Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Okay, good. We're going to start. With announcement. Yeah, we don't have him yet. I saw him in the parking lot. He's on his way over. Okay, so, good morning, everyone. Welcome to my maiden voyage as your fearless leader. Before we begin, I just want to thank Speaker Rivas for appointing me as chair of this Committee.

And I want to say that I'm very much looking forward to working with my colleagues to advance policies within the Committee's jurisdiction that will benefit all Californians and make our communities more climate resilient and protect our most precious resource, water. I'd also like to welcome new Members to the Committee. Assembly Member Addis, as you start with a. We start with you. Assemblymember Alvarez, who I'm sure is on his way. Assemblymember Bonta and Assemblymember Luz Rivas, as well as welcoming returning Committee Member Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia.

And you've served before, though Lori, and obviously Assembly Member Mathis have, and our Assembly Member Hart. Okay, good. Well, you can keep me in line. To ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today, this hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website and Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room four.

For each Bill, we're allowing up to two main witnesses in support and two main witnesses opposition probably familiar to most of you in this room, given the short agenda. We won't impose time limits, but ask the witnesses to be concise. Following the primary witnesses, remaining witnesses are asked to limit their testimony. Name, organization, position on the Bill. All right, we don't have the one and only author that we need, but I did see him in the garage.

So as soon as he gets here, we will begin the proceedings. Until then, check your emails, use the time wisely, and we'll see you in a minute. Thanks. So we do have a quorum. Let's go ahead and I'll ask Madam Secretary to call the role.

Pappen? Here. Pappin? Here. Mathis? Here. Mathis? Here. Addis? Addis? Here. Alanice Alvarez? Bennett? Bennett? Here. Bonta? Bonta? Here. Davies? Davies? Here. Garcia. Hart? Hart? Here. Luz Rivas. Luz Rivas? Here. Schiavo? Weber?

Okay, we've got a quorum, we just don't have an author. We'll be back with you shortly. Mr. Connolly, you're up. Come on in. We do have a quorum, so we're ready for you. AB 828.

We'll call those GSAs this morning, local water users, and the Department of Water Resources to design and implement SGMA. However, groundwater sustainability plans in some cases did not do a thorough job identifying managed wetlands and small community water systems in their basins and how GSP management will adversely impact them. Managed wetlands are a critical natural resource for our state. They provide significant habitat for endangered species, migratory birds of the Pacific flyway, and many other native wildlife and fish populations.

Managed wetlands also improve local water quality, aid in flood protection, provide recreation, and offer opportunities for scientific research. Unfortunately, only 5% of California's historic wetlands remain. These important public trust resources continue to face numerous threats, including water availability. Nearly 85% of Californians depend in whole or in part on groundwater for their public water supply. That percentage increases even more for small water systems, which have fewer than 3,300 connections, and service communities whose access to clean drinking water is most at risk.

These disadvantaged communities usually depend on a single source for their water supply, leaving them vulnerable to drought or overpumping by their neighbors. They also face affordability challenges and lack the local economy needed to address financial and technical issues that often come when running a public water system. This Bill offers a modest and reasonable step toward protecting safe and clean water accessibility for our communities. This Bill now only exempts the average groundwater usage annually from 2015 to 2020.

Any increase over that average is subject to regulation by the GSAs. This Bill also now sunsets after three years, allowing all stakeholders the opportunity to further analyze the impact of SGMA on these vulnerable water users and the impact that these protections have on furthering sustainability in all of our basins. With me to testify this morning is Ellen Weir, General Counsel at Grassland Water District, and Jennifer Clary, State Director at Clean Water Action. Looking forward to the discussion.

I think I'm going to go first if I can figure out. It's on. Great. Good morning. It's been a few years since I testified, you know, COVID just and then being Director sent me away. But thank you very much for having me here Chair Papan and Members. my name is Jennifer Clary. I'm the California Director for Clean Water Action. And for more than 30 years, our organization has worked to improve access to safe and affordable drinking water for small California communities.

