Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Good morning. We'll call this hearing of Water, Parks, and Wildlife session. Before we begin, to ensure members of the medium public have access to the proceedings today. This hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website and members of the public can provide testimony in person here. We're in the Swing Space, room 1100, or via telephone. We'll begin with a brief bill hearing followed by an informational hearing on the administration's infrastructure policy package.

For any members of the public providing comment via telephone, We are using a moderated telephone service today. The call in number for the hearing is 877-692-8957, and the public access code is 18501100. Please call in when the author of the bill you'd like to comment on begins their presentation. The operator on the line will give you instructions on how to be placed in queue. We definitely do not have a quorum, but thank you to the Members that are here. So we will begin as an informational hearing or begin as a Subcommitee. Excuse me.

So we'll begin as a Subcommitee. I see that one of our authors is here, Senator Menjivar. Come on up. Do you want your witness to join you? Perfect. Okay, well, welcome to the Assembly. We're so happy to have you and your witness. You guys can both join us up here and when you are ready.

Different today. Colleagues, Assembly Members. Good morning. We're going to talk about bats today. You may not know, but bats provide a great amount of benefit to the State of California. In fact, they save farmers $1.2 billion, $1-2 billion, because they're a natural pesticide. Also, they help with our wildfire mitigation. In fact, they're the ones who kill the bark beetles, which help in ensuring that we have some kind of control with our wildfires.

The Pallid bat is what SB 732 is about, looking to make the Pallid bat the state bat. We have the state bear, we have a state quail, we have a state golden poppy. We even have a state dinosaur. And now I'm looking to make the Pallid bat the state bat. And while many of us have negative associations with bats, they, like I mentioned, provide a lot of benefits.

In fact, you'll hear from one of the experts here sitting to my right, has taken me about 20 minutes from here, the capital, to look at over 1000 bats that sit under the freeway, and where they come out every single night to go hunt. And they hunt in the nearby farms. Again, a natural pesticide.

But I'm going to stop talking because I want to give space to the 12 year old expert that you have here to my right, who will better be able to explain to you why the Pallid bat should be our state bat. So, Madam Chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn over to my witness.

We are delighted to have her here to provide testimony.

Thank you so bats are important to every part...

So sorry, I should introduce you.

We want to know who you are.

My name is Naomi D'Alessio.

Okay? And before you start explaining bats, are you here on behalf of yourself, on the behalf of the bats? What brought you to our Committee?

Well, I was the author of the bill, SB 732.

Okay.

This is a constituent of mine who months ago gave me a thorough presentation, sat me down and gave me a way more thorough presentation that I've gotten from a lot of other stakeholders on other issues. And here we are.

Amazing. Okay, well, thank you for being, please. Now, we want to hear what you explained to the Senator.

So, by consuming insect pests, bats save our farmers billions of dollars worth of crops and protect us from mosquito borne diseases such as the Zika and West Nile viruses. They also eat bark beetles, helping to create healthier, less wildfire prone forests. While most people have never seen a bat in their neighborhood, scientists at the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles did a backyard bat survey. And at every single site throughout Southern California, they observed at least one type of bat.

We've lived in my house for almost my entire life, but have never seen a bat. But when we set up a microphone to record bat calls, we had 54 bat flies from four different species on the very first night. And since bats live for decades, many of those exact bats have probably been eating mosquitoes in our yard for longer than I've been alive. I'm excited that we've chosen the Pallid bat to be our state bat because they are really amazing animals.

Their golden fur color is perfect for our golden state, and they're immune to the venom of scorpions, one of their favorite meals. They're also one of the few bats in the world that are omnivores, as they also enjoy the fruit and nectar of cacti in California's deserts. They're very social bats, and Pallid bat in different parts of the state speak to each other in different languages that we can actually tell apart, just like humans do.

Designating the Pallid bat as the official state bat will help people recognize the importance of bats and will make them want to protect them. Bat populations are declining in California and urgently need protections, and your vote today is a first step towards that. Thank you for supporting California's bats.

Thank you so much. Well, now we will go to ask if there's any registered opposition, which I hope there's not, because I'd have to let the inner Chairman in me come out. Any support or opposition from the audience.

Well, this is a real honor to have Naomi here. Naomi is a relative of ours, and we're excited that she brought this bill forward all on her own. In fact, I rejected taking the bill because my bill package was so big, and I was so happy that Senator Menjivar did do this. But this is a really important bill in my particular district, just 20 minutes away. You can go see what the bats are doing and how they're saving, helping the farmers out in the rice fields. And so I'm honored today that she's here and that I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning. Abigail Mighell here on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, and we are excited to be supporting this bill.

Thank you. We're going to pause real quick and have the secretary establish quorum.

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

Alright. We have a quorum. We doing operator phone line for support and opposed. Operator?

If you would like to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. An AT&T specialist will provide you with your line number by which you'll be identified. We'll first go to line 12. Go ahead.

Hello. Michael Jarred on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have no further lines in queue.

Alright. At this time, we will go up to the dais for Members. Ms. Davies.

Thank you. I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. Believe it or not, I grew up with bats, and I think there might be some positions for Capitol Leg Directors open. So we'll go ahead and just put the resume together, and we'll start passing it out. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Ms. Schiavo.

I'm so sorry to have missed the presentation, but I did get to go and check out some bats last night with Naomi and see them go up into flight and their ribbons and learn a lot about the Pallid bat. And so proud to have Naomi as a constituent, a brilliant up and coming constituent in my district and super excited to support this. And I just wanted to ask you, as devil's advocate, because we have a lot of state things, so why do you think it's so important that we include a state bat?

Well, I think that because bats don't really have as good of a reputation as some other plants and animals. I think that having a state bat will get people more excited about bats if they see that their state is celebrating animals that they might not have as good of an opinion about, and then that might make them want to learn more about them and that will hopefully make them want to protect them.

Great answer. Thank you.

Alright, any others from the Committee? We got a motion and a second. Well, Naomi, as a past Boy Scout who spent many summers and months and times putting together bat boxes, I appreciate you thinking about this and taking the initiative to actually step up and do something that's meaningful in our state. Your points about how they help with insects are very paramount. So thank you for having the courage to reach out and say, hey, this is important, let's do something.

Senator, thank you for finding, I know, as mentioned, a lot of us, when we look at our bill packages, we're like, oh my gosh, not another one. So thank you for finding the time for Naomi and sitting down and having the heart to do so. With that, we have a motion and a second if you'd like to close.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, Committee Members. I appreciate the support some of the comments that were given. I think it's such a great honor to represent our youth, youth who are stepping up to bring legislation ideas to us. And I'm so honored to represent Naomi here. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote to make the Pallid bat our state bat.

Alright, call the roll.

Mathis. Yes. Mathis, Aye. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Bennett. Davies. Davies, aye. Friedman. Friedman, aye. Hart. Kalra. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye. Rubio. Rubio, aye. Schiavo. Schiavo, aye. Villapudua. Villapudua, aye. Ward. Weber. Weber, aye.

Alright. The bill has nine votes it's out. We'll leave it on call for any absent members to add on. Congratulations. Right, next we have... Next we have Senator Dodd with Senate Bill 668. Welcome to the new room.

Thank you.

Pick a seat. Make sure you hit the button to turn the mic on.

How's that?

Loud and clear.

I don't want to put any pressure on my witness, but I hope my witness is as good as Naomi.

That's a tough act to follow.

That is a hard act to follow, for sure. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 668 would allow the Department of Parks and Recreation to continue entering into operating and co-management agreements with qualified nonprofit organizations, eliminating the January 2025 sunset on this authority. For the past 12 years, many of our beloved parks have been operated and properly maintained thanks to the important partnerships between state and nonprofits.

These agreements were formed in response to the 2011 budget crisis that nearly resulted in the closure of 70 parks across the state. Since the passage of the original law establishing these agreements, not only have our parks remained open, but visitation has grown and programs of facilities have been enhanced. Park operators are held to the same standards as California State Parks and have proven they are more than capable of maintaining them.

These agreements serve as an important tool to aid in managing up to 280 parks in the state park system today, and contain clear safeguards with detailed provisions, requirements and duties assigned to the nonprofits and park agency. We have seen the vital partnerships benefit our communities, and this Bill will ensure that success to these beloved parks remain open not only to Californians, but to visitors worldwide who wish to enjoy the beauty of our great state.

I have with me today Rachel Norton, Executive Director of the California State Parks Foundation, and Martin Lowenstein, Executive Director of Friends of China Camp to speak in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. Good morning, Madam Chair. And Mr. Vice Chair. I am Rachel Norton, Executive Director of the California State Parks Foundation, and we are a proud sponsor of SB 668. As Senator Dodd mentioned, the original legislation, AB 42, came out of the state's budget crisis when almost a third of parks were in danger of closure.

And we were the original sponsor of AB 42 to help avoid those closures and to provide a way for state parks to accept help, offers of help that were flooding in from all over the state. The nonprofit partnerships that arose out of AB 42 have shown incredible success over the past decade, and I can't wait for you to hear from Martin about what they have been working on at China Camp.

Park visitation has increased, programs and facilities have been enhanced, and parks have gained additional supporters and constituents as a direct result of the efforts of nonprofit operators like Friends of China Camp, Sonoma Ecology Center, and Jacqueline and Park Partners, to name just a few. There was a sunset date included in the original AB 42 because it established a new model for park management. That sunset was extended in 2016 because the nonprofit operator arrangements were so successful.

And now this legislation seeks to remove it completely because we believe it is a proven model that has worked to the benefit of parks and is not appropriate for every park in every situation, but needs to be a toolbox for state parks to have in their toolbox. So our nonprofit partners are an essential and beneficial part of the state parks ecosystem that work with the Department to ensure our parks can continue to serve Californians statewide. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Go ahead, sir. Good morning. My name is Martin Lowenstein. I'm the Executive Director of Friends of China Camp. We are the AB 42 nonprofit operator of China Camp State Park, which is in Marin County, right on the bay. To operate China Camp State Park properly requires about a $1.2 million budget. The truth is, my annual operating budget is $800,000. That $400,000 differential is made up by volunteers. We have volunteers each year contributing 12,000 hours of work in the park.

These are primarily retirees, but they are people of all ages, and they come with careers of experience and they hold key operational roles in the park. When you look at our $800,000 annual operating budget, about half of it comes from park revenue. Camping fees, parking fees, trail fees, events, and so forth. The other half comes from donations and our membership program. Without volunteerism in the park, the model of operating a state park sustainably fails.

Without community financial support, the model of operating a state park sustainably fails. The benefit of having a nonprofit operator is that we are locally tied in with the community. We have been able to raise unprecedented levels of volunteerism and financial support from the community to make China Camp, in this particular case, a financially sustainable park. In terms of the partnership that we have with state parks, it is very strong.

What we bring to the table, like I said, is that local connection with the community, what state parks brings to the table in their oversight position is expertise. They bring expertise in natural resource management, cultural resource management. They have historians, ADA experts, and so forth. And the combination in this public nonprofit model is very powerful. And I'll just say a quick word about public safety in the park.

Just as we have a strong partnership with state parks, we also have a strong partnership with all the local emergency services. The San Rafael Fire Department is 5 minutes down the road. The sheriff's office is just down the road as well. When we have an emergency in the park, 911 when we have persistent problems, I work closely with state parks law enforcement and they come and root out the problem. I'll just give you one quick example of an effective partnership.

We recently installed brand new trail signage throughout the park. We went to the San Rafael Fire Department and solicited their input as to what they might want to see on our trail signage. They requested emergency locator numbers, and so we installed trail signage and again, for the first time, each trail sign, each bridge has an emergency locator number. The San Rafael Fire Department has a map of all of these numbers in case there is any emergency in the park.

And furthermore, the fire department would like to roll this out with other land agencies that abut China Camp, both city parks and county open space. And this all begins with local innovation and partnership. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other I know I arrived. Senator, good morning. Any other witnesses in the room in support? Name, organization and position, please? Good morning.

Abigail Mile on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alma Shah and I am here from Sonoma Ecology Center AB 42 partner operator of Sugarloaf Ridge State Park in support of SB 668. Thank you.

Yeah. I'm John Roney, the park manager at Sugarloaf Ridge State Park or for the Sonoma Ecology Center, also here in support. One of the reasons I think that these partnerships are so successful is that we have community focus and we have partnerships with the community as well as lots of volunteers.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Matt Leffert. I'm the Executive Director at Jack London Park Partners. In partnership, we help to operate Jack London State Historic Park in Glen Ellen. We are very grateful to Senator Dodd and to the California State Park Foundation in support of this Bill and I would just like to thank you.

We're just taking name organization in position right now. Thank you.

Tony Passantino, the Education Program Manager for the Sonoma Ecology Center, in support.

Thank you so much. Do we have a primary witness in opposition? You can join them at the dais if you'd like.

Thank you. We'll give you 4 minutes to match the support.

Okay, thank you.

We can hear you. Go ahead.

Okay, good. My name is Dave Carle. I'm the President of the California State Park Rangers Association, which the acronym is CSPRAY. And that's how we generally are referred to. Our organization's Members are active-duty park professionals and also retired park professionals. Many job classifications, the state park systems, operations, and management include all we just heard about some of the expertise and the various it's a long, long list. I won't go into it.

But the length of that list and the makeup of it is part of why I'm here, to talk about this Bill. For 25 years, I wore this hat, and it has some symbolism and a lot of respect that people relate to the Ranger stepson. In recent years, since I retired, I have sometimes worn this because I'm one of the many thousands of volunteers who help support parks in the partnership organizations. I work with the Friends of the Mona Lake Reserve.

There are friends groups, there are cooperating associations, there are state park foundations, park foundations, district foundations like the Anza-Borrego Foundation, and the Sierra State Parks Foundation. CSPRAY is a staunch supporter of the positive relationships with park partners. So we submitted a letter of opposition to SB 668. CSPRAYs concern is with operating agreements that outsource full operation of state park units.

And with the indefinite extension of this authorization beyond the sunset date, we suggest that the Bill be amended to focus solely on co management rather than complete operation by outside groups. And we suggest extending the sunset date because it offers the opportunity for the Legislature and the Department to periodically take a look at how things are going with this kind of an approach, which is a major change when you take these kinds of steps. So that's my position. Thank you for letting me speak.

Of course. Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room in opposition? Seeing none, we will go to the phone lines. Moderator will take folks in support and opposition.

Thank you. To speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad at this time. Once again, to speak in support or opposition, press one, then zero. Madam Chair, we have no one queuing up for support or opposition.

Thank you. Moderator we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Yes, Dr. Weber.

Thank you, Senator, for this Bill and for those who have come to speak in support and in opposition, I do have a question about the number of parks that nonprofits could essentially take over and run on their own. I had this question for my staff. They've told me one thing, but now the witness has basically said that it would allow for all parks to potentially be go ahead.

This is a tool in the toolbox for parks. No one state parks. State parks foundation, any of the nonprofit operators thinks that it would be appropriate for every park. It is really when it makes sense because there is a community group or because there is a lack of capacity in the Department or maybe some combination of those two factors that this could be an option. But it is not a first line option for state parks, nor one that we would recommend as a first line option.

So is there a specific limit on the number of parks that could be completely operated by a nonprofit?

The detailed guy over here.

So from the AB 42 text from 2011, it says, the Department may only enter into an operating agreement that involves the operation of the entirety of a park unit for no more than 20 park units.

Okay, that's the information that I had, but I was now hearing something else, so I wanted to just make sure that it is still aligned, that it's only 20 and no more.

Madam Chair, can I yes, please. Senator, to the Assembly Member's question, this is a huge undertaking for a nonprofit to get involved and to be running a state park. So I don't want people to think this is going to happen. You heard the statute would only allow for 20, but even at that, it is a really big deal, a lot of work, a lot of time, and the organization has to meet the standards of the state parks, and it's very high bar.

Right? Thank you so much. Now, I know there's only 14 either being operated or co-managed at this point, but I heard something different than what I had read and what I had been told, so I wanted to just get clarification on that. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ward.

Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you for this Bill. Thank you for the work that we were doing to be able to support our parks, especially during difficult fiscal years. Clarification on this, though. So is it 20 per operating agreement or 20 total?

I believe it's 20 total.

20 total. That's encouraging, because I think generally where I want to see our public jobs go is to be retained in the public sector where we have better accountability and oversight and supporting those careers for their longevity. So that gives me a little bit of comfort that we have that limit. And then, furthermore, are there any triggers, I guess, for when we would consider using an outsourced operating agreement that are underscored in this Bill?

