order for those employees, for those companies are bidding on these jobs, they would have to be vested into that system. And sometimes most of those jobs, you have to work on a project for five to 10 years to be vested and I believe I want to say it's around five, but don't quote me on that.

And most projects don't last that long, which means that those companies that are bidding on these jobs that are run by plas pay into a system that they won't be able to withdraw from because the projects don't last that long.

So those companies actually have to pay for those retirements plus the ones that they provide through their own company, making the cost of those projects go exponentially high for those particular non specified union jobs, which deters many of these companies from actually pursuing contracts with these projects under project labor agreements. So we talk about inclusivity, we talk about opportunity.

But we have to make sure that the policies that we put in place actually promote equal opportunity for all, not discriminate and choose, as my colleague said, winners and choosers who is able to bid on these jobs if you're part of the incorrect of those union projects or union contracts and not outside of those. Because we do have many that have apprenticeship programs that are not able or well are, but are subject to other, um, other requirements. The other thing I wanted to mention.

You. I'll leave it at that. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Next up is the Senator from San Jose, Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of SB 150. As one of the authors, I will essentially associate my comments with those of the other authors have spoken on the Bill very eloquently thus far. But I wanted to rise not just to support the Bill, but also to thank the Pro Tem and her leadership team, the working group that provided a seat at the table. The fact that our colleagues allowed for this piece of the conversation to come forward, it's key.

It was already said that this is a beginning point, but it keeps the faith, I think, with essentially buzz phrases that many of us have been putting forward for a long time about just transition, about equity, and about where we're going to go in terms of a California for all. What is landmark about this Bill is not necessarily, in my humble opinion, the substance, but the fact that it's coming forward today with this infrastructure package of bills, hand in hand, side by side, concurrently. And I think that's a big step forward for this body and for the Legislature as a whole and for the people of the State of California. And with that, I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Any further discussion on this matter? Seeing no further discussion, Senator Durazzo, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. President. Let me clarify. SB 150 does not mandate project labor agreements. However, it would require that any project labor agreement that entered into by a state agency would include community benefits. And specifically, those benefits may include local hiring of individuals from disadvantaged communities, veterans, and others. Project labor agreements are utilized by cities, counties, community college, school districts, the UC, the Administrative Office of the Courts, DGs, numerous other public agencies.

Under existing law, and as part of the state requirements imposed on project labor agreements, non Union contractors, non Union workers, are free to work on a project covered by a PLA. Workers are not forced to join a union to be able to work on these projects.

Colleagues, I just want to remind us again, we have this incredible opportunity, billions of dollars in federal funding that will help us create good jobs, and it will make sure that there's a pipeline for everyone in our community to get access to those jobs. I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Senator. All debate having ceased. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

32 to eight on the urgency 32 to eight on the Bill. Members will move next to file item 58. This is SB 149 by Senator Caballero Secretary please read

Senate Bill 149 by Senator Caballero an act relating to Environmental quality, making an appropriation, therefore, and declaring the urgency thereof to take effect immediately.

Senator from Merced. Senator Caballero.

Good afternoon, Mr. President and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 149. California expects to make historic investments in infrastructure as a result of federal funds available in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, Chips, and the Science Act. In addition, California has put resources into important energy and climate change projects necessary to meet our climate change goals.

These investments will lead to the development of numerous transportation, clean energy and water related facilities across the state to further California's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to protecting its residents from the worst of extreme climate change. These projects will be publicly financed in whole or in part, and will result in substantial public benefit benefit including the creation of high skilled jobs during construction and after the projects are constructed and operating.

SB 149 provides unique streamlining benefits under Sequa to advance clean energy, water, transportation, semiconductor or microelectronics projects without reducing the environmental and governmental transparency benefits of the environmental review process. Given the substantial public benefits expected from these infrastructure investments, it's imperative that the environmental review and planning process proceeds as efficiently as possible without sacrificing the public's ability to participate fully.