And one reason why we engaged in SGMA from the beginning, was because most of these communities rely upon groundwater. It's so easy when you've got a little neighborhood of like 50 homes, you just stick a straw on the ground, pump it up, because groundwater, you don't even need to treat like surface water as long as it's clean. So many of these communities, or historic communities, they've been dependent on groundwater, and that groundwater is gradually slipping away because of overpumping.

So over the past few years, we worked with California, Audubon and other environmental organizations. We did a comprehensive review of every single groundwater sustainability plan in the state. I think there was about 115. So we looked at them, we went through a rigorous process, tried to identify how they addressed the environmental and environmental justice concerns of our organizations. And what we found is that a majority of groundwater sustainability plans failed to meaningfully engage vulnerable communities. I don't blame them. It's hard to do.

I mean, if you're a volunteer trying to run your own water system, do you have time to go advocate for groundwater sustainability when you don't understand most of the documents, when no one really takes the time to reach out to you. So what we found is that that was the case. Most of these communities didn't know what was going on. And in fact, most, six of the 21 critically overdrafted basins in the state, their plans were found to be inadequate and referred to State Water Board.

And they're currently going through the process of potentially being put on probation. So it's a big problem. SGMA is not here for small problems. Many of these basins have to reduce their pumping by about 50% or even more to meet sustainability. And our concern is that applying a 50% cut to a small water system is not really doable. It's not like you can fallow half the homes in the community. You really need to figure out a balanced way to do that.

But the alternative for most of these groundwater agencies is that if you use too much water, you pay a fine. And for these communities, they're really on the edge of sustainability. Any little problem just sends them crazy and they lose access to water. Paying more just creates an affordability issue. So as Assembly Member Connolly said, they lack the economies of scale to access alternative supplies or even to offer water conservation programs. These agencies don't have that.

They're in extreme disadvantage when it comes to negotiating on behalf of their community. Again, they don't have generally paid staff. So AB 828 would simply allow small, disadvantaged communities to continue to use the same quantity of water they did in that five-year planning period. It's a very narrow exemption, would account for a tiny percentage of water use in the basin, maybe 1% or less. With the exemptions, they would not be subject to fines for their water use unless it exceeded that amount.

But they would still have to pay fees to maintain their groundwater sustainability agency. So they're not getting out without a pass. And just to say, these communities, they're part of the region, they're part of the culture, they're part of the economy, and they're just part of the life of the region. So it's really important that we find a way to sustain them. These are hundreds of small communities, mostly in the Central Valley. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Ellen Weir with Grassland Water District and Grassland Resource Conservation District. We're located in Merced County in an area that contains wildlife refuges and conservation easements, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the passage of AB 828 because it will reverse some of the unintended impacts of the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Unfortunately, Sigma failed to foresee the potential damage to wetlands that depend on limited groundwater pumping.

It's a matter of great concern for us. Almost every acre of the Central Valley has been converted to agricultural, industrial, or urban use. As the Assemblyman noted, only 5% of our wetlands remain to support millions of migratory birds and other wildlife species that depend on them. We've lost 3 billion birds in North America since 1970 and will continue to lose more with climate change and habitat loss.

We cannot afford to lose the remaining wetlands we have here if we want to maintain sustainable levels of biodiversity and support outdoor recreation and heritage. I've had many meetings with wetland managers in basins where groundwater agencies are cutting off access to water, and wetland owners have also started receiving bills for many thousands of dollars a year. They will not be able to support their habitat if SGMA continues to be implemented in this way.

Without swift action, our state will face a rapid, significant loss of wetlands in places where their protection is most desperately needed. I've worked extensively with our local groundwater sustainability agency, and I firmly believe that GSAs will not be harmed by implementation of this Bill. Only 1.2% of the land and groundwater base in critically overdrafted subbasin is in wetlands. This is not a situation where the state is undercutting the ability to raise local funds as the remaining 99% can absorb that small percentage.

Pumping for managed wetlands is not the cause of today's overdraft, and by capping wetlands at their historic levels of pumping, with this Bill, we can maintain those assets without undoing our efforts to achieve sustainability. This Bill will not violate constitutional requirements. The Legislature has already exempted certain groundwater users from Sigma, including domestic well owners, tribal, and federal lands. In retrospect, we think protections for wetlands and small communities should have been in SGMA's original language.