I would want state parks to answer that because I think there are specific criteria for them of when they would contract with a nonprofit. But in general, most of the current agreements came up because there was a lack of capacity in the local district and there was community support. Folks like China Camp was all volunteer. Martin was their first employee just a few years. You know, these are community organizations that spring up around parks to help.

Absolutely. And we should be grateful for that. And I just want to make sure that's something that is sort of a check and balance, right. That state parks is doing all that it can do. But we don't want to lose the access and we don't want to lose the functionality and the opportunity for Californians to enjoy their park.

May I say a bit about accountability, because you mentioned that. So one of the things that's really important to understand that the original AB 42 and which SB 668 leaves untouched is that each of these organizations must submit an annual report to the state about their finances, about all the operations of the park. Improvements, visitation. It's a major undertaking. And those are public documents.

In addition, because these are all 501 C three nonprofits, they are audited every year and subject to all of the federal requirements under federal tax law.

Thank you. I think opposition had a comment.

I wanted to point out that from the point of view of CSPRAY and my board and my members, if the Bill were amended to focus on co-management rather than cooperating agreements that completely pass operation over to an outside group, we feel at that point, under that approach, there is no real reason to limit the number. There's a lot of co management going on today.

And by the definitions within this Bill, if we just adjust it in that direction, at that point, a lot of these questions could be addressed and not be a concern to our organization. It's a big step to do that. But all of these agreements that are in existence today and may come up down the line have to be negotiated and have to be worked out in great detail about how the balance of state and nonprofit is worked out. If we just can take that approach, we would be much more comfortable with the Bill.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Madam Chair? Yes, Senator Dodd, I can't quite let me scoot this way. I do appreciate you bringing this forward. My entire undergrad was diving deep into how nonprofits work, along with governments and hospitals, because I was interested in the VA. So you want to talk about a convoluted mix of oversight. I understand the concerns for Co, but with the nonprofit sectors, there's so much red tape and strenuous reporting that goes into every little detail.

I do feel the concerns on the management side because obviously there is a base wealth of knowledge from the Forest Service and from their park rangers. But we need to make sure that as we go forward, the sad reality of it is this comes down to budget priorities, and the state doesn't necessarily always put parks first as we all nod our heads yes. So this is a tool that makes sure that those parks are still maintained.

Because I think the last thing any of us wants is to see a park go completely to waste when we could have a partnership ongoing that's going to ensure that the park is maintained, that it is taken care of. This provides that tool. This ensures that longevity. This ensures that whatever happens with the state budgets, as we're seeing our $1.0 billion surplus go into billions of dollars of not being there, this provides that surety that's needed for the public.

So, Mr. Dodd, if you would have me as a principal author on this to show some bipartisan support on this side and in the Assembly, I'd be happy to join you in championing this, to make sure that we do have these partnerships. It's important. And it's important that when there's enough people in the community to want to do all the hard work to create a nonprofit, that they're able to that they're able to get behind it and that a partnership is able to be built out.

So thank you for your work on this. I do believe you're ensuring that there is going to be some oversight from the parks. There has to be. That's the way government works, and that's the way nonprofits work, and that's how partnerships happen. So thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you Assemblymember. Move the Bill.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second perfect wish an aye vote?

So just to the point of the Park Ranger here, is there a reason that it's not crafted in a way that there could be this kind of cooperation or partnership? I guess more of a partnership. And how does the partnership happen now versus how what you're talking about would happen? I guess what's the difference between how it happens now, how you would like to see it happen, and what are the feelings about that?

Currently, under AB 42, there are really two categories of management cooperating agreements for operation of the full operation and co-management agreements. That's the terminology. And in all cases, there has to be a look at which tasks have to remain with the state and its expertise and which can be handled by the nonprofit organization to further and make the whole operation work better.

But if we just focus on co-management, that's a much more comfortable approach from our point of view than taking the state park system so far limited to just a certain number. But you wonder down the line when concerns about budget and all, it's the responsibility of the State of California and the Legislature and of the state park system to protect the public trust that's been established by creating this incredible state park system. And we don't want to see that diminished.

And so co-management, does that mean you're on the board? What does that mean? In practice.

There are two different kinds of agreements. So a comanagement agreement is generally with a nonprofit or a small group that provides some service in the park, a specialized service. So maybe they run the campground and their camp hosts and sell firewood, or they run a visitor center or docents for tours, that kind of thing. So there's one function that state parks will have an agreement with a group to do. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor should they be seen that way.

It's not an either or. There are additional tools for state parks to have the flexibility that it needs to run the parks in the best way possible. As Vice Chair Mathis said, the system is chronically underfunded. We all agree with that. Ah, they need flexibility, and they need different tools in their toolbox for specific local situations. So the idea that co-management is always an alternative to a nonprofit operator agreement is just not the case. And.

It's not always an alternative, but it's an option.

It's an option, but it's a completely different kind of agreement. So when you're talking about the complexity of what Friends of China Camp are doing, or Jacqueline and Park Partners or any of the other operators that were here, it's a much more global approach to managing a park.

Now, as I said in my opening testimony, this is not something that we think is appropriate for every park, and there's many parks where co-management agreements are a much better model. But again, this gives state parks the flexibility to use different models in managing parks according to its own capacity and its own needs for parks.

And when you say it gives state parks the flexibility they need, who makes that decision on what kind of model it's going to be?

That would be generally the Director and the whole management structure within park operations. So each state parks is organized into 18 different districts, and so the district Superintendent would be the one that would determine, I need this kind of agreement because this is where I want this park to go. I don't know if you want to talk a little bit about your relationship with the district Superintendent, if there's time.

Yeah. And I can also give you an example of what the parsing of responsibilities might look like in an operating agreement. Yes, we operate the entirety of the park. However, state parks retains responsibility operationally, for example, what are called lift stations, the sewage pumps to keep the sewage flowing throughout the park. They retain responsibility for cultural resource management, which is to say we consult with them regularly on any repairs or maintenance needed for historic structures.

They retain responsibility for natural resource management, which means if you see a mosquito abatement service in the park, state parks is the one that dispatched them to deal with that. So those are examples of how, yes, this is an operating agreement, but state parks has held on to certain areas of responsibility for which, again, but in general, they hold an oversight position for everything. I'll also say that operating agreements do allow for state parks to terminate them. In this particular case, 30 days with cause, 180 days without cause. So they do retain full authority.

Are there standards that like state standards, state park standards that you have to meet, uphold, and are held accountable for in every respect?

Friends of China Camp does not set policy. We abide by state park's policy in every facet of the operation. Whether it's the narrative that we share with the public in the historic Chinese Shrimping Village in the park, to the standards by which we maintain and retread trails, everything is according to state park's policy.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember. I seeing no additional comments. I will say, for reference, there are 280 state parks. So 20 parks is definitely a minority of the parks in the system. So it will force state parks to be thoughtful in where they make these contracts because they can't do it at even 10% of the parks. And I've been to Sugar Loaf and many of the parks that are on the list of the agreements and have enjoyed them.

Last year, we heard a Bill on Crystal Cove State Park by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, who came in and told us about how much she loves that park in her own you know, I think there's a lot going on here that obviously is working in the very few state parks where this is happening. But I know that Californians also one of the places where they engage with the state in a really positive way is our parks. And our rangers are a huge part of that.

And I know we're all incredibly grateful for everything our rangers do to provide access and knowledge and the love of the outdoors to every Californian who has the privilege of showing up in our state park.

So I want to thank the Senator for striking a really important balance with this Bill and ensuring that we can continue to provide the services we need in these state parks while ensuring the vast majority of our state parks are being run by the rangers who have the skill and knowledge necessary to do so. And with that, would you like to close, Mr. Dodd?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. And we have a motion in a second, so we will call the roll.

SB 668. Motion is due. Pass to appropriations. Bauer-Kahan aye. Mathis aye. Alanis aye. Bennett aye. Davies aye. Friedman aye. Hart aye. Kalra aye. Pellerin. Rubio aye. Schiavo aye. Villapudua aye. Ward aye. Weber aye.

the Bill has 13. Ayet is out. We will leave the roll open for our absent Member.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we will open the roll for SB 732 before we move into our informational hearing. Okay, SB 732 motion is due. Pass. Bauer-Kahan? Aye. Bauer-Kahan aye. Bennett. Aye. Bennett aye. Hart. Aye. Hart aye. Kalra. Aye. Kalra aye. Ward. Are. Ward aye. I'm going to recess our Bill hearing so that we can move into our informational hearing. Now, we had the privilege of having Secretary Crofit hear that wonderful debate on how our state parks should be managed. So hope you took something away from it.

So for everyone's information, we have with us today, the Chair of Transportation. We've also invited the chairs of both Judiciary Natural Resources Committees and other Assembly Members to join us for this, who might be impacted by the proposals to participate in this discussion. So I want to welcome anyone who joins us. I don't think we have anyone at this time, but want to thank everyone for being here to engage in what is a really important conversation about significant policy.

The way this hearing will progress is that Secretary Crowfoot is going to open with some remarks regarding the proposals, and then we will treat each of the four proposals that this Committee will be hearing in this Informational hearing. Separately with a representative from the Administration presenting the proposal. And then we'll hear from a lead witness in support and opposition regarding the proposal. And then the Committee will obviously be able to ask any questions of either and provide comments on the proposals.

We will begin with some opening remarks. If anyone would like to provide some opening remarks prior to the Secretary. Okay, then I will just say a few things, which is I think we are all abundantly clear of where we are in the climate change process that the world is going through, as well as with the need to build infrastructure to get the state to where it needs to be.

There is a lot of federal money heading our way and the way of many states, and I think that all of us understand the urgency of being as competitive as possible together. Moderator you might want to mute and the balance of addressing the climate crisis while ensuring that the state gets to where it needs to be in building of the infrastructure that we need to be in.

Where we are today is really critical, as we saw even just today, with a proposal regarding state parks operating agreements. The policy process is an important 1 and 1 that this Committee especially engages in in a robust way.

We know the critical nature of ensuring California's water resources are available, are clean, are safe, and that the environment and California's people are protected as we move policy forward that affects California's water as well as our species and the other issues that are under the jurisdiction of this Committee.

So it's really critical that we have this really robust conversation today to vet the Administration's proposals that are being proposed to be moved through the budget, but impact critical areas of policy that we hear in this Committee year in and year out. So I want to thank all of you for being here, the Administration, for being here, to have this conversation with us and the public that's here to engage in this conversation. With that, let me turn it over to the Secretary.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Chair and Assembly Members, for the opportunity to provide this set of proposals. I very much agree and appreciate our alignment and your leadership on all things related to water parks, wildlife and the environment. And I'm hoping that you'll see alignment with what we're trying to do in this proposal package. I want to spend a little time building the context of what we're proposing here today. But I'll start by explaining why we're proposing this and why now?

Importantly, in recent months, you all know we have experienced severe weather whiplash variation, almost unthinkable, even a few years ago. In October, we ended the driest three year period in state history, followed very quickly by what is likely the wettest three weeks in our state's history. Going into the winter, 6 million Californians were underwater rationing and scores of rural communities had run out of water as a result of drought.

And just weeks later, we had deployed the National Guard across the state to deal with catastrophic flooding that resulted in the loss of life. Scientists tell us we're going to lose 10% of our water supply in the next 15 years as a result of hotter temperatures and 7% of our state has burned, most of it due to catastrophic wildfire in the last three years. We used to talk about climate change as a problem or a growing threat.

We believe it is a crisis, a clear and present crisis. Right now, our cabinet, those agency leaders that work on water have been meeting on a weekly basis for the last three years in emergency response mode. You all have partnered with the Governor on myriad emergency proclamations that have iterated over time from drought to flood to wildfire. And so we have very much been in emergency response mode. And that of course, is our responsibility collectively, is to protect Californians from these changes.

Increasingly, we know we need to expect the unexpected. We should prepare for more weather whiplash in coming months and in coming years. To avoid doing so would be an abdication of responsibility. We don't know what's happening or where will go in terms of wet or dry, but we know it will get more severe.

So we're working to identify what are durable actions we can take to move more quickly to protect Californians and maintain the livelihoods and the lives that we know we want ourselves and our kids and our grandkids to live. I'll note that there's a nonpartisan poll that was released today from the Public Policy Institute of California where fully two thirds of Californians feel personally concerned about their safety and property as a result of the climate crisis. So, chair. I agree.

I think we all recognize the severity and urgency of what we face. I've been working in the environmental movement for 30 years and I've never felt the pressure or the urgency to take action that we now need to take. At the same time, scientists tell us that we need to bend the curve on carbon pollution across the globe in the next 78 months by 2030 to avoid a catastrophic future. You, I think, all know this.

The good news in my mind is that California is leading the world combating climate change. You all. State leaders and Governor Newsom stood together last fall and celebrated the passage of a landmark set of climate bills to establish what are arguably the world's most ambitious climate action targets carbon neutrality in law, 90% clean energy by 2035 setbacks from oil drilling to protect communities, complemented by a collective commitment among the Legislature and Governor to allocate upwards of $50 billion for climate action.

From my perspective, that successful leadership was the result of an urgent, focused push over a matter of weeks to take action that we know we needed to take. From my perspective, California meeting these targets is not only important for our state, it's important for the world. As nearly the fourth largest economy in the world, the world is watching whether we can meet these targets and move to a Low carbon, no carbon economic future and protect our citizens.

But here's the tough part, and I'll just be completely honest. We are not positioned to meet these targets nor do what we need to to protect the communities from these worsening climate impacts. Simply put, it's too lengthy and difficult to get the projects done that we know we need to get done.

I think all of us recognize that we have a system that was put in place over time for very good reasons that's now not working very well to deliver what we need delivered, whether it's clean energy, water resilience, infrastructure, housing, transportation. I want to give you a fact on energy. Over the last 10 years, we've brought on an average of two and a half gigawatts of energy a year.

The most recent analysis by our California Energy Commission in 2021 says we have to bring over an average of over eight gigawatts of energy online per year over the next two decades to meet our clean energy targets and maintain reliability and affordability. That's an increase in three times the amount of clean energy that we need to bring on.

And we do not have a process or a set of processes that will allow that, much less to get the work done and the infrastructure done to adjust to worsening droughts and floods that we know are coming and in fact, are already here. So the proposals you'll hear about today impact major projects, clean energy projects, renewable sorry, solar, wind projects that not only will help us clean our grid, but will facilitate the housing that we know we need to build across California's communities.

Critical but complicated environmental habitat projects to protect our Fish and Wildlife. A charge of this Committee, including projects in the delta which you'll hear more about dam safety, repairs and canal improvements to address, subsidence and keep water flowing to our communities, and transit projects that not only benefit underserved communities, but help us attack the biggest single source of pollution we have in our state. As the Chair noted, federal funding is available now with this Administration that can help us make the scalable changes we need.

The Biden Harris Administration is very clear. They want funding allocated through the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law to hit the ground and work right away. And too often, California gets dismissed or deprioritized, whether that's officially or unofficially, because of the perception that we will move too slowly to get this money to work, we need our projects to be positioned for that federal funding.

I experience this on a weekly or monthly basis, making the case for federal funding so delaying the changes we're proposing by six months, one year, two years, from our perspective, really matters, given the severity of the impacts we're experiencing and the need to move fast to meet our targets. Now, given that many of you sit on the Water Parks and Wildlife Committee, I want to provide brief connection between water and wildlife to this on water.

From our perspective in the Newsom Administration, we need to be in a dead sprint to implement what we call the water supply strategy for a hotter, drier future. I mentioned that we'll lose 10% of our water supply, say scientists, over the next 15 years. So we have to do everything we can to diversify our water supplies, capture water when it comes in these rough winter storms, purify sources of water that are currently unavailable, modernize our infrastructure and make it climate resilient and restore environmental habitat.

It all matters. It's an all of the above solution on Fish and Wildlife, which is my personal passion. We can do a better job protecting this incredible biodiversity we have in the state and facilitate the development that we need. That's one of the reasons why we're championing, along with leaders in the Legislature, our 30 x 30 movement to conserve more land and coastal waters for the benefit of wildlife, Fish and Wildlife, so we can do both.

So, lastly, I'll provide brief context on the four proposals and then bring up the experts that can walk you through the details of those proposals. I'll mention that these four proposals are part of a larger package that represents an all of government approach. Governor Newsom asked his cabinet, myself included, for recommendations around what process change we needed or we need to deliver the climate infrastructure that we know is so vital.

