Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Secretary, can we call the roll on AB 397 which is up for reconsideration?

[Roll Call]

Two to five. Yeah, we'll put it on call. Our last Bill today, AB 1554. Patterson will be presentation only J. Patterson either. J. Patterson, if you are watching this, please come to the Committee room, room 4417. Yeah.

Assemblyman Patterson has entered the building. Afternoon, sir. Yeah. You're here to present AB 1554. Presentation only. You may begin.

All right, perfect. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, for bearing with me. It's the first two year Bill I've had here, so appreciate the patience for me here today to present AB 1554. This would allow a CEQA exemption for forest management and fuel load projects in areas that are from moderate to high fire severity zones in 2019. As you might recall, Governor Newsom reduced the red tape so that state could expedite forest management projects around 200 communities in California.

I represent both Placer and El Dorado counties. My district and areas around it have been home to some of the largest wildfires in the state's history. The Caldor Fire, for example, burned nearly 222,000 acres and leveled the community of grizzly flats, which is right outside my district. The fire cost the state $2.1 billion. These fires cause an insane amount of particulate matter and carbon to be released into the atmosphere, but the health effects extend beyond that.

For example, when these massive wildfires hit our watersheds, the waterways and reservoirs are filled with debris that has to be dredged. It costs millions of dollars to clear the reservoirs of debris and bring the capacity back to normal. I had an opportunity to tour the watershed in placer El Dorado and Sacramento via helicopter. It was quite amazing how dense the forest is. Equally impressive was that the fire avoided many areas that were properly managed.

As a result, many water agencies, for example, are moving forward to forest management projects simply to protect our water storage and water quality. Two of those agencies are in my district, the Placer County Water Agency and the El Dorado Irrigation District. I printed here. This is a 477 page environmental document that shows some of the little bit of ridiculousness that agencies have to go through to manage the forest. This particular project was for 564 acres that were treated at three locations within my district.

Weber Reservoir, Sly park recreation Area, which is right outside, and camp five maintenance yard. It's a very significant document and took just under two years to complete. All the work necessary to comply with CEQA AB 1554 serves as a direct approach to addressing some of the state's most pressing issues, wildfires, environmental quality, and water. Last year, I took a trip to grizzly Flats.

I met a lady in her 70s who is shoveling snow next to her trailer that she lived in, as she's trying to make a decision on if she's even going to rebuild her house. And it's kind of problematic for me to think that she has to make that decision when we could have been managing the forest around her house the entire time, and now she's sleeping in a trailer in the middle of a snowstorm, so it shouldn't take two years.

And as a result, I just wanted to give an opportunity to Brian Paulson here with the El Dorado irrigation District to talk a little bit about some of the work they did in preparing this document. And if we could have a couple of minutes, that'd be great.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Patterson, and thank you, chair Brian and the honorable Members of this Committee. My name is Brian Poulsen. I'm General Counsel at El Dorado Irrigation District, which is located in the foothills not too far from here. California, as you know, faces escalating threats from wildfire, which we mitigate through well planned fuels reduction projects. As one component of the state's overall wildfire strategy, I'd like to offer three reasons why this Committee should consider exempting fuel reduction projects from CEQA.

First, fuel reduction within high fire hazard severity zones, by its nature, is designed to enhance overall ecosystem health. In these areas, wildfire presents one of the most devastating threats to the environment itself. By reducing fire fuels, we not only safeguard against wildfires, but also foster biodiversity, protect watersheds, and promote resilient ecosystems. Second, the current CEQA process, as the Assemblymember Patterson indicated, can result in significant delays of projects.

To my left is a copy of the environmental document, which was a mitigated negative declaration that we adopted for a fire fuels reduction project on our facilities located adjacent to the communities that we serve. The delay in conducting that project nearly threatened the CAL FIRE grant that we received to actually undertake the work itself. So streamlining the approval process will expand and enable the timely execution of projects, ensuring that our state remains resilient in the face of escalating fire threats.

This exemption would not compromise environmental standards. Third, fuels reduction projects are essential for the protection of lives and property. The devastating consequences of recent wildfires, such as the Caldor fire, underscore the urgency of proactive measures to reduce fuel loads on our landscapes. By enacting legislation to exempt these projects from CEQA, we can expedite their implementation, allowing for more timely and effective wildfire prevention. In conclusion, I urge the Committee to consider enacting this legislation that exempts fuels reduction projects from CEQA. Doing so will demonstrate a commitment to the safety and well being of our communities, the preservation of our environment, and the economic prosperity of our great state. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this Bill? Name organization, position on the Bill.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood Companies in support. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Chris.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. My name is Peter Ansel from the California Farm Bureau in support.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. I'm Tony Firenzi with Placer County Water Agency. We'd like to register support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this Bill?

Good afternoon, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition to AB 1554. This Bill is unnecessary at best and damaging at worst. It attempts to exempt from environmental analysis activities that do the least to prevent wildfire damage to communities.

The most effective vegetation management for home fire safety is for the area within 5ft of or around a home to ensure there's no flammable vegetation touching the home, plus light pruning of vegetation, removing small branches, needles and leaves out to 60 to 100ft from the home. Most medium to high severity fire zones already require this and we're not aware of homeowners running into CEQA restrictions in performing this type of defensible space work.