Today, you have to weigh the slight potential increase in fees against the millions of dollars of public tax money that has been spent on these conservation easements and wetland restoration. Those will be lost. Those investments will be lost if these wetlands dry up, and there will be local economic impacts if hunting and other recreation continues to further decline. This is not our first attempt to address this issue.

We have raised it during our review of the groundwater sustainability plans, and we've raised it directly with groundwater sustainability agencies and state agencies. AB 828 is necessary because no one is stepping in to protect these important habitats. Wetland conservation is one of our success stories here in the Central Valley, but that success is fragile unless legislators like you take this time to protect our last remaining fragments of California's wetlands.

So we encourage you to support AB 828 with the amendments because it is in the spirit of SGMA achieving sustainability and protecting natural resources so that future generations can continue to enjoy them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any opposition in the room that's going to come testify? Come on forward. Welcome. Please introduce yourselves and go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I'm Alex Biering from the California Farm Bureau, and today I'm here on behalf of the nearly 30,000 Farm Bureau Members, a majority of whom operate small or medium-sized farms and many of whom are entirely dependent on groundwater for their supply. We were also heavily involved in negotiating the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act more than 10 years ago. I believe this Bill is well-intentioned, but unfortunately, I also believe that it sets groundwater basins up to fail.

The author and sponsors say this Bill is necessary because certain groundwater needs have been ignored under SGMA. To the contrary, every groundwater sustainability plan, or GSP, is required to consider and account for all different types of groundwater needs and pumping uses, including those this Bill exempts from regulation. Small community water systems and private wetlands that pump groundwater primarily to support duck clubs.

Further, impacts to drinking water supplies and community water system wells are some of the undesirable effects that SGMA seeks to avoid with its implementation, along with effects to naturally occurring groundwater-dependent ecosystems. If a plan falls short in those areas, the State Water Board will intervene and force groundwater sustainability agencies to fix it. That's what's happening now for six of the basins in the San Joaquin Valley through the probationary hearing process that the sponsors mentioned. That's why the Bill is unnecessary.

Meanwhile, dozens of other GSPs have already been approved by the state and are being implemented with pumping limits and fees to Fund those plans and projects, and their success would be in jeopardy with the exemptions of this Bill. When it was passed, a core tenet of SGMA was that it would apply to all groundwater users in a basin, with very few exceptions, such as domestic well owners.

That hasn't changed since then, because when you give certain categories of groundwater pumpers a free pass to pump as much as they want, you move the bar higher for everybody else in the basin who will now have to reduce their pumping even further. All landowners who pump groundwater and apply it to the surface of the land should remain subject to SGMA, as they are today. It doesn't matter whether landowners are doing it to grow food or doing it to attract waterfowl.

PPIC estimates that as many as 700,000 acres of land in the San Joaquin Valley will go out of production under SGMA and with them, tens of thousands of jobs. Some estimates are closer to 1 million acres. By giving some pumpers a free pass, those numbers and the resulting pain for valley communities will surely increase. Thanks for the opportunity to speak today. I'm happy to answer questions.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce. We are also unfortunately opposed AB 828 because we believe provisions are inconsistent with the California Constitution, namely propositions 26 and 218, and that it will also unfairly burden other water users.

Proposition 26 provides that regulatory fees and I would just like to point out that the Bill says fees, not fines, must bear a reasonable relationship to the payer's burdens on or benefits received from a governmental activity and cannot be more than is necessary to cover those costs. Proposition 218 requires the same thing for property-related services. Together, these propositions require that everyone benefiting from a governmental service must pay their fair share, no more and no less.

AB 828 would essentially exempt classes of water users from paying GSA-related fees, which means that they would be receiving the benefits of a GSA's actions to implement steps towards sustainably managing groundwater. But they would not have to pay for all of those services. In order for the GSA to continue providing the level of service that they do, the remaining ratepayer base would have to make up the shortfall, meaning that they would be paying disproportionately more than their fair share.