So the first proposal you'll hear about are improvements to the Delta Reform Act, which was a law that passed in 2009 and established the Delta Stewardship Council to ensure that we were taking care for the Delta for all that it provides for communities, for biodiversity, for our water supply. This proposal includes surgical changes that improves the way the Delta Stewardship Council works.

Importantly, this recommendation set of recommendations was developed by the Delta Stewardship Council itself, comprised of appointees of both the Legislature and the Governor, as well as the chair of the Delta Protection Commission. These changes have been suggested based on a five year review process that the Stewardship Council did and the lessons learned of its Executive Director, Jessica Pearson, who you'll soon hear from, who's been in that role for 10 years now.

I know that when we talk about the Delta, a lot of people automatically go to the proposed conveyance project in the Delta. Let me be clear. This proposal is not related to that. This comes from the Delta Stewardship Council. The Delta Stewardship Council serves as an adjudicatory body that will review the conveyance project, and so it does not have a position on the conveyance project, and in fact, we have no contact with the Stewardship Council or its staff on that project.

I'll let Director Pearson walk through the specifics, but basically this is applying protocol and organizational structure that is apparent or exists in other bodies within state government, including the Water Board, the Coastal Commission, and other bodies to work as effectively as possible, in particular improving the process to appeal decisions at the Council.

These we think, and more importantly, the Delta Stewardship Council thinks, that improving this process will help good projects happen in the Delta more quickly, whether that's flood improvements for communities or multi benefit habitat projects that are so important to the recovery of endangered fish. Secondly is our proposal on accelerating and improving environmental mitigation.

In recent years, there has been a growing and really strong partnership between our transportation agencies and our natural resource agencies to improve the way transportation projects get mitigated, both to help those transportation projects happen more quickly and cost effectively, but to improve the environmental outcomes from that mitigation. The improvements presented today come out of a process that was established by Assembly Bill 1282, passed in 2017, which did a deep dive in where our mitigation processes are lacking or failing and how we can improve them.

And this proposal provides important tools to allow Caltrans to more effectively mitigate projects, specifically allowing for more advanced mitigation where environmental improvements actually happen before transportation projects are built, which is of net benefit to the environment. The third proposal is the authority for progressive design build, which is to allow a public project to get done by a contractor that does both the design and construction on the project, thereby saving money and time.

We've seen this work effectively to restore habitat at the Salton Sea to make improvements to our state water project. And I'll note that design build has been authorized in various bills over years by our Legislature. Department of Water Resources, which you'll hear from Ted Kratic of DWR, would use this design build authority, which provides authority for eight projects for DWR, eight projects for Caltrans, to address dam safety, canal improvements, and potentially multi benefit habitat restoration.

And then lastly, the fourth proposal that you'll hear about today is to modernize a 50 year old statute in our code. From our perspective, to more effectively protect Fish and Wildlife. This proposal shifts 37 specific species of animals that were long ago identified as fully protected, moving that into the modernized science based framework of the California Endangered Species Act. Now, the fully protected statute actually precedes my birth, and I know that because I turned 50 last month.

So I'm aware of my age and I'm aware that the statute that we're working to modernize is three years older than that, 53 years old. And essentially, it's created a laundry list of species that are fully protected that Department of Fish and Wildlife cannot actively mitigate. Many of those species, I think everybody would agree, are fairly common at this point and don't need protection. Some of those species remain threatened or endangered and need more proactive protection.

At the same time, modernizing moving beyond this 53 year old list of species into the California Endangered Species Act will not only allow for more proactive protection of those species, but allow for more reasonable mitigation to facilitate what we need, including clean energy projects and the transportation that's going to address climate change. And we'll have our California Department of Fish and Wildlife Director, Chuck Bonham here to provide details on that chair.

Thank you for indulgence and providing that context, and I'll stay to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Secretary. Do you want questions now, or do you want to stay, as the proposals are being. I don't know what your schedule is, Secretary. So you're here. Great. We appreciate that. So then I think. Oh, but.

Because, I know sometimes your schedule gets busy, and as the hearing goes on, you may leave. So I wanted to give you the opportunity from this large global perspective to address this, which is number one. So many people, myself included, have been saying we have to have a greater sense of urgency. And so I applaud the Administration for trying to recognize that it's hard to move big ships like the State of California at the same time. And you've made the case about we have federal funding.

If we wait six months or a year, we could have problems. Could you make the case why the Administration feels like we need to move this now and not we did trailer bills in the middle of the summer in August last year. Why now versus August? I want to make sure I hear that articulated.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I'm glad to respond, but let me turn it to my colleague Gail Miller, who helps to lead the Department of Finance to answer that question on the global Administration level.

Thank you, Secretary. And thank you, Assembly Member Bennett. I'm Gayle Miller. I'm also the senior Counselor on infrastructure. And I'm glad you asked that because I think there are a few things. One, I want to use an example from last week. As the debt ceiling debate was going through. Part of that agreement was to claw back part of the COVID Response, Relief and Supplemental Appropriations Act. So California had $295,000,000 on that shopping block.

We had five days from the day the agreement was announced until the President signed the Bill to encumber those funds. Herculean task by Caltrans, and congratulations, they're here. But it's an example that none of these federal funds can be taken for granted. We don't know if there'll be a future law that does claw them back. So first and foremost, the feds have told us there's a sense of urgency. Of course, they cannot guarantee California anything in competitive funds.

I encourage you to look at any press release from the White House where they invest in America today. Came up with a map of where the competitive funding is going. I think it's important to understand where California stands vis a vis competitive funds. So the urgency is absolutely for the federal funds. I think we have really compelling information from the Federal Government as they act to get it across the country.

And then two, I think what you'll hear today from the Natural Resources Agency is that the supports that you're going to hear about today from water and roads and the ability to really make sure that our infrastructure can support housing development and support schools is really necessary in order to get all the other pieces. Many of the bills the Governor signed 20 bills on housing alone to make sure that those get built.

So there absolutely is a sense of urgency as we learn more from the Federal Government. Every day they put out a new NOFO, a funding request or grant application. We keep seeing more and more information about what California needs to do in order to ensure that we can get these shovels in the ground. So sincerely appreciate the question. Understand that this is a very quick turnaround, but it is absolutely necessary to act quickly and act now.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the first part of your answer, which is literally some funding as days makes a difference. The second part of your answer, I'm not sure that I quite grasp why days make a difference. Why now versus the middle of July or the middle of August makes a difference. Can you help me with that?

And I think I appreciate it. The reason that we think this package really goes together is that every single time we answer the question, why now? It's about our entire approach to infrastructure. So I think until this point, what you've seen is a piecemeal approach for a stadium, for example, or for housing. This is the administration's proposal to make sure that we have an entire answer for all of infrastructure across the state.

And we think the sooner we answer that, the sooner we can get to building. And that's the input we hear from our labor partners, from the Building Industry Association, and from many of the environmental partners we have that are really invested in our clean energy future.

Thank you.

I hope that's helpful. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Okay, so we will first take up the Delta Reform Act streamlining proposal. Secretary, you can stay. You want to leave? You can. Oh, okay.

We have a lot of chairs.

We have a lot of chairs. And I want to thank you, Secretary, for your comments. I know you have made your life's work protecting California's environment. So appreciate you bringing that to bear. So we have Jessica Pearson, Executive Director of the Delta Stewardship Council who will be discussing the proposal. If Barbara Berrigan Perea. And I hope I'm not mispronouncing your name from Restore The Delta is here.

And Karen Lang on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition. Want to join us? There are enough chairs for everybody, and we will begin with Jessica when she is ready. I'm just making you sit closer, Kumbaya, a little bit.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Jessica Pearson. I'm the Executive officer for the Delta Stewardship Council, a position that I've held since 2014. Thanks for the opportunity to address you today, and I want to note that my comments are specific to the Delta Reform Act trailer Bill. We believe that these changes are necessary to ensure clarity in the Delta Reform Act and to ensure that the Council is fully empowered to act in the manner intended by the Legislature.

For background, the Legislature created the Council just shy of 15 years ago to further the State's coequal goals, that is, for a more reliable water supply for the State of California and to protect, restore and enhance the Delta's ecosystem, all in a manner that protects and enhances the Delta as an evolving place. The act directed the Council to draft a comprehensive, legally enforceable Delta plan to guide state and local actions to further those coequal goals.

And this plan was adopted in 2013 and has been subsequently amended several times. So the Reform Act requires that any state or local public agency undertaking a covered action must first submit a written certification of consistency to the Council with detailed findings as to whether the covered action is consistent with the Delta plan's regulations. This determination can be appealed to the Council within 30 days, and if appealed, the Council undertakes a quasijudicial process to hear and make a determination on the appeal.

So the Delta Reform Act Trailer Bill consists of technical amendments to address lessons learned over the implementation of the Delta plan for the last 10 years. And these clarifications offer changes that are consistent with other statutes governing similar state agencies and processes. And they clarify Council processes for greater certainty and better governance of the Delta through the State's delta plan.

So specifically, the Delta Reform Act Trailer Bill consists of four parts and would first establish a 60 day statute of limitations period for legal challenges to Council decisions, including on appeals. This change would provide greater certainty for Delta plan consistent projects, and it aligns the time frame with comparable agencies like the Coastal Commission, the Delta Protection Commission and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. It would also give greater finality to routine council actions, such as science funding decisions.

Second, the Council would establish that the overall Delta plan can remain in effect even if a portion is invalidated by a court. This is also a common protection in law, consistent with similar statutes that furthers the Legislature's intent of the Council continuously administering a legally.

Enforceable Delta plan absent a so called severability clause, the state was faced with a risk in 2016 of being without a Delta plan for a period of years when the Delta plan was invalidated by the Superior Court, even while the same court upheld the vast majority of the Delta plan's components. Had the Council not appealed the decision for years, the Delta could have lacked the protections of the Delta plan's.

Regulations and projects could have moved forward without due process, without an operable Delta plan, and without a chance for appeal or council review. Thirdly, in the Trailer Bill to align with broadly accepted common law practice, the Bill would establish that once quorum is met, a majority of the Council present at a meeting duly called and held can carry out the powers vested in it. This includes determinations on appeals, but also includes routine council business such as approving science, research funding.

This avoids a potential statutory interpretation issue by making clear that when a quorum is established, a majority vote of the Council Members present is sufficient for Council action. This is a General common law rule and practice for most boards and commissions, and it is needed in the event of vacancies recusals absences and to ensure that in those cases the Council's business can move forward, especially within the strict regulatory timelines that are established by the Legislature for the appeals process.

And finally, the Bill would extend the time frame for the Council's analysis and decision on consistency appeals from 60 days to 90 days. Appeals are extremely complex and analytically intensive, often with tens of thousands of pages of a record. We are a small staff at the Delta Stewardship Council, small but mighty, and this change would provide the Council with the flexibility of a modest time extension up to 30 days to consider and analyze these appeals.

This is especially important if we have multiple appeals of a project or multiple projects at once before the Council. That concludes my prepared remarks and then I'm happy to answer any questions.

Appreciate that. Thank you. So we will go to Barbara and Karen, and again you guys have thank you.

Good morning.

Sorry.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla with restore the Delta since 2006 when the Delta Reform Act was created. For those not familiar with our organization, we have 70,000 regular Members and in California we reach about 450,000 Californians with our communications monthly. The Delta Reform Act trailer Bill would change the current threshold from a majority vote to a majority of a quorum, which would allow for controversial items to be passed with less than a majority of Commission Members.

Let me explain why this would subvert the co equal goals of providing water supply reliability, along with protecting the Delta as a place, the cornerstone of the Delta Reform Act. Our concern really has to do in the Trailer Bill with this quorum change, the Delta is a majority disadvantaged BIPOC community region with pockets of wealth.

Since 2018, social and environmental justice groups in the South Delta, primarily from Stockton, have invested thousands of hours working with federal and state agencies on air quality, water quality, water planning, port operations, new energy production, land use planning, carbon capture, sequestration analysis, environmental justice analysis, sustainable farming, flood management and floodplain restoration, including an analysis of the Delta tunnel.

We have worked very closely with the Delta Stewardship Council on an improved environmental outcomes report for environmental justice communities, and we've recently begun working with them on what a just transition will look like with climate adaptation. The Delta is ground zero for every environmental planning decision in California, particularly Stockton. We cannot become the pollution dumping, ground and resource extraction epicenter to mitigate all the climate change impacts for everyone else in the state.

The Delta Stewardship Council has the power to evaluate projects with the statutory Delta to see if they are consistent with the Delta's Council plan. The Delta tunnel will be evaluated with the process as it was during California water fix. A small quorum of council Members, theoretically under pressure from any Administration or powerful water districts, could approve a tunnel project that would not meet the needs, concerns, and items that have to be addressed by Delta communities.

Presently, the tunnel eir fails to address mitigation needs for environmental justice communities in the Delta, and we also think that it fails to address climate change impacts for water reliability. The trailer Bill undermines the legislative intent of the Delta Reform Act, and it could lead to further unjust environmental burdens to both rural and urban Delta communities, but particularly to Stockton, where a third of the city's residents live at the bottom 85 to 99 percentile for environmental health.

Given the importance of the Delta Reform Act, changes to this law should be discussed fully in a normal legislative process, allowing for time for both input by tribes with historic ties and cultural sites within the Delta and for Delta communities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Karen Lange. On behalf of the five Delta counties that ring the Delta Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, and Yolo counties, I want to say at the outset how much we appreciate the staff work done in your background paper. The policy considerations that were raised are greatly appreciated, and we value the fact that you take the concerns of the Delta community so seriously. The five Delta counties are home to 4 million Californians.

The Boards of Supervisors in all five of those counties are unanimously opposed to the conveyance project that is directly and specifically benefited by what the Governor has proposed as part of the budget process and included in what you are considering today. My comments today are regarding the totality of the package, and I'm speaking on the first part, but please apply them to all four proposals that you're going to be considering today.

There's a long history in the capitol regarding the project the Governor is asking you to expedite. For those of you that are newer to the Legislature this session, this is perhaps the first time you've been asked to consider the merit of destroying historic communities like the towns of Hood and Courtland in Sacramento County to build two massive new intakes and a 40 miles long tunnel to move up to half of the average flow of the Sacramento River. It's been a bad idea for a long time.

Since the delta reform act passed, the Legislature has taken deliberate action in bond proposals and other policy and budget actions to neither advantage or disadvantage the tunnel. That's because the project itself would span three counties and would absolutely create winners and losers.

And in respect for the 16 legislators who currently represent those areas that are on the losing end of this project, the Legislature has not approved policies that would harm the districts of your colleagues who represent the five delta counties and the 4 million people who live there. For those of you that were here last session, you were asked to vote on a CEQA statutory exemption for habitat projects in the delta.

The proposal was only approved after language was modified to exclude construction of the tunnel as part of the exemption, and assurances were provided to your colleagues on the Assembly floor that the exemption would not benefit the tunnel. Here we are 22 months later, and the Legislature is being asked to railroad over the objections of 4 million people and the 25 county supervisors that represent them and are trying to protect their homes and communities.

The last time any kind of cost estimate was done, the project is expected to cost at least $16 billion, and this was years ago. It's more than likely double that amount now and would likely grow even larger by the time actual construction started, not including the actual finance costs. The ratepayers who receive the water from the water project would need to pay for it.

That largely means Southern California water users are going to be handed a Bill for a project that could be fast tracked if the governor's proposal is approved. But you would be sending them sort of an open ended Bill, probably more like a running tab when you don't know what it's going to cost.

And for those of you who have had a chance to explore the delta and the neighborhoods and communities that thrive in the estuary and on the land surrounding it, you've likely seen firsthand some of the species that are now at risk in this proposal.

Approving the changes the Governor is asking you to will cause real harms of the ecological web in the delta when 40 linear miles of muck to create a tunnel that's over 40ft in diameter must be pulled out of the ground and piled up. These piles will be about the size of the Egyptian pyramids, and they would be placed indefinitely all over the Delta in Mr. Villaputawa's district, ms. Nguyen's district, and Mr. Flora's district.

And for all of that destruction and community disruption, the water users are not going to get any new water because it doesn't increase supplies. It just bypasses the existing freshwater pathway that already delivers that water. It also will not do anything to improve flood control, which is a new and great concern. But instead of investing in levees and strategic water supplies to keep water moving through the Delta, the Administration is pursuing a tunnel underneath the delta that only benefits some Californians. Not all.

For those of you that would compare what the Governor is proposing to the NFL and the NBA stadium legislation that has been approved, I would ask you to consider the following the footprint of a stadium is entirely within a single city or land use authority in less than a square mile stadium. Projects were done in coordination with the city where the stadium would be built. Leadership projects were not forced upon elected officials where the projects were going. They wanted those arenas and stadiums.