And having such an amendment such as was suggested could give the mistaken impression that such barriers do or may exist where there are none. If a state or local agency engages in brush clearance, they already often invoke a categorical exemption, such as for repair, maintenance or minor alterations to land. In terms of protecting communities from wildfire, logging and thinning can actually have the opposite effect, increasing fire spread and severity and endangering nearby communities, as we saw in the campfire paradise and other fires.

Importantly, there should be analysis to determine whether particular proposed fuel production I'm sorry, fuels reduction projects, would actually have the intended effect of reducing community fire risk. There's quite a bit of data, including much that's particular to California forests and California fires, that community hardening and defensible space are better investments to reduce wildfire risk than broad scale thinning and logging. There's also better and more community jobs in this area. We're happy to provide you the extensive data on this.

We're also concerned that tribes and indigenous fire practitioners are not mentioned in the Bill. They would have crucial insight into best practices for carrying out and mitigating the impacts of tools that could work, such as cultural burning and prescribed fires. No Bill to encourage wildfire management should exclude them from the decision making table. The evidence shows that there are better ways to address wildfire safety and forestry management. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is anybody else in the room who would like to register their opposition name organization position on the Bill? Seeing none. Mr. Patterson, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate know just a couple comments. Most of the area in which Caldor fire burned, for example, there are no structures around it. People aren't going to be out there clearing 5ft from their structures because there are no structures. Unfortunately, a major part of the forest was burned because it was too thick. That's the bottom line.

And so we're trying to come up with solutions with that and I appreciate, obviously, we've talked over the last year with Committee staff and previous Chairman, Chairwoman and I appreciate the amendments that were offered. I will say I appreciate really the hearing because I wanted an opportunity to talk about how important we have to cut some of this red tape.

There's no reason we should have to do 477 pages in two years of analysis to say what we already know, and that's the forest is too dense. It needs to be managed. And we have agencies out there like EID, like PCWA that are willing to do it on their own dime, and we need to give them the opportunity to do that.

And so I'd love to work with the Committee and staff to find a way to cut some of that red tape, maybe a sequel exemption, like proposing the Bill isn't the right one. But if there's something we can do to help cut down that timeline and maybe reduce this to like 100 pages, that would be something I'd be willing to entertain. So thank you very much for the hearing, and I appreciate the time.

Any questions from Committee Members? Comments? Mr. Marisuchi?

Thank you. This is my 10th year in the Legislature, and I've heard a lot of arguments. I've been to tours in high density timber areas, and my overall takeaway is that I think you have a point that we need to streamline the process to be able to engage in forest thinning so that we can try to mitigate wildfire risks that are contributing tremendously to the greenhouse gas emissions that is affecting our efforts to fight climate change.

So I wanted to acknowledge that I think you have a point that we do need to work on streamlining the process. I've introduced Bill's work with the Humboldt Redwood company and others to try to streamline the process. I know that Mr. Wood represents probably more wildfire prone, or at least forestry areas than any other Member in the Legislature, perhaps, Ms. Dahle, but I think your proposal here is just too broad. I would support something that would go beyond defensible space in terms of wildfire mitigation, streamlining efforts. But as your Bill is drafted here today, I cannot support your Bill. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Murastsuchi. Mr. Flora.

Thank you. Chair to the opposition. I might actually take you up on your offer of bringing some of that data. I would love to see that, because I had the privilege of working for the state as a firefighter for a number of years and have 20 years in the fire service in various forms. And there are three things that sustain fire and it's oxygen, it's fuel and ignition.

And so this idea that a reduction of fuel does not improve fire behavior, I'm not sure about that. If there's data that proves me wrong, I would love to see that. But everything that we're teaching in the fire academies says directly opposite of that. And so just please keep that in the back of your mind. When we have trees that are canopies that are touching, you got a house underneath that canopy, we may have 5ft around that house, which is good. That's a good start.

But when it's ripping across the canopy, 5ft on the ground isn't going to matter. So I would just love that data because this is, and I appreciate the author being open minded. Right. And let's have a conversation with Committee staff. And these are tough bills in this Committee. We know this. But I think there is a balance here that I think we could find. So, please, I would love you to drop that off my office because I'd love that information. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Seeing no further, Mr. Hoover.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to briefly thank the author for bringing this Bill. Know we talk a lot about the effects of climate change and how they are intensifying these fires across our state. I think it's time that as lawmakers, we actually make some changes to help adapt to the climate change that we are seeing in our communities and that are impacting the intensity of these fires. And I also just think. I like this Bill because I think the net impact is a positive for the environment.

If we can reduce the fires that are happening in our state, we are reducing the carbon that is getting released into the atmosphere. I think that's a good thing for our climate. And so I just want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward and sparking this conversation. And I look forward to seeing this Bill move forward. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments from Committee Members. Mr. Patterson, this was for presentation only. I want to thank you for the conversations we've had in my short stint here as chair. I know you've been working on this.

For a long time. I know that there's been good bipartisan progress, and so we're going to hold this billing Committee today so that we can continue that progress and get to a version that's going to make the kind of difference that we all would like to see. So thank you again for presenting today.

Great. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Can we open the roll for absent Members on the vote only Bill by.

[Roll Call]

That Bill fails three to six. And with that, the first natural resources Committee hearing of this year is concluded.