California voters placed a premium on a proportional ratepayer base in passing propositions 26 and 218, and we think AB 828 would violate that core concept of proportionality. Indeed, it becomes legally impossible for a GSA to comply with both the Constitution and AB 828. The GSA would either have to choose complying with one or the other and risk litigation for the one that they declined to choose.

The only way to avoid this outcome is for the state to backfill the fees that would have otherwise been paid by the water users. We're concerned that undercutting the ability for GSAs to fund their efforts will stymie their work toward achieving groundwater sustainability. Finally, we're concerned that AB 828 conflicts with long-standing water law governing the relative priorities of water uses and the more recent Human Right to Water Act.

Prioritizing managed wetlands above drinking water and irrigation water does not support the needs of rural communities. As my colleague outlined, AB 828 shifts even more of the burden of achieving groundwater sustainability onto agricultural water users, which translates to reduced acreage planted and thus reduced job opportunities and higher food prices. We appreciate the work the Committee has done in offering amendments, but unfortunately, we must remain opposed for these reasons. Thank you.

Thank you so much. So we will now go to me-too folks. So is there anybody that wants to come forward, either in support or in opposition? Just please, if you could give your name and who you represent, whether you're yay or nay.

Good morning. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife, in support. Thank you.

Roger Dickinson, on behalf of Civic Well, formerly Local Government Commission, with some interest in this subject, in support. Thanks very much.

Roger's taller than me. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group, on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. Opposed.

Hi there, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Mark Hennelly with California Waterfowl Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Bill Gaines, on behalf of the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association, the Black Brandt Group, California Houndsmen for Conservation, San Diego County Wildlife Federation, the California Hawking Club, the California Bowman Hunter State Archery Association, and the Cal-Ore Wetlands and Waterfowl Council, in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Samantha Samuelsen on behalf of Audubon California, sponsor of the Bill.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members, Abraham Mendoza, on behalf of the Community Water Center Leadership, Council for Justice and Accountability, and Clean Water Action, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Annalie Augustine, on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association, California Seed Association, California Association of Wheat Growers and California Bean Shippers Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Raquel Ayala with Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition, a coalition of 40 agricultural water suppliers in the San Joaquin Valley, in a strong opposition of the Bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Kendra Daijogo with the Guaca group on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District and the Kings River Conservation District, in opposition.

Dennis Albiani with California advocates on behalf of Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, and we oppose. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Ed Manning with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the Western Growers Association, in opposition.

Hi again. Samantha Samuelson for the Nature Conservancy, in support.

Okay, we'll bring it back to many for questions. Mr. Alvarez?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author and testimony. I am newer to the topic, new Member of the Committee, so I have some questions that might be a little bit more simple or basic, so I asked for your patience. I heard mention of prior exemptions from some of the testimony. Were those exemptions made upon the approval of SGMA or post the approval of SGMA?

They were included in the original Bill.

Thank you. Do we have a number, this is probably for the proponents, a number of how many communities are being impacted, either in raw numbers or. I heard percentages mentioned for wetland 1.2%, I think for disadvantaged 1%. But do we have an idea of what that means?

It's different for every basin. So, for instance, I was asked to review the San Joaquin basin last night. There's 425 public water systems in that basin. 42 would qualify under this act and they use about 2,500 acre feet a year.

Okay, that's just one example.

That's one example. And the basin uses 1.3 million acre feet. What you should know is these overdrafted basins, forgive me, are overdrafted because of agriculture. So agriculture uses the overwhelming amount of water and almost all the surface water and a majority of the groundwater. So all urban and rural use, drinking water use tends to be just a really small portion of the overall water usage.

So if we use the example of San Joaquin you mentioned, 42 would be impacted by this particular Bill. How many of those under the approved plan or submitted plans? I don't know if they're all. Have they all been approved? Are they part of the ones under review? What is the status of those 42?

East San Joaquin. The East San Joaquin groundwater sustainability plan was approved.

Okay, and what did it call for in that instance for the 42 communities? Reduction of what amounts?