In the case of the tunnel, every county and city that is affected by it opposes it. It would be 40 miles long, not a few city blocks. It has no funding wrap up, and it doesn't create any new water. In conclusion, I would encourage those of you that don't represent the delta but do care about the integrity of the legislative process and the ability of your colleagues to represent their district's interests to oppose this set of proposals when they come up for a vote.

Approving these proposals is a betrayal of what has been committed to as recently as two years ago, but also has been the custom and practice of the last 14 years. The Legislature has rightly declined to pick winners and losers between your legislative colleagues on this issue. Please continue to allow the process to play out. This proposal is not a California for all. It is a California for some. Thank you.

Thank you. So before I turn it over to my colleagues on this first proposal, I have a question. So when the secretary was speaking at the beginning, he know we all think of conveyance when we think of the delta. We've heard that from the opposition. You said that's not what this is about. So I guess let's clear that up. The proposals, all of them before us, both in this Committee and in others, will apply to delta conveyance in the tunnels.

If that is not what these proposals are about, they can do what other legislation have done and carve out conveyance, but they do not. So I guess my question for you is if it doesn't apply to conveyance, are you open to the Legislature exempting out delta conveyance?

So I can explain that first. So what I proactively wanted to address is this notion that somehow this collection of proposals, some of which are being addressed in this Committee, some of which are being addressed in sister committees later this week, are all about getting the Delta tunnel done. That's not the case. As I mentioned, the process for bringing these proposals forward was agencies like the Delta Stewardship Council identifying ways to help their processes work better.

There are a number of important things that have to happen in the Delta that are completely unrelated to Conveyance, including addressing harmful algal blooms, including flood protection investments, including huge landscape habitat improvements that are very difficult to get through the Stewardship Council, but that are essential to endangered species. And for those that take time to understand the Delta Stewardship Council's process, the current process and what we're trying to change makes all of that work very difficult.

Now, to your point, the Delta Stewardship Council changes would apply to all of this, including the proposed Conveyance project. But the notion that somehow these changes or others are constructed or pushed with a focus on getting that project done, it's not the case. Lastly, I would say, and it's not entirely germane to this Committee, but later this week we'll hear about trying to streamline the litigation process of CQA.

There are no part of the proposals that Governor Newsom has put forward that address the scale and scope of environmental review or community input. The CEQA process is untouched in these proposals. What is touched is trying to streamline litigation. Absolutely. Californians should have the right to litigate based on CEQUA, but it can't take years and years and years, and it can't be denial by delay. We need to call the question on projects and either approve them or deny them, but then move forward.

I will say having the floor as it relates to Conveyance, because Conveyance was characterized by my colleagues up here, the water delivery system for 27 million Californians is at stake. So three quarters of Californians get their water that flows off the Sierra Nevada through the Delta. And the reason why we're so focused on this is, from our perspective, we are on borrowed time with the system.

We have climate change, undeniably sea level rise, and saltwater intrusion that are going to come into the Delta that could have major impact on water for three quarters of Californians. And it's why those water agencies representing those three quarters of Californians understand that modernization the Delta Conveyance tunnel is needed. Likewise, the earthquake experts in the Federal Government, the US. Geological Survey, maintains that there's major earthquake risks with the existing levees.

And so from our perspective, we recognize that this is a challenging and deeply controversial proposal for those that actually live in the Delta right now. But we also recognize that our future of the state's water system is at risk. And that's why we want to move this forward. And we're not talking about running over the process or cutting corners. CEQA is being done. It will be done in another Committee. We are talking about streamlining the litigation process.

But these proposals for the Delta Stewardship Council are about maintaining a healthy Delta and totally, regardless of the tunnel project, the Delta has major challenges, and the Stewardship Council needs to be able to adjudicate these projects much more quickly and effectively than it is today.

Thank you. I think that there would be a different level of comfort if conveyance were off the table, which it's not. So I just think we should be honest about that in all of these proposals. So with that, I actually skipped a step. My apologies to anyone in the room who wants to come up in support or opposition name, organization and position, and then we'll come back to the Dais Members. So be ready. Nobody's getting up. Nobody has any thoughts on this, it turns out, no. They're coming.

Thank you Madam Chair, Barry Nelson with Golden State Salmon Association. Representing the entire California salmon fishing industry, we're opposed to this measure, which we see is not a policy Bill.

We're just doing name, organization, and position. Thank you. Proposal.

Alex Leumer, on behalf of Pacific Forest Trust and the Environmental Law Foundation in opposition.

Artie Valencia with restore the Delta in opposition.

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

Ashley Overhouse with Defenders of Wildlife. Also our partner organization, the Bay Institute. In opposition.

Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the California Coalition of Utility Employees in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, James Thuerwachter on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers in strong support.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in strong support.

Good morning. Osha Meserve with Local Agencies of the North Delta in opposition and the fully protected species provisions would facilitate the tunnel.

Just name organization and position, everybody. Same rules apply.

Good morning. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance in strong support.

Juan Altamirano with the Trust for Public Land, opposed to the process. Thank you.

Annalee Akin on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support.

Samantha Samuelsen for Audubon California in opposition.

Susan Jordan, the Director of the California Coastal Protection Network and over 100 organizations in strong opposition to the process and the content. Thank you.

Good morning. Beverly Yu on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Mckayley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support.

Madam Chair Alex Torres, Director of State Government Relations with the Barrier Council, also here on behalf of the New California Coalition, a statewide coalition of business leaders that submitted a letter with 80 organizations all in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Sorry, again for going straight to my questions and skipping. Thanks. Okay. Bringing it back to the dais. Yes, Mr. Villapudua.

Thank you. Through the chair. So this goes back to the voting structure. The way we vote in Legislator, as a Legislator requires the approval of the majority Committee Members, not the majority of the quorum. It guarantees that the vote reflects the majority opinion, doesn't change the voting structure to only require the majority of the quorum rather than the majority of the council Members removing the guarantee. It would also protect to approve with a vote that may reflect the opinion of the majority of the council. So I guess my question is really it's more of a reflecting of the opinion of the majority of the council. It's changing that.

Thank you. I think one of the challenges that we have is we have seven Members, so you need four to establish a quorum. We have had in the past a situation. It's rare, but there has been a situation where there's been enough recusals or absences or vacancies, where there is concern about what happens if you only have a quorum and then you have a split vote in the quorum, say a three to one vote. Does that mean that the council has not taken action?

Does it mean that the council has taken action? Does a project move forward or does a project get remanded to the agency? And so I think we're looking for clarification on what the Legislature intended in what constitutes a council action.

Yeah. Because it's almost a requirement, right. If you are part of an establishment of a Committee that you're supposed to be showing up, it's also the chair's requirement to make sure that they are showing up because the opinion matters. So if you're not having an accorum and you want to change this, I think when we're having these discussions, especially when it's going to be conveyanced our tunnels, whatever it is that is very important to us, it's important to my Committee. It's important to my constituency.

And I think that that is something that we need to make sure that we're not just having three people making a decision on how the delta is going to look. My constituency matters, and to have three people that are going to make a decision on how that's going to look. I have to bring this back to this Committee and explain why we need to make sure that we're fighting for that. It is very important to all of our districts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villapudua. I know I'm probably not the only one on this Committee who's lost a Bill before a Committee because there was a vacancy and I couldn't get a majority of the membership because there was one no vote, because the person wasn't there was no one to fill that slot. And so I think we're all very aware of what happens when there are vacancies.

I also want to be clear that we know that people play games with vacancies, leave them open so as to get the vote that they so desire. And so I guess if the question is the legislative intent, I guess my understanding would be that it was you need a majority of the body to vote through a project. Again, you have listed a variety of things that you approve, which we understand delta conveyance, being on one end and funding for research being on the other.

I think the proposal would be viewed very differently by this Committee and by my colleagues who represent if we were talking about funding for research. Right. And that's not what this is talking about. It's talking about everything that you do.

And so I think that we all or I will speak for myself and I know probably my Republican colleagues who would be very unhappy if we could just vote things out with a majority of a quorum versus a majority of the body, you know, I guess it's a question of clarification. That's a very different one than a change, which is what this appears to be to me. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And your last comment was something that came to mind as far as looking for clarification or actually telling the Legislature what the legislative intent was, which are obviously two different things. And I do understand the challenge.

Well, look, there are seven Members that are appointed, and the change in this rule I imagine a quorum being four changes the vote from a four to a three, which a one vote change may not mean a lot in a larger body, but in a seven person body, that's quite significant. However, to the chair's point, there's a vacancy for a long time. You don't want that to stop the work of the council either.

And so I think there's a middle ground there in terms of if there's a vacancy for X amount of, you know, if the Assembly or Senate is not filling a position, whatever it might be. But I think it needs to be narrowed somewhat as opposed to just creating a blanket rule that less than the majority can vote. So that's something that as it's currently worded, the Governor already has four appointees on the Committee.

I think it furthers the power and the Executive branch, particularly if there is a vacancy or someone from the Assembly or Senate appointees don't make it to a meeting. And now it's putting a lot of influence in those that are there. I do think that if it's a fully filled council with seven Members, this is a pretty important role. I would hope that our absences common at these meetings. It seems like it should be taken as seriously as the issue is.

Yeah, thank you for that. No, absences are not common necessarily. We have had multi month vacancies in our appointments and we have had recusals on particular covered actions. And so there have been instances where we have been close to that tipping point of a quorum. And so that is the concern.

Yeah. To your latter point of the vacancies, I can understand that that could be an issue. So in General, I don't like the change in the rule with that caveat. If there's a long term vacancy, then that's on whatever entity that's not filling that vacancy, that's on them. And I think at some point that needs to be urged somewhat.

Yes, thank you. We've had recusals tied to the Delta Stewardship Council because of conflicts of interest, because of financial benefit within families, tied to the conveyance project. And so that's where this really needs clarification and really needs to go back, I think, through policy committees, not as part of a budget trailer. We understand the limitations within government. Some of the things that are asked for are consistent with normal practices for other agencies. But this for us is really problematic.

Such a big decision with such huge impacts for a five county region and 4 million people, really needs an honest, robust body evaluating what will happen.

Thank you for that. That does go to the question, I think, on all the trailer bills as to why it's a trailer Bill as opposed to going to the legislative process. And if that's going to be a common question, I think you're going to hear from my colleagues throughout this process. I'm sitting on three of the committees that are hearing these budget trailer bills from different angles, of course.

But to that point, I think that if there are conflicts of interest that interrupt the ability for the council to do its work, obviously there could be a conflict here or there that can happen. But if that becomes a repeated issue and that's the purpose of reducing the quorum requirement, that's a much different issue to me than a vacancy.

And it speaks to an issue of who the appointees are and what their interests are as opposed to having really independent folks that are being appointed by the Legislature and the Governor that can get the work done. Because if you're having an individual with a bunch of conflicts of interest that's also getting in the way of getting work done, that shouldn't require us changing the quorum rules, but rather maybe change in the people that are being appointed.

And so I would look at it very differently in terms of some latitude in terms of long term vacancies versus conflicts. But the ultimate question is especially given the fact that there are a lot of very strong opinions and different expertise from different angles on the Delta project in General as to why this is not going to legislative process.

Versus coming at the relatively 11th hour through a trailer Bill when I think there's still time for us to get it through a legislative process which allows for more feedback and again respects the co equal nature of the relationship. So thank you.

Thank you. And I'll just add, I mean, I do think I made a vague comment about people playing games with vacancies, but I think it's a real one, right, that somebody could choose to leave a vacancy open for a long period of time to get this rule change if we were to make it that. And that needs to be considered as well.

To your point, that's why the policy process is so important because things like this need to be thought through in depth to ensure we're not creating the wrong incentives for individuals to play games with our commissions. Ms. Nguyen.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you for allowing me to be a part of this Committee hearing and to learn and hear about what's being discussed and what's going on. I share the same concerns as my colleagues here, my district and where I reside. Actually. You can throw a rock and you're in the town of Hood. And so I appreciate everybody coming to the table to discuss this. But what I'm hearing is that this is being rushed.

And I know that you talked about how there's been a lot of changes since 2013 and we're now in 2023 and then we're coming together now at the 11th hour. As said earlier, to present something and with anything being rushed comes unintended consequences. And that is what I fear, especially now in an economic downturn. And the amount of money, as was mentioned earlier, or funding or financing that's going to be put into research in an economic downturn as we are forecasting that's going to happen.

We shouldn't be investing money into people, into lives that matter more than anything. Now, I appreciate you coming and briefing us and educating us on all this, but rushing anything, rushing any projects, rushing a controversial project comes unintended consequences. And I believe this is something that we need to go back to the table and discuss further.

I share the same concerns about giving up our oversight and power and authority and giving it to a body in which you never know what the quorum is going to look like and they're going to mean making some big decisions on what's going to be affecting millions of lives here. And so I just hope that you'll take all of these comments back and rethink what you've proposed to us today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Nguyen. Mr. Hart.

Are the Members of the Stewardship Council appointed to fixed terms or do they serve at the appointing authority's pleasure.

Thank you. We have seven Members on the council. Four are governor's appointees and they serve four year terms. The Legislature also has two positions, which are four year terms. And then the 7th position is the chair of the Delta Protection Commission, another state agency, and that is a local Delta County supervisor. And they serve for a two year term.

And there are no alternates?

There are no alternates.

Was that an option to consider? The Coastal Commission has alternates to address this issue.

It's not something we've considered, although the quorum being able to take action is consistent with the waterboard, the airborne and other like statutes.

Something you should think about.

Look at the work we're doing here. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Anybody else? Okay. Mr. Bennett? No.

Of the accelerated actions, this one seems to have the least case being made for why it has to happen real quickly, I suppose.

And I think we have folks who come to us all the time and say things like, 60 days isn't enough. We need 90 days to appeal, and we move legislation to make things easier for agencies that do important work such as this. So I don't think it's from my perspective that a lot of what's in here isn't necessarily something we should be looking at and talking about in a policy conversation.

I think I agree with what we heard from the Delta Stewardship individuals about the quorum being the largest issue here. I think it really is creating a system whereby a minority can rule. And I don't think that's the way government should work. And this especially when we're talking about decisions as impactful as the ones that go through the Delta.

I don't about the Delta, but I represent part of Contra Costa County and have constituents who love the Delta it's a wonderful part of our backyard and it's an important part of our ecosystem. We are already seeing, as the Secretary mentioned, the effects of climate change on the Delta. Antioch has had to do a desalination plant to get what used to be fresh water and desalinate it to drink that same water. And so we're seeing the impacts.

And the work that has to be done in the delta is real to sustain it for the environmental projects that you've mentioned. And also, we know that there's a lot of interest in that water. It serves, you said, 27 million Californians. It is an important part of how we provide access to water throughout California. And the goal of the original act was to balance those two things, as we heard.

And I think that the job of this body and the Administration is to ensure that whatever we move forward continues the balance of the communities, the environment, and access to water for all Californians. And I think we've heard some concerns today, but the conversation will continue. Thank you all. With that, we will move to the second proposal, which is accelerating environmental mitigation. And we're going to invite up the Chief Deputy Director of Caltrans, Michael Keever, who I believe is with us. There he is.

And then Barbara's staying. I saw you get up. So then I got confused from Restore the Delta. Mr. Keever, when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair. I have just some brief opening comments. So the legislation associated with accelerating environmental mitigation would expedite Caltran's fulfillment of its environmental mitigation measures. So Secretary Crowfoot talked about this a little bit at the beginning. It's in alignment with AB 1282, and it would work to streamline the transportation project, permitting in particular the advanced mitigation program that we have. It's now in the execution phase in executing these mitigation credits. We're hitting roadblocks in order to invest in environmental mitigation.

So this legislation would reduce delays in transportation projects and accelerate Caltrans funding of habitat restoration. So a win and a win. Currently, we have 111 projects targeted through our advanced mitigation program. This legislation would avoid unnecessary expenditures of state funds and staff time for added processing requirements associated with the additional time it's taking because we're hitting these roadblocks.

And it could reduce the environmental mitigation costs again because of time savings and by allowing the state to more strategically purchase credits through the environmental mitigation credit market ahead of our projects. This legislation would authorize Caltrans to provide advanced payments for credits from mitigation banks and conservation banks to hold our place in line until our projects are ready.