To that end, this Bill does not reduce, alter or eliminate CEQA's requirements for public engagement, including tribal consultation for environmental study, consideration of alternatives, or imposition of Mitigation Members measures. Instead, this proposal, consistent with judicial streamlining and numerous previous bills, promotes finality and efficiency at the back end of the environmental review process by requiring that any lawsuit brought on behalf of CEQA be completed, to the extent feasible, within 270 days.

This Bill also extends a sunset on the judicial streamlining process currently active for environmental leadership development projects, which authorizes the Governor to certify projects investing over $100 million in the California economy or providing affordable housing so long as they meet heightened environmental and labor standards. Lastly, this Bill streamlines procedures related to the preparation of the public record for legal challenges brought under CEQA in order to expedite the legal process.

SB 149 contains important administrative streamlining proposals, while at the same time preserving the fundamental protections embodied in CEQA. The Bill also extends current law related to streamlining the review of projects regarding affordable housing, historic drought, massive flooding and dangerous energy grid blackouts have offered insight into the consequences regulatory gridlock creates for our communities.

The thoughtful changes that are represented at SB 149 were drafted because they are necessary not only to achieve our state's climate goals, but to ensure public safety and a better future for our constituents. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. And with me here to speak in support as well is my colleague from Menlo Park.

That's correct. This is a joint authored Bill by Senator Caballero and Senator Becker. I would like to recognize Senator Becker.

Thank you, Mr. President. The President's Scientific Advisory Committee in 1965 concluded that the only way to prevent the effects of climate change and climate disaster was towards a coordinated global effort to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and switch to renewable sources. So we've known what we need to do to beat climate change longer than my lifetime. Over the last 58 years, we've really puzzled with how to build clean faster, even in California, with our Scoping plan has clear direction.

We have vast support for a cleaner future for our children. We struggle with timely implementation. Our goals say we need to be on a path to reduce emissions four to 5% a year to hit our goals. But really we're reducing now currently about one to 2% a year. And this inability to switch to climate solutions for either political or financial or technical barriers is not new.

What this Bill does, it expedites lawsuits for priority climate projects, as my colleague said, while adding guardrails like sunsetting at 2032, modifying it to pass legislative guardrails, limiting any delta conveyance projects and fourth, considering the impacts on disadvantaged communities. We worked extensively with all of our colleagues on these guardrails, appreciate all the input, and respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Senator Becker. We'll open up the discussion and debate. We'll begin with Senator Grove from Bakersfield.

Thank you, Mr. President. I too rise in support of SB 149. The Bill would create an administrative judicial streamline that will get our infrastructure projects built faster and make us more competitive for federal dollars. The Bill also pays attention to many of the issues that the Central Valley, including water supply, flood protection and energy infrastructure desperately needs. By streamlining this construction of these projects, we can continue to feed and fuel the nation.

Earlier this year, I introduced a Bill that would accomplish this goal with water infrastructure projects approved groundwater in only approved groundwater sustainability plans under Sigma. The judicial streamline for these projects will bolster our water supply for farms. We'll be able to store our water when we have water and save it for drier years when we don't have water, and it'll help our communities and the environment. I'm also glad that we've looked beyond the sports arenas and stadiums that have expanded expedited CEQA judicial review processes.

And we're looking at critical infrastructure to benefit all of Californians. Under this Bill, we'll get our Proposition 1 dollars. The projects that we have before us will get built faster. As my colleague for Bieber worked also diligently on this year in a similar streamlined process. However, I'm disappointed that wildfire and biomass projects are not included in this legislation. Wildfires like the ones we had in 2020 frequently engulf our state, causing millions of dollars in damage and destroying habitat and degrading public health.

It would have been nice to have these particular subject matters included in this judicial review process so that we could do forest mitigation and make sure that our forests were adequately taken care of to mitigate our wildfires. If maximizing streamlining benefits for the public benefit is the goal, this should also include the projects that I just mentioned above and that are most valuable to our ecosystem.

Nonetheless, I'm happy for this first step forward and appreciate the author for bringing forward specifically infrastructure projects will help the Central Valley continue to feed our nation. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you Senator. We'll next recognize the Senator from Los Angeles, Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise as a frequent CEQA reform skeptic. Over the years I've dissented on several pieces of legislation we've voted on in this House, some of which have passed, some of which have not. But I'm not one you'll find often saying CEQA is to blame for our ills. In fact, I think it's prevented some very bad things from happening.