So what we're looking at now, I beg your pardon. What we're looking at now is that most of the basins are setting their allocations now. So I don't recall what the percentage, I apologize, because there are a lot of plans and it's hard to review them because they're so big. But I think East San Joaquin, as I recall, wasn't one of the larger ones. I think it was maybe 20%. I could be behind, but that's the number that's coming to my mind.

But for a lot of basins, they're just now getting their allocations together because that's really hard.

Do the plans, I don't anticipate this being answered in a way that helps answer this question, but do the plans by any chance call for, specifically, I'm concerned about both of the communities that this exemption is about. Clearly for the users of disadvantaged communities, there's a financial implication to fees that have to be paid. Is there any call within the plan on how to address that in any of the plans that are impacting these communities?

No, the plans aren't really discussing impacts. I mean, one of our difficulties in evaluating the plans is they're supposed to consider the impacts on different users of their plan and they generally fail to do that.

Could I add a little? Okay, no, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Jennifer, you know, so I did just want to note that, like I said in my comments earlier, impacts to drinking water wells and water for communities who are groundwater reliant is something that SGMA actually seeks to avoid. So it's not supposed to impact folks in the way that I think the catastrophic picture that we may all be thinking of right now.

Additionally, of the six basins that were referred to the waterboard for state intervention, one of the reasons that a few of them were referred to the waterboard, including in Tulare, is that there were judged to be an urgent need to project drinking water quality and quantity for small communities.

So this is something that the Water Board is actually taking on as they are intervening here and potentially taking over these water basin in these groundwater basins and managing them at a state level until they get their act together a little bit more. So that's actually something that they've actually are even going further in some cases than what was in SGMA in terms of protecting those things. So to suggest that these are sort of left to the wolves and just get the drugs, I don't know that that's necessarily the case.

And that's what I'm trying to understand because certainly there's communities that I would not like to see impacted because there are other impacts to those communities, primarily disadvantaged communities. But I don't have a clear understanding of how many. You mentioned there's six out of 21 basins that have been submitted that are under review and I'd like to better understand how much of that is covering these disadvantaged communities that have been identified. And I think that's information that I need to have.

Let me move on to another topic on Prop 218 and 26 constitutionality matters.

Have we had an opportunity to get maybe from the proponent's side, any legal counsel review on that ledge, council review on the issue of, I'm concerned about this more from a General Fund perspective, given where we stand, that if we do have to backfill and cover the fees associated with some of these areas, that's a cost that in a year like this is going to be challenging and it doesn't mean that it's not something we don't want to do.

We might want to do that and that's okay, but we need to know what that cost is. Have we done analysis in that regard?

It was not raised in the report from the Committee and to my knowledge it has not been specifically addressed by legislative council, but, Ellen.

I am a lawyer. I'm not a Prop 218 lawyer, but my understanding of the law is that SGMA granted local agencies the authority to collect fees and put limits on what those fees could be and who they could be collected from. For instance, a domestic well owner cannot be charged a fee under SGMA. That's in the statute. So Prop 218, Prop 26, they apply within the bounds of what the Legislature has granted to a local agency to collect.

I don't think this will be a case of backfilling. Even though some of our wetland owners are receiving bills for $12,000 this year and are immediately in danger of having to abandon their conservation easement. That is happening right now in Merced Basin where the plan was approved. It's such a small drop in the bucket compared to the tens, hundreds of millions of dollars that are needed to fix the overdraft problem in this basin.

So I really don't see a constitutional issue here for a small exemption similar to the ones that were already built into SGMA because the constitutional limitations on the collection of fees are necessarily bounded by the authority that the Legislature grants to a local agency to collect those fees.

Yeah, I would just say that though my thinking and understanding of 26 and 218 is that the exemptions occurred prior to the plans being constructed and submitted and therefore didn't take into consideration those specific exempted areas, but they did take into consideration, rightfully or wrong, these two that we're looking to exempt today. So I still remain questions on that for me. Lastly, Madam Chair, that's okay on probationary reviews. So six out of 21, some are being further reviewed. Can you provide me, specifically for disadvantaged communities, is there anything that you're hearing from those reviews that are addressing the communities that could be impacted like this?