And it would recognize that transportation funding provides financial assurance for wildlife crossings and structures and culverts such as mitigation for the environmental impacts and endowments that often are used are not needed when it comes to the transportation infrastructure. So, in summary, we have willing partners with the mitigation credit banks that would like to do business with us. But we're hitting these roadblocks, and we can't do the deal, if you will. And so by clearing these procurement roadblocks, we hope to reduce costly project delays.

So, again, trying to move our projects forward faster, and we talked about the funds and getting better environmental outcomes and investing in habitat. And we hope that through this streamlining, we'll be able to fulfill the legislative intent of AB 1282 and the advanced mitigation program. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Barrigan-Parrilla.

President Biden had put forward an Executive order centering EJ communities and their needs in response to the Inflation Reduction Act. And again, this is important to know because of the size of the disadvantaged and BIPOC community in the delta and the fact that we are at ground zero for water projects, energy projects, road projects, a port expansion, all of the above.

The delta tunnel is going to require new roads, bridges, widening projects, due to the thousands of trucks that will be part of construction over 15 years. Yet the tunnel heir fails to successfully address air quality impacts, especially for Stockton's. AB 6117 community near the port of Stockton. Expediting environmental review and mitigation for these related road projects will leave this sizable EJ community at a disadvantage.

To respond to transportation projects plus accelerated mitigation banks, and do not get me wrong, we are really in favor of accelerated mitigation in terms of wetlands in the west side of the delta to deal with sea level rise. And we support restoration activities through the delta. But a lot of these banks, how are they going to even be implemented with Delta Tunnel construction over the course of 15 to 20 years? What species are we really going to lose by them?

We support clean transportation projects to be expedited. We favor that. But what will be lumped under climate change necessity with road construction, especially with a list of projects in the delta, is questionable. The other concern we have is the idea of accelerated NEPA processes. We think there's a problem that's not being addressed here for federally recognized tribes that have historic ties to the delta and which have direct relationships with the Federal Government regarding consultation.

So, again, we think this is another process that really needs to move through the regular legislative process, not budget trailers. And we just can't live with the additional accelerated pollution impacts in the name of climate mitigation.

Thank you. Secretary Crowfoot has something to add.

Chair, you made the point and the last item that there was impact on the Conveyance project. And while I have a different perspective around the genesis of that proposal, I can tell you this proposal is not related to the Conveyance. With respect to Ms. Barrigan-Parrilla, I think that any nexus between this and the Conveyance project is I don't see it fundamentally. I think we should all be excited about improving our mitigation, advancing our mitigation.

We are going to spend tens of billions of dollars improving our transportation network. And right now, Caltrans is limited from optimizing mitigation. We're going to spend billions of dollars on mitigation. The question is, is that mitigation going to be patchwork right next to the projects or is it going to look towards advanced prioritized mitigation being more flexible to protect the biodiversity we want to protect?

From our perspective, advanced mitigation is a key part of 30 x 30 to really identify where we need to actually build Habitat, restore Habitat. So from my perspective, I really do invite your analysis of the specific recommendations by Caltrans because I think fundamentally they are fully supportable and in the interests of environmental restoration and the Fish and Wildlife that we're working to protect.

And I do have specific questions about the proposal, but I just want to touch on one thing that came up and I agree with you. I think this is much broader than the delta tunnels. There could be transportation around the delta tunnels. I don't think potentially, but it obviously goes much further than that in transportation projects.

The one thing that I think was said that was interesting to me was and I agree with you on mitigation and the ability to do advanced mitigation and the value of that, it doesn't always take into account the environmental justice communities that Caltrans could be working in. Right. And allowing a bank to then mitigate elsewhere and leave those communities behind is a concern with this type of funding. Right. And so I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Gayle Miller I think the really important piece of the environmental justice and the entire kind of all of government approach is that California will exceed the Federal Government's justice 40. And what you'll start to see in every one of these is through a lot of what the work that Caltrans is doing but writ large, how the investments in disadvantaged communities work in the state.

The justice 40 was based on California, our ability to work with our enviro screen at Calipa with the equity pieces in California. So part of the mitigation efforts will in fact be to work with environmental justice communities, understand where we're building and how it impacts it. And as we get the, we're going to have an equity bridge on these statewide dashboards that Secretary Tong is working on through Govops.

So the state will really begin to see not only the advanced mitigation, but how we're mitigating every single one of these projects and really contributing to the disadvantaged communities. So that's really deliberate. It's a huge part of infrastructure writ large and certainly a big part of the work that Caltrans will be doing.

I appreciate that. That's fabulous. Thank you. Because I think historically we know that one of the things that our nation, our state has done is take highways and put them in communities of color and destroy those communities right. I mean, let's be honest about that history and what we're talking about in this Bill or in this proposal.

And so I guess the mitigation being sort of far away is concerning, given our history and what we know has happened and the fact that we should be behaving differently and doing better for those communities, those loan communities. And so I guess my question to follow up on what you said is, is there a requirement here? I guess you have this program. It sounds good. I don't think that's a requirement in the mitigation funding scheme.

My understanding, not being a lawyer, is that there needs to be a direct legal nexus between the mitigation of a project and the impacts that that project generates. So there is a limit in terms of both the advanced mitigation and the connection around what you're mitigating.

Yeah, and that's right. But you could see how there would be a species connection without being a community connection. Right. But it's something for us to look at as this proposal continues to be discussed, because I think it is something that a value that we share is ensuring those communities reap the benefit of this mitigation and not seeing that mitigation go far away.

And so hopefully that's something that we can figure out a tighter way to do, since I imagine it's something the Administration would also be supportive of, if.

If I may also with our projects through that environmental process. The species are important to the environmental process, but so are the EJ issues and the community issues. And so certainly we look at those as part of our project and the overall impacts and mitigation on each of these projects. We're implementing an equity index to look at where we're making our investments. And so that will help to ensure that our investments have that outlook on who has impacted both benefits and burdens on our projects. We're very focused on this issue.

Appreciate that. And I know that this Governor would do nothing less. But we will have a new Governor in four years and this is law. So we got to make sure we tighten it up and ensure that every future Governor has to make those same considerations. With that, I did it again, but this time I think it was the secretary's fault. I skipped everyone in the room in support and opposition. So let's go back to that.

Can we do support and opposition, then go to you. Is that OK? I'm just going rogue today.

Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife. To be honest, I don't know where we are because we support the comments made by Restore the Delta. But we also see some merit in the proposal itself. Having worked on advanced mitigation, we've raised some specific concerns in the Transportation Committee about what the language actually means, particularly as it pertains to the change to the California Endangered Species Act.

I think this is one of those ones where we would say more process, more oversight and more hearings and more understanding of what's being proposed would benefit us greatly and would urge that that be taken into consideration because I don't know what know we don't have a position. We have concerns. Thank you.

Alex Leumer on behalf of Pacific Forest Trust and the Environmental Law Foundation, echoing the comments for me opposed to the process of trying to rush this decision. Thank you.

Artie Valencia with Restore the Delta as well. I think this is something that shouldn't be rushed, so we are an opposed to it.

Thank you Brenda Bass, with California Chamber of Commerce and we're in support of the package and we thank the Administration for bringing it forward.

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

Good morning. Annalee Akin, on behalf of the Family. Business Association of, California, the Santa Clarita. Valley Water Agency and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Erin Woolley, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support of the comments made by Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla. Also requesting that this move through the regular policy Bill process and not be rushed through the trailer bills. Thank you.

Beverly Yu on behalf of State Building Trades in Support.

Alex Torres, Barrier Council in support.

Michael Turner, with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and we support the governor's initiative to expedite projects, especially as we get ready to host the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics. Thank you.

Manny Leon, California Alliance for Jobs supports this item.

Madam Chair Chris McKayley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Also in support of the governor's package.

Good morning, Members. Robert Spiegel, senior policy Director for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in strong support of the governor's proposal and the streamlining efforts thereof. Thank you.

Juan Altamirano with the Trust for Public land in concern with the process.

Thank you. Susan Jordan, Director of the California Coastal Protection Network support changing the administration's proposal and putting this through Committee, I think. And I also want to just say thank you for this format and the back and forth and the testimony because it's really fleshing out how complicated this is and how it really deserves to be done in policy Committee. Thank you.

Samantha Samuelson for Audubon California in opposition to the process.

Kiana Valentine, on behalf of Transportation California, in support of the governor's package. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Sorry about that. Next time you're going to be on time. Mr. Bennett.

Just with the last comment I made about Delta Reform Act in terms of sense of urgency, I have a greater sense of urgency on accelerating mitigation, et cetera. In terms of moving forward, I. Think that we keep finding ourselves stuck in a loop. I think about trying to remove Matilaha Dam, and we had to do mitigation on mitigation. And you're starting to go we definitely do benefit environmental projects. I think about the wildlife quarters, the passage over the freeways, et cetera.

To the extent that we can accelerate those, I think it's really helpful. But there are lots of policy issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, then I have two specific questions. So one is that the proposal establishes a presumption that funding identified in the Highway System Management Plan is adequate for the maintenance of the wildlife corridors, the Caltrans wildlife corridors. Can somebody explain that to me? I don't understand why there would ever be a presumption that funding is adequate when it almost never is.

Thank you. I think in particular, this is referring to things like the wildlife crossings. And so the intent of this legislation is to say we don't need an endowment to maintain a bridge over the highway that is a wildlife crossing. We have the funding to maintain our 13,000 other bridges. We can maintain these as well. However, we do need an endowment for the habitat itself. That's not our expertise.

And so what we'd like to do is make it clear that we can invest our project funds as mitigation in an endowment to those that are better suited to the habitat. And let us do what we do best, which is we will maintain the bridge as part of our normal course of business through the funds that we receive for transportation.

Got it. And apologies that I don't know the answer to this, but, for example, Prop one Funds, right, that help maintain our bridges, are those funds eligible for wildlife crossings in the same way?

So, in particular, with the federal IJA Bill, so there's something called STBG funds, but particular funds that we have that, for instance, on the I 15 wildlife crossings, we have reserved those funds to complete that deal. And so we do have funds. We have a variety of funds with variety of strings, but we do have funds that are eligible to put toward this.

And that's ongoing funding that you have that's eligible. Got it.

And I would simply add the legislative intent of this is to facilitate more wildlife crossings. And I'm really thankful to Caltrans Director Tavares for leaning in so aggressively to build more wildlife crossings. So this surgical change essentially ensures that when state funding is approved for mitigation, that includes an endowment for the habitat on both sides of the wildlife crossing and over the wildlife crossing. But it also confirms that the state's existing way to essentially enable or allow for an endowment for the bridge.

The actual engineering structure is covered. And essentially, if we can get this clarification, as I understand it, it will facilitate Caltrans being able to construct more wildlife crossings as mitigation.

Got it. I appreciate that. Thank you for the clarification? zero, yes, please, Mr. Bennett.

Since we're on the topic, before we get ready to go, we ran into that problem with a number of really good environmental projects that we had in Ventura County, like Matila Dam, et cetera, where there was another lawsuit. The legal challenge was, well, you haven't proven that you have the money 20 years from now to be able to do this. And at some point in time, you're chasing your tail trying to prove and prove and prove.

And it was done by people trying to hold up the environmental project going forward and stuff. So I really see the merits of this, particularly for the wildlife crossings that are going over. I think it just makes common sense. You drive the 101 freeway right now outside of Los Angeles. There is a huge bridge going in. I don't think anybody thinks, well, that bridge is not going to be maintained, but all the other bridges that you drive under. So I think a real common sense proposal from that standpoint. Thank you.

Thank you. And then my other question. You know, I share the thoughts of some of our environmentalists that advanced mitigation can be a really positive thing, right? I mean, I think it is. We see patchwork not necessarily being as effective for the things we're trying to mitigate for in California as the ability to spend concentrated funds on mitigation. But we also know that some of the there are backlogs in mitigation bank money that's supposed to be going out now.

And so the idea that we're going to double down on mitigation funding through mitigation banks when we're not able to get those dollars out the door to do mitigation today is a bit concerning. So I wanted to give you an opportunity to address that.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. And soon we'll be joined by Chuck Bonham, who is the Director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And it's that Department that actually facilitates and oversees the mitigation banks. So if possible, I think he might most effectively answer that question.

OK, we'll turn to you, Director Bonham, to explain how we're going to get this money out the door to actually do the mitigation work we want to do. Any other questions on this proposal? Seeing none, then is Mr. Bonham coming up on the next one? No, he's coming up on four. So we'll come back to you, Mr. Bonham. But we're going to go to proposal three, which is the progressive design build authority for Department of Water Resources.

Ted Craddock from Department of Water Resources going to come up and join the secretary who I've kept in the hot seat. And I apologize. And we have no principal opposition on this one.

When you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Really good to see you all today. And thank you for the opportunity to discuss this part of the Governor's proposal. So I'll use DWR as an example. At any given time, we have 300 projects underway to ensure the reliability of the state's flood control system, the water supply system, and also the important restoration work we're doing for the environment as part of those programs. Additionally, CalTrans, who will benefit from this proposal, has numerous projects as well. But I'll be speaking, of course, from the perspective of Department of Water Resources. The ability for us to get these projects completed and out the door is very critical because our water system and the flood control system is aging. So we have needed work to get done. And then additionally, we have the added climate stressors that the Secretary talked about earlier in his opening remarks. Progressive Design Build is another tool that we can have in our toolbox to get projects out the doors. Projects come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, different levels of complexity. And so it's important we have different tools to really procure and deliver projects that best fit the types of projects we have. And so Progressive Design Build is just another tool that will really help us complete the work we need to do for water supply reliability and for the safety of our flood control system. I'll use just an example for the StateWater project, we have a program right now where we're modernizing the reservoirs and dams that are part of the StateWater project system. These are complex projects because we need to continue to operate the facilities. Sometimes the work is underwater and there's unknown site conditions. So with Progressive Design Build, we have the ability to partner with the Design build entity and collaborate on the preliminary design, and then after that occurs, award the contract for design and construction. So it allows us the ability to really collaborate and pick the best project on these complex projects so we can do things more timely, cost effective, and pick the best project for these unique circumstances. That's an overall summary of what we're trying to accomplish. I think the bottom line is that Progressive Design Build will allow us to get this work out the door more quickly. Typically, it'll save on the order of a year on most projects. It gives us a better project because we've had the opportunity to collaborate with the construction contractor and then more certainty on the final product that is ultimately delivered. With that, I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. And we have no principal witnesses in opposition, so we will invite all the support and opposition up to share position, name and organization at this time.

Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Adam Quinonez Association of California Water Agencies in support

Barry Nelson, Golden State Salmon Association, in opposition both to the substance and the process thank you.

Annalise Aiken, Family Business Association of California and Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support.

Good morning again. Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in support.

Kiana Valentine on behalf of transportation California in support.

Alex Torres, Bay Area Council, in support.

Erin Woolley, Sierra Club California, in opposition to this moving as a trailer Bill, and also would urge Legislature to adhere to the SB 626 requirements regarding design build.

Beverly Yu, on behalf of the state building trades, we are requesting amendments on the progressive design build. Specifically would like to point to the work the Legislature has done in 2016 for AB 2551 2022, SB 991, and would like to make sure there are strong labor protections included. Thank you.

Alex Leumer, on behalf of Pacific Forest Trust and the Environmental Law Foundation, in opposed to the process. Thank you.

Aria Valencia with Restore the Delta in opposition to the process.

Manny Leon, California Alliance for Jobs in support.

Osha Meserve with local agencies of the North Delta in opposition. And at the very least, the SB 626 provisions should exclude the tunnel from this. Thanks.

Ashley Overhouse, the Defenders of Wildlife and our partner organization, the Bay Institute and I echo our opposition to the process and urge you to the AB 626 requirements.

Thank you. Can I take one? Which I think Mr. Kalra will appreciate. Beverly, do you mind coming up? Not going to put you on the hotspot, but I'd be curious to hear the labor protections if you could.

Yeah. And Madam Chair, if I may, obviously been working a lot with all of our labor partners. Would invite all of them to come up. These are all public works projects that are protected by prevailing wage and labor standards. We have lots of conversations surprised we're hearing about the building trade from the Building Trades and Committee since we've had so many conversations, but the same labor protections that exist in every single public works project in the State of California forever exist in these proposals.

Thanks so much. Unfortunately, I didn't get as much engagement on this issue. But in terms of what we're looking for, we want to make sure there's been a lot of work done in previous bills. In 2016, AB 2551, authored by Assembly Member Gallagher, it first provided local agencies the ability to use progressive design build for specific water projects. This Bill prohibited a contracting entity from being prequalified unless it provided an enforceable commitment to the local agency that the entity and subcontractors would use a skilled and trained workforce. In 2022, SB 991, authored by Senator Newman, built off this progress, expanded the use of progressive design build and the related really strong labor standards and the pre qualification process to more water projects as well. We're just looking to make sure this language is reflected in the progressive design Bill proposal and make sure that these proposals include these provisions that are already in statute.