There'd be a giant mattress factory where a wildlife corridor now sits and an oil well right near where my house, my former apartment used to sit right in the middle of a neighborhood next to a community center, if not for CEQA. So a lot of good CEQA has done over the years. But as Joint Climate Committee Chair for this know I have to push myself as a Legislator outside my comfort zone and I think that this legislation starts to do that. I actually was surprised at the debate we've been having over this version of Sequa reform in that it's really just a shot clock. It actually doesn't change CEQA at all the analysis the parties engaged.

It still has a full process and a lot of the sort of concurrent permitting issues that an important project will face that aren't necessarily SQL related but maybe about getting a Fish and Wildlife permit for stream bed alteration permitting or the Public Utilities Commission needs to give you a certificate of public convenience and necessity. Those often are the issues that stall these projects. So as a skeptic, not just on the substance, but as somebody on process as well, was initially concerned, I didn't want to see this be opaque and sort of quote unquote jammed through the budget.

But that's why I really want to applaud the Pro Tem and the leadership of this House for bringing this whole discussion into the public eye, for making this transparent between the working group, the hearings held jointly at Senate Natural Resource and Water, the Select Committee that just ran through all these items last week. No one can assert and I'm not hearing anyone do that throughout this entire host of infrastructure bills that somehow this was done in the dark of night and no one knows about it.

I think we all know what some of the issues are here, and I think the Senate has made this process better and has hopefully built a foundation for public trust in the future where stakeholders know that they're not going to be excluded from our process and that we are listening and we're working through stuff. I don't think this is a perfect Bill, and I think that there's actually a lot more work that needs to get done on sequore form even.

That's something you won't often hear me say, but I truly do believe we need to go further, not in every area and not carte blanche, you can say that's. Picking winners and losers, I think it's investing in the future versus maybe doubling down on the past. And I do believe that this is the new era of policymaking where we need to make some choices.

So I think it's a good thing that we've narrowed the scope of what's eligible here and really focused on things where there's consensus. But I want to flag a few items that I believe this house and collectively the Big Three here, hopefully will put on their docket as unfinished business for the remainder of this session.

When it comes to transmission, which right now we're dealing with a lot of our grid resilience by extending the life of these gas peakers that are right in the heart of disadvantaged communities proposing to throw a billion, two on the line just to fire up something like Ormond Beach or Los Alamitos. That for years we've promised those communities will shut them down. Well, right now we're defaulting to those. What are we doing to accelerate the clean stuff, to displace that in those very same communities through procurement, through grid upgrades?

Like the Senator from San Diego and the Senator from Menlo Park are pursuing manufacturing and sighting of new resources on offshore wind zev infrastructure, which is not in here, and even tough subjects like green hydrogen, which I believe actually, we need to force ourselves to wrestle with and actually get to a place of yes if we're going to win, both at the funding game and in this industrial heavy duty landscape that demands some other kind of fuel source than electricity.

I also believe that's the case in demand response and long duration energy storage. So that's my list of unfinished business on the energy side. I also believe that's the case on Wildfire to my colleague from Bakersfield's critique, and I really hope that the Senate Bond can start to double down on that effort.

If we can make a serious commitment on getting Wildfire resilience off the books, say, of utility ratepayers and into a resilience Fund, I think we can make a lot of progress on water as well. We know some of the controversial pieces fell out and those are tough issues to wrestle with, but we still haven't solved our water resiliency crisis. We still missed a massive groundwater storage opportunity through these floods. And Southern California still doesn't have secure supplies for the future. And we're hunting everywhere.

So we need to add those to the table too. Again, I believe the Senate's climate bond can be a part of that, but it can't just be money. It has to be digging deeper on these issues, around permitting reform and not just CEQA. So I'll be supporting this measure today, but I hope that we all commit ourselves to stretching climate demands us to do that. And so with that, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Let me now recognize the Senator from Santa Clarita. Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. President. I know that we were aiming to adjourn at two, so I guess we're going to go after. So I apologize for that. I too rise in support of SB 149. We all know climate change is going on. And with climate change, we have a number of challenges. We have atmospheric rivers. We're going to have reduced snowfall in the Sierras, which melts and goes into the groundwater. Now, I think the voters and me wanted to see above ground storage.