Well.

You might want to speak into the microphone.

Sorry, so the plans that are under probation, they're not discussing fees right now. So I think the thing to remember is we have why the plans have gone into probation. And largely it's for a variety of reasons. So, for instance, some of the basins have had problems coordinating and can't come to agreement. Some basins, in some cases, Department of Water Resources, couldn't really justify passing basins with hundreds of wells going dry on an annual basis.

So fees are still at the local level and they're still being negotiated at the local level. The State Water Board will charge fees. It's part of the statute. And what they're doing is they're holding a series of hearings over the next year. So out of the six basins, only the first report for Tulare Basin has come out. And that's going to be heard in April. And then they'll about every three or four months after hear another basin.

Thank you. Just a process question. Is this going to go to another Committee as well?

Just Approps.

Thank you.

I don't know if I should say just Approps. Mr. Bennett, good morning.

Good morning. Groundwater is one of the most complicated issues that we deal with in the State of California. I would like to use this opportunity to quickly make a few points and try to put this in perspective. And the perspective I'd first like to put it is you just heard the testimony. We're talking, like in one small area that she's referring to 2500 acre feet when they're pumping over a million acre feet.

All right, so we're not talking about the rape of the groundwater in a particular area. We're talking about trying to make adjustments for the smallest, most vulnerable users that are out there. Second thing is we heard pretty significantly long testimony about Prop 28, about the constitutional issues and the fees, et cetera. But my understanding is the way this Bill has been amended, fees are no longer being covered. Is that correct? I'm going to ask Committee staff.

Yes. And fines were limited as well.

There is not. So in spite of the testimony you just heard and all the reasons why, because of fees, in fact, fees, they will have to pay their fees. What they don't have to pay are the fines if they go over, and that's, I believe the way I've read.

It, it would be up to, if you go beyond the average from 2015 to 2020, then you could be assessed fines depending on the locality and how that works out.

Exactly. So you could still have to pay your fines.

Correct.

But you have to pay your fees. Am I correct? So straighten that out for us, please.

It's my understanding you can pump up to that threshold.

Exactly.

Without a fee. Do I have that right?

Yeah.

You don't have to pay fees up to the threshold?

Correct.

Okay. Well, my reading of this Member, like I said, groundwater is one of the most complicated things

No doubt.

That that are out there, because my reading, in terms of the way the staff wrote this, is to ensure that they weren't exempt in terms of paying the fees.

Well, if I may, it was originally drafted that there would be no fees if you went over the threshold.

Right.

And we eliminated that.

Exactly. So now there are.

And I think it was characterized as a free pass, which was completely inaccurate.

Because they will be paying fees. The third thing I would just like to point out is you're talking about the 2500 acre feet out of over a million in terms of being pumped. The representation of small pumpers and conservation districts, managed conservation districts. It is very difficult for them to have good representation at groundwater sustainability agencies. I mean, the way the agency's authorities were set up, it was the most powerful almost always dominated the creation of those agencies.

And you just don't see that kind of representation across the board in terms of the state. And the question is, DWR says there's not a specific exemption for the small water users. But in talking to the authors, one of them was here today testifying in favor of this Bill, talking to Senator Fran Pavely, the author of the Bill. Certainly her intention in talking to. Her intention was for them to be there. And there is a reference in the Bill to ecosystems dependent upon groundwater.

And I don't know how you could not define a wetlands that is dependent upon groundwater as being an ecosystem that's dependent upon it. And if human beings are considered part of the ecosystem, then certainly small 50, 60 homes around a particular well. My final point is we're talking about a very small amount of pumping. That small amount of pumping is very underrepresented generally in the system. And there is a safeguard in here that it's not an exemption forever and it's going to cause a problem.

It is three years, and let's get this figured out for these people in this three-year period. And I have seen over and over again a really strong reaction to these in other situations by people going, oh, this is the worst thing in the world because of a precedent, but it's almost always when it is somebody who is underrepresented like this. So I just think this is a modest proposal.