And the only other thing I'd add, Madam Chair, is that the local hire requirement of federal law doesn't always we have to make sure that we have enough folks to do all these public works project. We can hear from Caltrans and CalSTA on this as well. So clearly a little bit of misunderstanding of federal law as well here.

Yes. Well, that's what the policy process would allow us to that's why I wanted Miss come back up, because I think it's important that we hear I know it is the value of many of us in this Legislature that our public dollars go to help support the good living wages of the California workers that are supported through the building trades. So with that, Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And as I mentioned in the Transportation Committee, I'm actually generally a big fan of design build. I've seen a lot of issues with design bid build, especially on larger projects with design defects that end up costing way more and actually take a lot longer because it's a longer step by step process. But we've seen with the San Jose airport or even right now with the BART over $9 billion project to extend it into San Jose, is using a progressive design build process. And so I'm certainly in general, principally in favor of design build projects. However, as was just mentioned in the conversation right now, as well as what I mentioned yesterday in terms of labor protections, because design build does move at a certain pace as well as oftentimes requires a lot more subcontracting earlier on in the process because of the size of these projects. And so to the point of mischief regarding pre qualification and ensuring that not just strong labor protections, but also in terms of ensuring that those contractors and as you get deeper into the subcontractors, don't have wage claims against them, don't have poor work standards in their history. Because we have seen that that's one of the areas that can slip through the cracks for the design build is that as you go deeper into it, you get some nefarious contractors that get their hands on some of these bids. And that can also slow down the process, cost taxpayer money, and ultimately have poor working conditions for the workers which none of us want. And so I'll just put that out there to add on to the conversation regarding strong labor protections. And then again, these conversations are very helpful going through the process. And the question goes back again to why it needs to be in a trailer build versus a legislative process where I think the Legislature has shown time and again to be favorable of design build when it's been brought before us. I don't think this would be an exception, necessarily, but the fact that it's much broader, I think, would allow for this conversation and this kind of deliberation to occur from all our colleagues in a way that allows some of these questions to be worked on and concerns to be worked on during the legislative process so everyone can feel more comfortable. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kalra. Ms. Schiavo.

Could you just talk a little bit more about the pre qualification process and why it's barred in this situation? Is there a reason it needs to be? Does it have anything I mean, it seems like that wouldn't be a barrier to federal funding, but the pre qualification for design build.

So I think I wonder if Mr. Kivers or Mr. Tolliffson want to come up and speak to the pre qualification process specifically, because I think it actually answers some of Mr. Kalra's questions as well as they relate to all of the standards that have to be in place before. But is your question specifically to the speed at which design build allows us and why that's connected to federal funding and the urgency for construction in general?

Or does it mean that you can't do pre qualification? Is there some reason that you cannot or it could be worked into the system.

Under existing law you mean?

Under what your proposal?

So with this proposal, there would be a pre qualification. So you would be looking at the types of projects would be part of where you would see where do I want a progressive design build? And then to Assembly Member Cholera's Point. We do look at things like their safety record, their labor compliance record. We're looking for who do we want to partner with on this type of a project? And so it's different than a design bid build competitive bidding process.

And so is there- so then does it sound like you're open to the language that the building trades are proposing then? Because it sounds like you are doing that or can do that.

I think the issue with all public works is the speed at which we can build with the workers that are available. So it really is important, and I think if the laborers are here, they can speak to some of the ways in which we need to build with Alacrity and what it means to have some the additional requirements that have never been part of the public works process. And so in order to build with the kind of Alacrity we're looking like in the next two to three years, I do think it's important that the public works process so we need to distinguish between these public works and the private pieces of these bills. And so in the public works, we have maintained what has worked really for decades in California, which are-

Moderator you need to mute.

Thank you. Sorry, I was like, am I hearing things already? So in order to continue those public works, we think that we've seen a lot of success. Obviously the ability for CalTrans and others to build, we've seen over and over in DWR that the way labor standards are written within our public works process has allowed us to successfully build while maintaining living wages and the prevailing wage requirement and other labor requirements as a matter of law.

Yeah, and I'll just add, the proposal does include specific language requiring competency experience, various standards that both the Department and CalTrans would go through as part of our qualification review of the qualification package.

And I'll just for 1.0 of clarification, the Caltrans piece was heard in transportation. So we're focusing on the water piece just for purposes of jurisdiction.

Having a mic issue here. The language we're specifically looking for would mirror what's in public contract code specifically when it comes to complying with the pre qualification or the short listing process in Section 10208 of the chapter.

So if there's a pre qualification process, and I hear what you're saying your concern is if we can't get to all the workers that we need through that process, we need flexibility to go beyond that. Is there restriction in this, I'm not familiar with that code, that means that you can't go beyond to get more workers if you need them or if you've exhausted kind of the pre qualification process and gotten as many workers as you can get. Can you go beyond that?

Yeah. I'll add on DWR construction projects, we look to the contractor, whether it's a design build entity or a pure construction contractor, to meet various state and federal laws with prevailing wage requirements. And so there's certain requirements that they have to meet a minimum standard in terms of the use of the labor workforce on our construction projects.

So it's really the contractor who has to make sure that they can secure the labor that's needed for those.

The contractor and the entity. So either in this case Caltrans or DWR, because first you have to meet all the requirements.

Okay.

And then obviously the design build process is limited to a certain number of projects as well to ensure that all of the safeguards that we're discussing here are taken care of so it's not across the board.

Okay. I would echo the concerns and want to make sure that there's an opportunity for pre qualification. We all want to ensure that we're rewarding those contractors and those workers that have good jobs and contractors who ensure that that happens and not working with the contractors who are ripping workers off basically. Right. That's not what we're in the business of doing. And so hopefully there can be continued conversation here and a coming together between the trades because I think that probably everyone wants to be on the same page around this. Thank you.

And I will add to your point. There is a limit to the number of projects, eight in the proposal. However, although there's a minimum that they have to be, there is no maximum. So we could be talking about a $16 billion conveyance project. So obviously a project. We care deeply about the workforce. Mr. Hart?

Yeah. To that point, there are only eight projects that are going to be authorized through this process. Does the Department know what eight projects we're looking at, or do you have a short list that you can share with the Committee? So we'd have an understanding of the scope and breadth of what we are looking to do.

So we do have a list of the types of projects we're looking at. One of the things we'll be doing is establishing a selection process. We currently have that in place for our existing design build authority and also our construction manager general contractor authority as well, so that we're picking the right process for the right projects. The sort of things we're thinking about, though, is we have a dam modernization project at Pyramid Lake that has some very technically complex work on the outlet system for Pyramid Lake. We also have spillway retrofits across the StateWater project system. Additionally, we have repairs to the California Aqueduct in the areas that have subsidence that would be good candidates. And then we do have restoration projects that we're doing as part of both the state water project and state flood control system that are the type of projects that will really benefit by having a construction partner embedded with us to help design the project so we can get the best sort of restoration project completed as well. So those are the sort of things that are on our short list right now.

I appreciate that list. It'd be better to refine it more specifically. I mean, you're making the case that there's an urgency here that we need to get this federal money. You must have a really short, tight list to be within that time frame. And I think it would reduce the stress and tension of the conversation if it was less abstract and more precise. Same thing with the transportation projects. And obviously the delta conveyance project is going to be the elephant in the room. But what are the other seven projects?

Well, don't presume that the delta conveyance because my question was going to be prior legislation has exempted out delta conveyance from this process. I guess I find it a little bit hard to believe that we have restoration projects on the list. Are restoration projects typically 25 million? That seems high for a restoration project, and this wouldn't apply unless it hit that 25 million threshold. I don't know if you know the answer to that. Sorry, you were talking to each other. Maybe you didn't hear my question. So you had mentioned restoration projects. Do those usually hit that 25 million threshold in the proposal? That seems high.

Yeah, we have a few very large projects that do hit that threshold. An example would be Lookout Slew, which is currently underway and the Yolo Bypass Fish Passage project that's underway as well.

Okay, so then I guess jumping on to what Mr. Hurt asked prior legislation has exempted out the conveyance project. This does not. So it could be one of the eight. There's nothing to stop it from being in here. Is that something the Administration is open to? Since I think it's more than an elephant in the room, I think it is one of the concerns and my concern I've carried one of the bills that allowed for design build. So I am a fan. I think it is a good use of state dollars. We see the savings, they're impressive. Caltrans, I think has been an example of showing those savings over time. But I also am concerned with the fact that when you do design builds, we don't have a good sense of the overall cost until further down the road because of the way it works. And with a $16 billion ish project, 25 million is one thing, tens of billions is another, right? So I guess I would ask what your thoughts on of conveyance being one of these A projects?

Yeah, I think just in general, Delta Conveyance could be one of the projects that could benefit from this proposal. One distinction is that project will be designed and constructed by the Delta Conveyance authority, which is separate from DWR. So that's something to point point out to the Committee.

Although they are eligible because of their connection to DWR, as I understand it. Is that right under this proposal?

I think this proposal is focused on DWR and Caltrans, but I'll need to follow up on that, Chair.

Right.

So, Chair and Assemblymember, I would say you've asked a pointed question, which is, "would the conveyance project be eligible?" We can get back to you that specifically, and then taking Assemblymember Hart's suggestion around refining the list to be more specific about the projects.

Okay. And so, I mean, it's our understanding just so that we can say that the joint exercise authority between DWR and the Delta allows for this to apply to Delta Conveyance. So if that's not the case, we would like that to be clarified because we don't see that to be the case in the proposal. And I think that concludes my questions. Anybody else? Thank you. And thank you. Sorry to put you on the hot seat.

And we will now turn to the last proposal discussed here, although obviously this is a subset of the total proposals, which is the fully protected species reclassification. Director Bonham is going to be joining us. And Mike Lynes from Audubon California, and Mr. Delfino from Earth Advocacy on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. There he is. Thank you. I actually didn't see him switch out, so I appreciate you pointing that out, Secretary. Yeah.

And I don't know if Director, do you mind, Director Bonham, if we actually start with our previous question, before? Thank you.

If you would also indulge me to do something about an earlier part of today. I want to thank Naomi for her advocacy on behalf of the Department of Fish and Wildlife for bats in California. And that is incredible leadership from the next generation that's going to step into shoes held by some of us now.

She is amazing. Such a privilege to have her here.

Secondly, chair, you ask--and for the record, my name is Chuck Bonham, and I'm the Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife--my thoughts on questions raised during the advanced mitigation discussion earlier. Let me thank you for this Committee's focus on the environmental justice question related to advanced mitigation. And just speaking personally for our Department and me as a citizen in California, one of the things that makes me the most pleased working in this Administration is it's a "yes, and?" dynamic.

It's not an "either/or." I think across our Administration, we're pushing the envelope to do restoration and species mitigation while also ensuring that doesn't discount, diminish, or distract our commitment on the environmental justice front. So our Department is active in the advanced mitigation space. We'd have concern if any such proposal meant a diminishment around a commitment on environmental justice. I know there are details to be worked out, but I thank you for raising that.

As to the funding dynamic, there are three things our Department is doing right now to deal with a workload aspect around mitigation banks, which often falls in our purview for review, processing and approval in conjunction with our federal agency partners. First, just know that currently the Department has about three positions for mitigation banks because they are funded through fees and increasing capacity strictly through fee increase itself is often a policy challenge.

Simultaneously, there is right now a budget change proposal going through the process for fiscal year 23 and 24, which gives the Department more flexibility for fund realignment and doing some internal work. We've already started to kind of reprioritize positions to move based in an as-need way to the highest area of backloads across the state on the banks. So there's a budget change proposal in process for some realignment benefit. We're doing internal work already on how to reposition people to deal with the banking dynamic.

And then lastly, I'd note it's related. There is another budget change proposal underway, which is an additive 40 positions for the Department to do a lot of the permitting work around energy and water projects. They wouldn't be directly working on some of the real estate transactions around banking, but they would be ancillary and complementary to. So that's another capacity strategy we're engaged in right now.

Thank you. And you didn't miss your opportunity to make your pitch for your budget change proposal, which I respect. Director Bonham, thank you for answering the question. And with that, we'll turn it over to the fully protected species reclassification proposal, if you don't mind opening on that.

I don't. So thank you for the opportunity to present on one element of the administration's package which relates to something previously identified as fully protected species. This shows up in the Fish and Game Code in four primary codes sections for mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds. I want to start with a different approach. This proposal is simple. It is consistent with the widely held good government practice of reviewing and updating policies and law. This proposal is also not novel. It's not new.

Many experts over the years have raised the very need to modernize the fully protected species statutes and reconcile them with the California Endangered Species Act. Law reviews say that. In fact, just last year, this Committee analyzed a different Bill, Senate Bill 945, about peregrine falcons, which at that time was operating within the confines of fully protected species.

But the Committee analysis on that Bill last year said, quote, "this Committee may want to consider studying options for future legislation to eliminate fully protected species designations while creating a process to ensure that any species that still need protection are considered for listing under CISA if they are not already." Why? We have a historical artifact. In the 1960s, the Legislature, as best we can tell, without any scientific analysis, any administrative record, put 37 species onto this designated list and labeled them fully protected.

This was before the Federal Endangered Species Act. It was before the California Endangered Species Act. So if you fast forward to today's Committee analysis on page 15, today's analysis illustrates that artifact, quote, "endangered species lists are intended to be maintained according to best available scientific information," whereas fully protected species lists were codified by the Legislature and have not been updated.

The scientific status of most fully protected species are not known, I would argue weren't known back then in the sixties. What is the situation we see in the field? You have 37 species designated in the century ago. There is no ability to issue any permit for any project that may impact those species, except for a few limited exceptions. Since the sixties, eight of those species have actually been put on the Endangered Species Act in this state and enlisted as threatened.

Since the sixties, 19 of those fully protected species have been listed under CESA as endangered. Three of them were subsequently delisted by the constitutionally created Fishing Game Commission. The remaining seven, to do the math, have been fully protected species but have never been listed under CISA. It's confusing. It causes people to scratch their head. It's a set of lists which don't facilitate good outcomes all the time. It's an untenable situation.

Here's what's untenable about it: significant and unnecessary risks exist for every project proponent--energy, housing, roads--because of a designation 50 years ago without any scientific analysis before CESA, and it results in no mitigation or conservation aid to these species in recovery. This is because the Department has no ability to permit the project and require mitigation. So this proposal deals with that historical artifact. This proposal deals with that untenable situation.

It takes the four code sections in the Fishing Game Code that designate the fully protected species, and it replaces it by reclassifying all of the 37 as existing entirely within the CESA construct. Not one or the other or both, just under CESA, which means the eight that are already designated listed as threatened stay threatened. The 19 that are already listed as endangered stay endangered. The seven that have not yet been listed get listed as threatened.

And the second thing our proposal does is confirm that the Fish and Game Commission process is available, applicable to all of those 34 under existing law under the California Endangered Species Act. Further, the proposal confirms prior project specific approvals around fully protected species are still applicable, and lastly proposes a CEQA exemption for Commission action, which would primarily be related to if the Commission decided to delist any one of those 34.

But that does not mean there would be zero public process, because instead of just repealing fully protected and doing nothing, it moves all the species under CISA, which means. You have notice and comment, you have Administrative Procedure Act rule-making, you have Office of Administrative Law, due process rule-making requirements, and you have several public hearing opportunities in front of the Commission for Public Process about any decision it might make in the future. That's the proposal. This proposal actually guarantees a better conservation outcome.

The reason is the Department has zero ability to stop any project right now because of fully protected species. The law gives us no authority. It puts the burden on the proponents to avoid the risk. They're subject to criminal liability if they cause impact. Whereas if you move these species under CESA, as a matter of law, we can require a project to avoid an impact. As a matter of law, we can require a project to minimize an impact.

And as a matter of law, we can acquire a project to mitigate the impact. Two last things, Chair, and then I'll step aside. I know that my colleagues in the conservation world and you believe very much in broader landscape scale planning, that's why we have something called the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. In 2015, there was a legislative effort to deal with this conundrum we have with fully protected species.

And we amended that other law to say that if a party develops one of these broader landscape plans, they can include in that plan the ability to get, take coverage if it's a fully protected species. Since 2015, we have not seen a notable increase in NCCPs, and I'm not aware of any NCCP being done for the purposes of getting take coverage for a fully protected species. And if you wanted to do that today, they're not done overnight, NCCPs.