I think that's why the voters passed Proposition One back in 2014 with $7.5 billion total, I think it was $2.75 billion for above ground storage. And that money is almost already out. And we are no closer to having above ground storage. But in this particular piece of legislation is actually a great project, not in my district, but close to the Willow Springs Water Bank, which is going to bank 500,000 water and also provide 640 acres of farmerable land.

And we should be doing more of this. My friend and colleague from LA mentioned Southern California has great water needs. Well, there in the Annabelle Valley, we believe that that aquifer has the potential to hold 7 million acre feet that is double the size of the Oroville Dam. And we can build that out for a fraction of the cost. And then there would be water there for Southern California. So great project, great Bill. There's a lot more that needs to be done, and I hope we get to work and do that. And with that, Aye on SB 149.

Thank you, Senator. Any further discussion on this matter? Any further discussion? This is SB 149 by Senators Caballero and Becker. Senator Caballero, are you going to close on this?

Actually like to Reserve a minute for my co author, but I just wanted to say thank you very much, everybody who spoke. It really is a good first step. And with that, I turn it over to my collague.

Senator Becker for the final word.

Yeah, I'll just say, yesterday I was enjoying July 4, like many of you, and I saw a report that yesterday was the hottest day on Earth. In the last 125,000 years. So it brought this urgency home to me. And for Tactical Solutions on all areas and energy on buildings, on AG and cows, on transportation, and certainly the areas that our colleague from Los Angeles mentioned. And one of the key ones is building clean faster.

So I appreciate all the work that has been done and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All debate having ceased. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

On a vote of 39 to zero on the urgency, 39 to zero on the measure, the Assembly Amendments are concurred in. Members, we're going to move next to Privileges of the floor. Privileges of the floor. If I can get your attention, please. On behalf of Senator Skinner, we'd like to recognize Allison Byers, who is the founder and CEO of Scrubius, a video pitch platform for diverse startups. She's here in the gallery.

Please give her a warm Senate welcome. We're going to move next to motions and resolutions. And with that, let me recognize Senator Jones.

Thank you, Mr. President. The request of the author, please remove file item 187, Assembly Bill 1650, from the consent calendar. For the purpose of amendments.

The desk will note all right, Members, we're going to go to Committee announcements. We have, I believe, six of them, so please get your attention. We're going to begin with Senator Lamone. Senator Lamone, you have a Committee announcement?

We do. The Senate Banking and Finance Committee will meet upon the adjournment of the Education Committee today. Thank you.

And that's in room 2100. Well, let us begin. Maybe let's go, then. The Senator Newman, you want to go first?

I think I have to. Now the Senate Committee on Education will reconvene upon adjournment. We're simply going to close some bills out, and then I will yield the floor.

Very good, Senator Caballero, are you still on the floor? Let's ask her to come back and we'll come back to her. Senator Eggman

Senate Committee on Health will begin 15 minutes after the close of the session in room 1200.

Very good, Senator Atkins.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Senate Rules Committee will meet at 230 in room 2200 in the swing space.

Thank you, Senator Atkins. On behalf of the Senate Elections Committee, we will meet after the Banking Committee has concluded their business in room 2100. Did we reach Senator Caballero? So let me, on behalf of Senator Caballero, announce that Senate Government and Finance will meet in room 2200 upon adjournment of the session. That's Governance and Finance. Excuse me, is that after Rules? Let me get a clarification on that for a moment. Let me clarify. That will be after the Rules Committee has concluded their business in 2200. Okay, Senator Atkins, if there's no other business, the desk is clear.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. So our next floor session is scheduled for Thursday. That's tomorrow, July 6, 2023, at 09:00 A.m..

Thank you, Senator Atkins. The Senate will be in recess until 330, at which time the adjournment motion will be made. We will reconvene tomorrow, Thursday, July 6, at 09:00 A.m.. Thank you, Members.