I think staff has done a good job of trying to make sure that it is a modest proposal in terms of the fix, and it would be a shame to not send that message that we do want this fixed over this three-year period of time. Thank you very much. Sounds like a motion. I'll make the motion to support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Do we have a second? Second from Mr. Hart. Mr. Mathis?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I personally think you're really close on this Bill, but not quite yet there. I do have some concerns with the smalls because back in 2015, we actually passed some consolidation bills to make sure that the small districts that were felling would be able to consolidate in with larger districts and be sustainable.

And this is something that I've seen quite a bit of success with in the San Joaquin Valley, being the Member that represents the area that a lot of this is happening in. Too often, the smalls, they can't afford to pay, the communities can't afford the treatment plants and everything else that needs to go into it, and they end up consolidating in with the larger cities.

And so when you look at all of these aspects pulled together, it's economically better for them to get tied in with the larger cities, and it removes the added administrative cost to the people in those areas who are often immigrant disadvantaged families. So I think that's definitely something that.

It already looks like you've got your second and your motion, but as this Bill goes forward into appropriations, I would encourage you to look at those things for how consolidations work and see how you can kind of add some of that and create that buffer, because we're going to a budget crisis, so we need to be very smart on how we're managing the monies that are moving around. The other part of this that drives a lot of concern is what this does to the agricultural communities.

And I'll just give you some basic numbers. In the San Joaquin Valley, it's averaged about one in four jobs is related to Ag, and there's a multiplier here, though, when you think about agricultural families, you've got the family and then you talk about the whole 2.5 kids and all of that. So let's just call it, you got one in four jobs. Let's just use the multiplier of four here. Keep this simple math.

But if you have 50,000 jobs times four, now you have 200,000 people displaced because you lost ag jobs. Where do 200,000 people go? Because those are the large cities in my district and they're smaller than that. So when we start looking at losing agricultural water, it's not just losing water. It's not just fallowing acreage. It's displacing hundreds of thousands of families, people that have nowhere else to go. Because once those jobs are gone, they're not coming back. Those people are not coming back.

And it goes into the mass migration problem that we have, where we're seeing our residents pack up and leave. Because when the jobs are gone, and it's not just the agriculture jobs, because the spouse works as a teacher or a nurse or in the local hospital or at the pharmacy or at the grocery store. And that's a huge problem we as a body really need to pay attention to as we continue to cut at agriculture in this state.

So clearly, it looks like you've got your motion in a second. But as this Bill goes forward, and for all of us as a body, I really encourage you to pay attention to these numbers and what's happening to our agricultural communities because we are creating dust bowl scenarios for them. And I know there's talk of, zero, yeah, they can be energy, solar farmers and these things. That's great, but the jobs aren't there. It's not the same math.

The families are being displaced and it's a real problem.

Thank you, Assembly Member Mathis. Anybody else? Okay, I will make one comment, and that is that this is a balancing of interests and we very much tried to thread the needle. I want to thank the author for working with us as it related to the sunset. I think we've got a reasonable time frame.

This is not meant to be an exemption in perpetuity, but rather to get in there and do the work and make sure that these communities are protected in a reasonable way as it relates to SGMA. So we have a motion and a second to do pass as amended to Approps. Would you like to close?

Yes, I would. And I appreciate the work that went into this. I appreciate all the testimony and the great discussion this morning, including the interests of agriculture, which is so big in our state. Really just to emphasize a couple of points, though, the unique challenges we're talking about related to disadvantaged communities and managed wetlands in those communities as we work toward this broader goal of water sustainability throughout our state,

AB 828 will help ensure that the groundwater needs of these vulnerable users are better accounted for in GSPs and SGMA as it is further improved and implemented. And I think this three-year sunset does play into that goal. So, with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Clerk.

AB 828. Motion is do pass, as amended, to Appropriations. [Roll call].

Okay, looks like we're there, but we'll leave the roll open. And thank you all for the robust discussion.

Mr. Alvarez, welcome back. We're doing a roll call vote. This is 828, whatever it was, do pass as amended to Approps. Where are you?

[Roll call].

Okay, that passes eight to two. Thank you. We're adjourned.