They take many years, which speaks to the urgency dynamic. Here are three examples related to urgency for this proposal. Every one of these examples, Assemblymembers, goes to one core point. Whether it's housing, whether it's transportation, whether it's public works, whether it's critical water infrastructure, whether it's renewable energy. Almost all of that is going to run through our Department for some permitting purpose. Every day we delay in permitting renewable energy projects is compounding achieving our goals. We've looked across the state for years at this issue.

If you go to Caltrans, you know that they need to do a massive upgrade of our roads and bridges for public safety reasons. Since 2015, in the amendment to the NCCP Act, you know what we've seen the most of? Carve outs from the fully protected species statute for individual road projects. Take a look at energy. Now, I'm not endorsing this number, but for sense of scale.

If you listen to the Large Scale Solar Association they project my department, by 2030, will be dealing with 2800 renewable energy project permit packages per year. Even if you consider that to be grossly inflated, and you took half of that, 1400, if you took half of 1400, that's 700 permits a year just in the solar space, many of which connect to fully protected species as an unreasonable risk assumption for the project proponents. Lastly, water. Just at DWR in the San Joaquin field division.

There are 24 miles of the California Aqueduct that's suffering from needed repairs in the right of way because of susistance. That is the same place where there are blunt-nosed leopard lizard, which are on the fully protected species statute. Pumping stations, subsidence repairs, and frankly, right now, levee maintenance coming out of catastrophic flooding. Those are three examples of urgency, all about getting projects done. It's not a repeal of fully protected species without any conservation gain.

It is a conservation uplift by transporting all of this and modernizing ourselves under CESA. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your tolerance.

Of course, we love robust conversation, so appreciate you laying it out. Mr. Lynes and Ms. Delfino, whoever would like to go first?

Good morning. My name is Mike Lynes, Director. I'm not on now.

He's a full service secretary.

Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Mike Lynes. I'm the Director of Public Policy for Audubon California, the State Office of the National Audubon Society, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to these issues today. Audubon supports modernizing environmental laws to make them work more effectively, provided they enhance, not diminish environmental protections. Such reforms involve complex issues that warrant extensive stakeholder input and should not be rushed through the trailer bill process.

We've engaged for decades on issues related to fully protected species, such as the California condor, the sandhill crane, and the golden eagle. These and other species remain in peril as California's biodiversity continues to decline, and as these species and others face challenges to climate change and human development, many of them are being driven closer to extinction.

As Director Bonham indicated, the Fully Protected Species Statutes are old and a bit of an artifact, and they are one of California's oldest environmental protections, but they provide a clear prohibition on the take of the enumerated species.

But there is a way that allows for their take through the completion of a Natural Communities and Conservation Plan, a more comprehensive approach where developers can get an opportunity to do, or they can be allowed to take these species, provided that they ensure measures that provide a net conservation benefit or contribute to species recovery. And I think that this distinction is really important. The administration's proposal will repeal all of that and transfer the species, all but three, to the California Endangered Species Act.

Most of the species are already listed under CESA, as the Director indicated, and almost all of them continue to be in decline. These are species that are very important to many communities, to conservationists, to tribes and others, many of whom who have not had a chance to really robustly participate in this discussion yet. We are concerned because CESA sets a lower standard for protection of species than the Fully Protected Species Statutes do.

CESA allows for take, provided it is fully mitigated and does not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. That is a lower bar than the take allowed under an NCCP, which, as I said, requires a net conservation benefit or species recovery. In other words, and in practice, CESA is about minimizing losses to acceptable levels. What we have seen in its implementation is that it's always about accepting additional losses to vulnerable species over time that mostly have continued to decline.

The Fully Protected Species Statutes are about preserving these species and moving toward recovery through an NCCP if take must occur. Second, the administration's proposal reduces the secret requirement for delisting formally fully protected species, including species like the sandhill crane, a species of great concern in the debate around the delta. This creates an odd dual standard where other species that are already on the CESA list are subject to CEQA review if they're to be delisted. But these formally fully protective species are not.

So it's an odd double standard. I agree that there is still a robust process through CESA, but CEQA does add another layer of protection that is being peeled away by this process. Finally, nothing that the Secretary has said or the Director has said has really demonstrated the urgency needed to push this forward. Director Bonham mentioned in several cases. We have been talking about these issues for years. Why does it need to get pushed through in a trailer bill process right now?

I will say, on Audubon's part, we are committed to working to modernizing and reforming the Fully Protected Species Statutes and CESA and other environmental laws as they apply. But it's important that we make sure that in doing so, there are net environmental benefits that benefit communities, wildlife and native plants, and access to nature.

I'll just say this to wrap up, and there's a lot more to talk and debate about, and Chuck and I certainly have, but I've been working on birds for almost 30 years, and every day I get up and there are less birds. And I know better than anybody what we need to do for renewable projects, for durable water infrastructure, for good transportation.

But as we modernize and make these steps forward, we must also make sure that we're protecting the species that are left and that we are adding to species recovery rather than pushing them aside again in the name of progress. So thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. Ms. Delfino?

Thank you. Let me check. Is it still morning? Almost.

Good morning. I'm here representing Defenders of Wildlife, Kim Delphino. Defenders is a national conservation organization dedicated to protecting all wild animals and plants in their natural communities. And Defenders has nearly 2.2 million Members nationwide, more than 300,000 of which live in California. I'm going to build off the testimony given by Mr. Lynes already in which he explained about the Fully protected species laws. But first, let me thank the Committee for holding an informational hearing today.

I would note that this is only one hearing, and that you're only hearing from two environmental organizations, and not represented here are other entities who are interested in the fully protected species laws. I would note that many of the species on the fully protected species list hold great cultural significance to tribes, and absent from this conversation is the tribal perspective.

To begin with, as noted by Mr. Lynes, the trailer bill's proposal would result in a significant reduction in the level of protection afforded to the fully protected species. I did account of the species that are on the list of who are still declining, at least 28 of which are in very poor shape and highly imperiled, California condor being one of them. Sandhill crane, golden eagles continue to decline despite being protected by many fishing gate code provisions.

Bighorn sheep, peninsular bighorn sheep, and the wolverine, you know, people get pretty excited when there's a sighting every now and then in Sierra. These are all species that have been protected under the fully protected species laws, and for good reason. Previously, the Legislature has allowed the take or killing of these species only when it relates to recovery or when they're within a natural communities conservation plan or in the legislative exemptions that have provided for a net conservation benefit.

Or an additional uplift to the species, as if they were going to say in the removal of the Klamath Dams or reintroducing condors up in Northern California in order to expand the range. Those have been the legislatively approved exemptions, and they've always been something more than fully mitigated, and I think that's important to note. So simply shifting species over to the endangered species list does not provide that kind of uplift that previously the Legislature has provided for fully protected species.

So I think that's an important point to make. The reason why advocates have resisted shifting all of the fully protected species over to CESA has been because CESA, while a very important law, has deficiencies. One of them is that, unfortunately, when a species goes on the endangered species list, we've not built our Endangered Species Act in a way that promotes recovery. We don't fund recovery, we don't do recovery plans, and so species are on this list, and they tend to stay on the list.

And we would like to see a modernization of the Endangered Species Act itself. We would like to see changes to how you define the take of habitat. It's very undefined whether or not habitat alteration rises to the level of take. So there are real issues that we would like to see addressed around the issue of whether or not it's wise to be moving the entire fully protected list over to the Endangered Species Act.

Unfortunately, with this trailer bill proposal, we're not talking about how we protect biodiversity in California. Instead, we're discussing a proposal that reduces protections for imperiled species and lowers standards for imperiled species, including, as Mr. Lynes already noted, setting up a delisting standard. So if you're an endangered species that wasn't a fully protected species, you get to have the full weight of the delisting process, including CEQA evaluation.

But if you happen to be a fully protected species that was also listed as endangered, somehow you don't get that CEQA alternatives analysis that has been given to every other endangered species. The Administration has not described why we would need to make this policy decision in the form of a trailer Bill that's being purported as pushing forward infrastructure. Why make that policy decision? That has not been explained.

And so that kind of gets to the other point here, which is what is the urgency for moving this particular policy proposal in the infrastructure package? There are proposals in the infrastructure package that I think would move projects forward quickly. The Fully Protected Species Proposal is not one of them that needs to be enacted by the end of July or even the end of August in order for projects to be moving forward. The Fully Protected Species Acts have been on the books since the late 1960s.

We've moved forward with a lot of infrastructure in the State of California since that time, and this has not been an obstacle to that. And I can say from the perspective of renewable energy projects, of which Defenders of Wildlife has been very actively engaged in the process of siting and permitting of renewable energy projects, not a single renewable energy project has been stopped because of the Fully Protected Species laws.

So we don't think that this, while we would like to engage in a conversation around this issue, we do not think that this type of policy discussion warrants moving it through the trailer bill process. And I think I'd just conclude there and open it up for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Delfino. And anyone else in the room that would like to add their support or opposition, name and organization, please join us at the mic.

Madam Chair, members, Joe Cruz, on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers. We just want the opportunity to weigh in our support of the governor's proposal, including the reclassification of endangered species. But I also wanted to comment, and I wasn't here before, so if you'll indulge me just for a minute, Madam Chair, on a couple other provisions. The laborers support many of these accelerated provisions to move projects off the planning table without compromising our environmental integrity. CEQA was designed to improve projects when it comes to environmental considerations, not stop projects. Yesterday, director almost shock and said it took 10 years to build out a project.

So we're not hearing the CEQA proposals in this committee, so if that's what you want to comment on.

No, just a previous. I also wanted to say that most of these projects and the design-build was $25 million or more. Eight projects. I apologize for not being here for that, but 95% of the projects built in California are being built by union construction labor, skilled and trained workforce, union workforce. Those large scale water and transportation projects are being built already with those individuals who represented. So thank you.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair and members. P. Anthony Thomas, representing California Building Industry Association, CBIA, in full support of the governor's entire infrastructure package, including ones here today.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Barry Nelson, representing Golden State Salmon Association, an industry that's entirely shut down this year because of environmental degradation. Deep concerns about the substance, opposed to the process.

Thank you.

Artie Valencia with Restore the Delta, in opposition of this bill. Thank you.

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

Kiana Valentine on behalf of Transportation California, in support.

Thank you.

Osha Meserve of Local Agencies of the North Delta, in opposition. This would be a bill of attainder for our Delta sandhill cranes and other fully protected species that would be harmed by the tunnel.

Thank you.

Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network. Another reason I am in opposition based on substance and process. Thank you.

Alex Leumer on behalf of Pacific Forest Trust and the Environmental Law Foundation, in opposition.

Annalee Aken on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in strong support. Thanks.

Madam Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in support of this provision as well.

Thank you.

Juan Altamirano, with the Trust for Public Land, in concerned with this proposal.

Thank you.

Manny Leon, California Alliance for Jobs, in support of this item.

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

Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters, in opposition.

Ashley Overhouse as Defenders of Wildlife on behalf of the Bay Institute in opposition.

Alex Torres, Bay Area Council, in support. Thank you.

Mike West, State Building Trades, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Bringing it back to the dais, Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is another one that I have concerns about it not going through the legislative process. You're talking about something that's been in place for over half a century, and yet I guess if everything's deemed urgent, then it kind of renders urgency somewhat meaningless at some point, especially given the fact that there's indications that there have been carve-outs when necessary and when deemed appropriate. But I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that we have stronger protections in California that still allow a process that just allows for meaningful mitigation having the net conservation benefit. I guess I'm just not seeing on this one, as was mentioned by some of the folks speaking today, in terms of we're talking about trailer bills for infrastructure projects, what have you. This one probably puzzles me more than most as to why.

Especially because it's a policy that's been in place foresold for so many decades and why it shouldn't go through a legislative process, rather than particularly because the fact that we don't know necessarily the scientific status of many of these protective species and pushing just the Endangered Species Act as the mechanism. Sometimes once a species gets into that list, it's too late. Things can't be done to mitigate that momentum towards extinction, or at least a permanent status under the Endangered Species Act. And so I think our fully protected policy is a good one. I'm certainly open to hearing ways that could be done in a more effective or efficient manner, but I think the legislative process allows for that dialogue to get us to that point, not through a trailer bill process. Thanks.

Assemblymember, if I might.

Is that okay? Kalra says it's okay with him, it's okay with me. Go ahead, Mr. Bonham.

I want to thank you for your leadership in the biodiversity space. I know, along with Secretary Crowfoot, other members of this committee, the Chair, you've been president in Montreal, and across the globe advocating for our biodiversity leadership. I also want to thank the other witnesses, Mike and Kim. We've known each other 20 years. We work together, and sometimes we have differences of opinions. It's okay. It's civil. We're friends and colleagues. But I disagree with the premise that carte blanche fully protected species creates some higher standard for three reasons. It's not that fully protected species is higher. It's just that in this situation, CESA is better. So there's nothing to indicate the Legislature meant to set a higher standard. You just did it before there was CESA. Second, the fully protected species benefit may be illusory. Here's why. Take blunt-nosed leopard lizard. It's a species that is often in the way of a project.

It lives the majority of its life underground. Disturbance may cause its mortality, but the mortality typically happens underground in burrows. The only thing fully protected species does in the end run is create a criminal liability for a project proponent. If you can prove take. To prove take, you need the lizard and a proof of mortality. There's no ability to do anything else than that. Whereas third, CESA is better. If all these species are still in decline, which many are, isn't it better to at least pursue mitigation as a conservation benefit for the species? Isn't it better to have them under a statutory regime that allows research, promotes conservation, promotes recovery, none of which fully protected species does?

Isn't it better to avail ourselves of the opportunity of CESA, which is five-year status reviews, recovery plans, coordination with the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal National Marine Fisheries Service, the ability to get federal grants under federal Section Six to do landscape conservation for the very listed species? So I understand the argument that it creates a complete prohibition, but I'm not convinced it means carte blanche. It's a higher standard. The discussion is, is there a better approach? And that's what this Administration proposal seeks to do, even if there's differences of opinions.

And I respect that. But I think that just your response, which I think is an appropriate response itself, lends itself to the fact that this requires further dialogue and conversation, because you very well may be right, and you're 100% right that folks that have the same intentions can have difference of opinion as to how to achieve that. But I think that that's part of the deliberative legislative process.

Understood.

So I appreciate the comments by Assemblymember Kalra and also thank you for your leadership in biodiversity and carrying the 30x30 bill originally. I really appreciate all of that. I would say that I do respectfully disagree with Mr. Bonham in the sense of every time the Legislature has acted to allow for take of a fully protected species, it has done so with a higher standard. That was my point. When it allowed for the take of fully protected species in SB 618, it was through an NCCP. When it has carved out specific exceptions, it has been with a net conservation benefit, or because the take associated was associated with a recovery action or something that would expand the range of the species.

So the point here is that we would like to engage in the conversation around modernizing our endangered species and biodiversity laws, but we think it's a much deeper discussion than simply taking the 30 well, I guess 34 species and dumping them into the endangered species category or list. But I think this is something that would be appropriate. Again, in a policy setting. If the administration can approach a member, ask them to carry a bill, we go through the policy setting, and have the discussion, I think we could end up potentially in a really good place. But to simply bring it up a month before the end of fiscal deadline in a proposal that no one had seen I mean, at least no one I know. I don't think this is the appropriate kind of conversation we'd be having and does a disservice, frankly, to all of those species on that list. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I just add one point?

Yes, and then we're going to bring it back to my colleagues.

Thank you very much. One thing Director Bonham mentioned, the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, which is listed under CESA and the Federal Endangered Species Act, and how fully protected species have functioned in the way that especially where there's CESA listed already. Because there has been sort of an understanding if you comply with those permit, the permit requirements of say, CESA or FISA, the state's not going to come after you if you're fully protected. So there's already been a functional expectation for those species, many of them on the fully protected that are already on the CESA list. But let me give you an example of a species that is not on the CESA list, and that's the golden eagle. So that doesn't have special CESA or FESA protection. That species has been killed for decades at the Altamont Pass for wind turbines. Having fully protected species has been one of the necessary things to help that species have extra protection there in the Altamont.

And my concern is it can be put onto the CESA list and then delisted without the secret review under this process because it may not meet the scientific standard of CESA. And then in a couple of years, that golden eagle has no particular protections. It has some other fishing game code protections that are never enforced, to my knowledge. But it's losing that fully protected layer and potentially then loses the CESA layer. So that's a very functional outcome that needs discussion.

Thank you. Anybody else? Yeah, Mr. Villapudua.

Yeah, thank you through the Chair. I just want to thank both sides today. I mean, good discussion, but I think we also need to make sure that we're walking with caution. There's a lot that was said in here, a lot what was said to understand both sides, especially hearing that maybe CESA has some deficiencies. Lowering the protection of these at-risk species, we need to make sure that we're having the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Villapudua. Anybody else? Well, I have a couple questions, and I appreciated Director Bonham quoting our principal consultant who'd written those many things about CESA and had actually brought this up to me as a policy question and one we were going to look at in the policy process. And here we are. So I absolutely appreciate the comments about how this needs to be fully vetted because it does have significant impacts. My first question is, your proposal says that we should put them all into CESA and list them as threatened, right, which is not the highest level of protection under CESA with no as I can see a justification for that particular listing for these species. So I would invite you, if you have one, to give it to us.

I do. Thank you for the question, Chair. That's not completely accurate because we're talking about a set of 34.

Okay, well, so to clarify my question, yes, some have been listed under CESA, different, but the ones that have not been listed under CESA would also all be dropped under threatened with no particular consideration, it appears, given to each of the species.

That's right. So seven would move over as threatened. And the rationale for threatened rather than endangered is originally, there was no scientific analysis we know of to put them on the fully protected species statute. Threatened practically is the same as endangered for purposes of permitting, avoidance, minimization, mitigation, Department Science, Department Status review. There's no practical difference between threatened and endangered. And the administration's proposal creates the opportunity for anything that came over as threatened in the initial moment to be uplifted consistent with the process in front of the Fish and Game Commission, APA, hearing, analysis recommendation, or petition. So we started it threatened rather than endangered, which, of course, obviously would create the equal opportunity for people to suggest it become threatened.

Got it. And I will note one thing which you said, which was, you know, these were there because we passed fully protected species statute prior to CESA. I will note the Legislature knew the fully protected species statute existed at the time that CESA was passed and chose not to get rid of the fully protected species statute then until now, which was a choice of the Legislature. So I think it's a little bit of a misnomer to say it was just an artifact, right? We make legislative decisions and policy decisions every day. And I imagine although I wasn't here at the time, that when CESA was passed, somebody brought up fully protected species. I would be shocked if they didn't. So I also wanted to touch on the question about NCCPs. I like them.

Me too.

So do you. We agree on that. You know, one of the things conversation we've had actually, Director Bonham, is the value of them, and we keep taking away the reasons for communities to do there's a couple it's been brought up a couple of times. So my two questions are how do we continue to push communities to do these really important plans? But my second question is also what we're hearing from the opposition is for these species, they see the benefit being that we get more than fully mitigated, right? We get this net benefit. Is it something that the Administration has considered instead of just dumping them into CESA and making them threaten to actually provide under the CESA umbrella, a separate designation for these species that would provide that net benefit standard?

I, too, wish we had more NCCPs. The core of that act is voluntary, as you know. The department, the state, under that act, can't compel parties to produce those plans. But, Chair, several things we're doing to further incentivize is through our Wildlife Conservation Board, through our department, with your budget leadership and the governor's support, we've actually been able to increase funding opportunity to provide out to those to develop those plans. So that is an example of trying to get to an outcome of more of the plans. But in the context of why no one has come forward to do them for fully protected species, I can't require them to do that. Your next question.

Well, but we are incentivizing them too, under the fully protected species.

Your next question. Your third question, and that'll give me a chance to.

Benefit was the second. Okay.

When one looks at the six plus carve-outs that Ms. Delfino has mentioned, it's actually more correct to say about half of them appear to have carried over a legal phrase of net conservation benefit or a legal phrase of conserve, which, as you know, is more about recovery. The other half don't carry that language. And then I would ask time to confer with the secretary. I think we hear your point. Have you thought about some sort of net conservation benefit dynamic, which Mr. Lynes, actually isn't in the NCCPA that's only found in the safe harbor provisions of the Endangered Species Act. But we hear you, and I appreciate that input.

No, I appreciate that. Never want anyone to answer a question they don't have the answer to.

Can I just add on just briefly? So first of all, going to the last part, Director Bonham is correct that half don't specifically say net conservation benefit, but those halves were for either actions that like dam removal or expansion of a species range, like with condor or said fully mitigated and then added additional conditions. So I just want to be clear about we still regarded all of those exceptions as uplifts beyond a full mitigation standard. On the NCCP, this is not going to come as any surprise to the administration. I appreciate the work that has been done, but I have been a bit frustrated with the administration concerning NCCPs. I do think that more could be done to incentivize and promote the use of NCCPs at the regional level.

Way back in the day, when the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan was originally conceived, it was conceived as both a federal land management plan and an NCCP. The Federal Land Management plan was able to move forward, but the NCCP piece was dropped and never picked back up again. And that was the choice of the administration, not the environmental folks that were working on that DRECP. Why didn't we move forward with an NCCP as part of the DRECP? And then with respect to funding, the administration's own proposal that moved forward this year cuts 6 million of the $36 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board for NCCPs. If NCCPs were so important, why not come up with the additional $6 million? It's not that much money in the grand scheme of things. Why make such a punitive cut to that program? So I think there's a lot more we could be doing to promote NCCPs across the state. And so I would just put that out there as just a slight rebuttal.

Thank you. And my last question, you knew I had another one, Director Bonham, but I actually hadn't asked.

I'll stay as long as this question.

You said third. I'm like I think I only asked two, but the CEQA exemption for delisting, you remarked that three of these have been delisted. I'll note that one has been delisted because it went extinct. So it's important to note that they didn't all get delisted because they've thrived. So if you could talk about that and what the purpose of that exemption is.

Is, I think the one you're referencing, it might have gone it had been extirpated, which is not found in California. I can't remember if extinct, but so here was the thinking, and this is also a question I'd like to reflect on more with Secretary Crowfoot. I understand the kind of double-standard comment from earlier. I think the department, in good faith, has been looking at the challenge and conundrum related to fully protected species, as has most of the people in this room for quite some time. Thinking and looking at it from that lenses, we are proposing to reclassify those seven. Remember, there are eight already designated as threatened and 19 as endangered. They've been designated for quite some time, listed under the act, and nobody has petitioned to delist any of those.

Personally, I'm not sure that's the space which drives a legitimate concern we're hearing express. It may be the concern is more about the seven that haven't yet been listed under CESA. So if those come over, we propose a CEQA waiver if the commission were inclined to delist them. The commission right now has a certified regulatory program for all of its listing decisions. If it adds a species or it upgrades a species, it doesn't do individual environmental impact reports. It does analysis, and then it combines with that the APA process, notice and comment, rulemaking, Office of Administrative Law. So what we were thinking about was the appropriateness of not having an EIR, a CEQA document, done on the delisting dynamic. That was our rationale. I understand the question. I'd like to be able to think about it and reflect with Secretary.

I appreciate that. Yeah. I mean, I think if something's being delisted, ensuring that we have the protections in place is important. So I would invite further conversation on that. But the secretary wanted to add something, I think.

Yeah, I'm getting to the point where I do have a lot of people waiting for me back at the end.

Yeah. I knew what happened.

I've wanted to honor your request to stay at the table. And if I could, I'd just like to make a final comment.

Please, yeah.

So, first of all, our sincere thanks for holding this hearing. I think the last 3 hours have been very helpful to identifying where there might be general acceptance to certain portions of these proposals, where there are specific suggestions, and where there are concerns. I think that's been really constructive. And we'll bring that back to the governor's office and report back. So very helpful. I do think the time is now to have these conversations. I will say we are working urgently, intently, won't say desperately to get projects in place, flood safety projects, drought resilience projects, habitat connectivity and restoration projects, clean energy transportation projects. And I'll leave it to the policymakers, the governor, and the Legislature to define now. But we have a system that doesn't work to meet the targets that we need to meet and to protect communities as we need to protect them.

And I worry if we delay six months, 12 months, two years, we shouldn't be under any illusion that we're taking the actions that we need to take. And so that's just really the candid message I want to bring is we appreciate taking these questions or taking these proposals on substantively today because we do think now is the time to have these conversations, to modernize our process for actually getting these projects done quickly and getting them done right. So thank you.

Thank you. And I know 3 hours of your time is a lot. So we really appreciate your participation and engagement. And I know these are all issues that are near and dear to your heart. So appreciate you being here to answer our tough questions.

Secretary Crowfoot?

He's going to keep you in the hot seat.

I'll keep you a tiny bit longer only because I was going to ask you for a close and I was going to ask you for a close based specifically on how you close. But I would just like you to hear this as you're walking out the door because it's consistent with that. And that is, I think that I've heard today strong support for modernization of, for example, the listing of the species, but many things going forward. But it's so easy, I think, for us to say, okay, this should be done by policy. And that is a very legitimate debate. And I respect how you said the definition of now is. But I think it's important that we not lose sight of the fact that we have a climate emergency coming and we are not moving fast enough.

It's so easy to fall back into, well, to the policy debate and then the policy debate because there is built-in inertia in our process to always say, well, it's hard, let's do it later. It's hard, let's do it later. And I just wanted to ask the three of you to summarize for us again, because you are at the point of the spear here in terms of urgency. You guys are the ones that developed this package. You're the ones that are saying we have to have urgency. And I think you hear a significant amount of it's almost always easier to say, with more time, we can do it better, but with too much more time and we have a problem. So if you could summarize the urgency of now, whatever now is, with how that's defined by definitions, I'd love to have that. I think you did a great job. So I'm not asking you to do it. I just wanted you to hear me say that before you walked out of the room.

I actually think, sir, your close is perfect. Now for the administration is a part of this budget in the fiscal year that begins July 1 for everything you just said. The weather whiplash the secretary spoke to at the beginning, the federal funding, the need we have not just for the infrastructure from the federal funding, but to build housing to make sure that we have enough room in California to continue to grow. Mr. Bonham will tell you we've been talking about this act for 15 years. So absolutely. I think if Mayor Villaraigosa were here, he'd say, don't make the perfect enemy of the good. I do think we define now as part of this budget package for all the reasons we've stated, and we'll continue to get you information on what the State of California puts at risk if we don't act immediately and if we don't act as the example to the rest of the country.

And your argument to act immediately was in my summary, was based mostly on being able to convince the Federal Government that, look, we're taking action to sort of prove we're going to move as fast as other states that they might invest the money in. If you have any other argument besides that, it would be helpful to hear that.

I do. I think that's absolutely part of it. The second part is that the state has not created the infrastructure plan we need to create the supports for critically needed housing all over the state. The governor put $250,000,000 in the budget just to try and get enough housing built in Fresno this year just because of the huge demand. So what you'll hear is that this package is about maximizing federal funding to maximize not just streets and roads and clean energy and ships manufacturing, while protecting and keeping in place all of the CEQA mitigation and public process. But also so we can build the housing that we need and the rest of the infrastructure that we think is necessary in the state.

You heard my comment earlier where I was actually trying to rank some of these in terms of which ones fit more under that sense of urgency or not. So I'd welcome knowing which ones are truly there, because you can make a case that the actual writing of this legislation is challenging to get done right. And for us to see it on such short notice and then to try to say, hey, this is the right language. It's very legitimate for people to say, hey, we need time to vet this. I'm trying to balance that. What's the time we need to vet good language and what do we need to do to make sure we don't lose the momentum that we have to start building and we just have had great difficulty building here in the state. Final thing that I'm still up in the air in terms of all of that stuff, and welcome.

The final thing I would say is that with Director Bonham in particular, that you have been an extremely articulate spokesperson for trying to modernize, whether it was when we were having the Joshua Tree conversations, et cetera, the value of modernizing. And I believe that we can do better. We can do better for the environment if we don't just stand pat. I think after 50 years, we've learned that we can do better. And I have significant confidence in you and your department just because of the way you've handled yourselves, that you will make it better if we make change. The question is, what's the right process to make those changes? I think we had two witnesses today just on this particular aspect that brought up some good points about the golden eagle and good points about trying to move forward. I want to try to make sure that we capture we can't lose the sense of urgency while we try to try to do that. We do have to make change if we really want to reach those goals because the ultimate environmental goal is to not cook ourselves to death. Thank you.

And I want to respect the secretary's time, so thank you for being here. Please don't stay for us. But, Director Bonham, you're not off the hot seat yet, I don't think. Anybody else have any questions on this final proposal? Seeing none. Okay, great. Well, then I take it back, Director Bonham. Well, thank you all. We will be going to the phone lines for support and opposition on all of these before we do so. So if you want to call in, now's your opportunity. We will bring the bill hearing back from recess so that we can call the roll for Ms. Pellerin on the bills before we go to the phone. Thank you. And I see the administration folks leaving, which I totally understand. I want to thank all of you for being here, no, no, that was not my point. Sorry, Ms. Miller. But I just wanted before you left, I wanted to thank you for being here and for engaging so robustly with us.

I know it's an important part of the process, and we do appreciate it. I think that my takeaways rom today that I hope you heard were concerns about the process and how we can get the language right, given what is being asked of us as a Legislature, and then obviously a slew of concerns on the policy themselves. So thank you for being here. Oh, she's ready. So we will call the role on SB 668.

SB 668, motion is do pass to appropriations. Pellerin. Pellerin, aye.

That bill has 14, zero, and it is out. So I will adjourn the bill hearing, but we will remain in for the informational hearing and we will go to the phone lines. Moderator.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to testify in support or opposition to today's informational hearing, please press one followed by zero. We'll begin with line seven.

Hi, my name is Stephen King, I'm with Environment California. Environment California supports the accelerating environmental mitigation trailer bill, and we oppose the Delta Reform Act streamlining bill and we also oppose the Fully Protected Species reclassification bill. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 28.

Good morning. This is Stephanie Estrada from Cruz Strategies on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, in strong support of Governor Newsom's plan to streamline critical infrastructure projects. We urge the Legislature to work with the administration to adopt these proposals as part of this year's state budget. Thank you.

Please go ahead line 36.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roschen on behalf of California Citrus Mutual, California Walnuts, Nisei Farmers League, forest equipment dealers, California Fresh Fruit, and the California Grocers Association, in support. Thank you.

You are open, line 33.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kate Poole. I'm a senior director at Natural Resources Defense Council. In general, NRDC opposes passing these trailer bills as part of the budget rather than through regular order, because as you've heard, many of them propose significant, and in some cases seemingly unjustified policy changes without fault public input and legislative vetting. We understand and are sympathetic to the need to deal urgently with the climate and biodiversity.

We are just taking name, position, and organization at this time.

All right, thank you. NRDC opposes these bills.

Thank you.

Please go ahead line 22.

This is Kyle Griffith speaking on behalf of Californians for Water Security, in support of the full package. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 13, you are open. 13, are you muted? Line 13?

I believe that, is that me?

Yes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Nick Jensen and I represent the California Native Plant Society in opposition.

Please go ahead line 39.

Good afternoon, this is Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association, and we are in support of the full package. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 38, you are open.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Chris Wilson with the Los Angeles County Business Federation, known as BizFed, in support of the governor's infrastructure package. Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 32.

Hello, Peter Drekmeier, policy director for the Tuolumne River Trust, expressing opposition to the trailer bills.

Line 40, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, in strong support of the governor's infrastructure package. Thank you.

41, your line is open.

Good afternoon, Jamie Miner on behalf of Santa Margarita Water District and Eastern Municipal Water District, in support and echo the comments from our colleagues from ACWA. Thank you.

Line 15, please go ahead. Line 15, I think they might have said 45 to you. It's line 15.

Oh, hi. Is that me?

Yeah, that's you. Please go ahead. Sorry about that.

Okay, thank you. Hi, my name is Julia Dowell. I'm with San Francisco Baykeeper. We strongly oppose the process of pushing these policy changes through the budget trailer bill process. We also in particular strongly opposed the Delta Reform Act trailer bill and the Fully Protected Species trailer bill. Thank you.

And we'll give another reminder. Please press one followed by zero. If you would like to make a comment on today's informational hearing. Line 42, please go ahead.

This is Deirdre Des Jardins with Climate Action California, a statewide network of climate advocacy groups and California Water Research. We do not believe that these bills actually advance climate mitigation. We're concerned that they're with regard to building roads, we're concerned about the Delta Tunnel project.

Thank you. We're taking name, organization, and position at this time.

Okay. Opposition, thank you. Opposed both on process and substance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 37, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Cole Klein, on behalf of California Forward Action Fund, in full support of governance infrastructure package. Thank you.

Thank you.

And Madam Chair, we have cleared the queue.

Thank you. With that, we are adjourned.