Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

We will start. Notwithstanding, no one is here. Actually, everyone is here. All the important people are here. So 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 444 absences. I also want to welcome Assemblymember Gallagher, who should be with us at some point here, back to the committee. He is replacing Assemblymember Dahle for today's hearing due to an approved absence.

Witnesses for each bill, we're allowing up to two main witnesses in support, two main in opposition. Following the primary witnesses, remaining witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to the name, organization, and position on the bill. And I thank you for your cooperation to do that, because it keeps us rolling along. We have five bills on the consent calendar which we will attack once we get a quorum. And I have here that Alvarez will be presenting AB 2091 for Assemblymember Grayson.

Got it? All right. So now that we're here and there's no ability to call the roll, I would certainly like to start with Assemblymember Wood. So come on forward. Thank you for being here in a timely manner. So what do we have here? Assembly Bill 2643, cannabis cultivation and environmental remediation. Good morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair and not Members yet, but I'm sure they're around somewhere. So I'd like to thank start by thanking you and your Committee staff for your work on this bill. Illicit cannabis cultivation poses a serious threat to the California ecosystem and natural resources, particularly those with large-scale habitat destruction, spring, and stream degradation, and the construction of unauthorized reservoirs. Additional habitat restoration is necessary to return comprehensive ecosystem benefits.

In 2015, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I authored AB 243, providing direction to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to initiate watershed restoration projects in areas of Northern California heavily impacted by illicit cannabis cultivation. Additionally, the enactment of Prop 64 led to the establishment of the Cannabis Restoration grant program. Despite the creation of the program, progress on this front has been disappointingly slow.

According to the Department, only three restoration projects on public lands affected by illicit cannabis cultivation have been completed since 2020, utilizing funding from the fund. Recognizing the urgency of the situation, I have authored AB 2643 to build on and improve efforts to protect and restore lands across California. This legislation will establish a framework for these restoration projects, foster greater collaboration between state and federal agencies, and optimize the efficiency of eradication, reclamation, and restoration initiatives.

A key provision of AB 2643 requires that the Department facilitate biannual meetings. One at the beginning of the, and one at the end of the cultivation season. With stakeholders in relevant federal and state agencies, including the National Forest Service. These meetings will serve as forums to lay out the most effective strategies, frameworks, and workflows for identifying, eradicating, reclaiming, and restoring affected lands.

The bill will also enhance reconnaissance efforts by assessing the availability and use of new technologies, such as remote sensing and comprehensive mapping capabilities to identify illicit cultivation sites on public lands. Improving data collection and sharing will enable more targeted and efficient enforcement actions. Elizabeth. I don't know where. I don't know where. Maybe she's cultivating too. Illicit cannabis cultivation and the offenders who damage our natural resources and wildlife cannot win.

And we have to ensure that this restoration work is given the priority and focus it and our treasured environment deserves. Here to testify and support is Greta Wengert, Executive Director of the Integral Ecology Research Center.

Good Morning Assembly Members and Chair. I'm Dr. Greta Wenger, Executive Director of Integral Ecology Research Center. We are a nonprofit scientific research organization located in Northern California. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 2643. For over a decade, IERC, that's our organization, has been gathering and interpreting empirical data on the damages caused by trespass cultivation across California, where we've documented the environmental damage at 600 illegal grow sites.

And along with our partners, we've reclaimed over 300 of these sites, and that amounts to over 200,000 pounds of refuse being removed, including over 100 pounds of hazardous waste. While these numbers may seem substantial, they likely represent less than 5% of the estimated 6th thousand growth sites across California's landscape that we know of. And I want to emphasize the phrase that we know of. Our estimate suggests that only 50% to 70% of the actual sites on California's vast landscape are detected.

Our focused estimation efforts have been implemented on just 1% of California's public landscape. But within that 1%, we've detected an additional 45 sites that were previously unknown. We need tools to more accurately and efficiently estimate the number of currently unknown sites across the remaining 99% of California's unsurveyed landscape and find where those sites are. Assembly Bill 2643 will equip the state with the necessary means to accurately estimate the true scope of the problem and begin devising strategies to locate every site that threatens California.

There is hope if we can locate these sites. We've shown that site site reclamation is the most effective deterrent against reestablishment by growers. For sites that are fully reclaimed, less than 1% are reoccupied while sites that are left unreclaimed, up to 25 or more percent of those sites are reoccupied. Therefore, a statewide framework for site prioritization, reclamation and full habitat restoration is essential.

The collaborative effort fostered by this bill through meetings and enhanced information sharing will significantly bolster conservation efforts and unite all relevant agencies and stakeholders in addressing the challenges faced by our natural landscapes in California. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Any other witnesses? Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition? I didn't think so. Okay. Any other me toos from the public that would like to come and give their name, organization, and opinion.

I'm going to split this up. So Defenders and Wildlife and Environmental Protection Information Center in support on behalf of Trout Unlimited. We're in a support if amend position. Greatly appreciate Dr. Wood's leadership on this issue. This is super important. There are so many illicit grows that still need to be cleaned up, but we're also cognizant of the watersheds that have been impacted by these grows in both public and private lands. And we really need to see the whole watershed be remediated.

And that is very much within the intent of Prop 64. It's the language that the voters press. So we're eager to work with the office to try and see if we can expand this scope a little bit more. Thank you.

Good morning. Staci Heaton with the Rural County Representatives of California and also representing the California State Association of Counties today in support.

Analise Rivero on behalf of Cal Trout, Pacific Forest Trust, and TNC in support for men for the same reasons Alex laid out. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Assemblymember Bennett?

Good, Bill.

Thank you for your brevity. Okay, so do we. I have no questions. I just want to thank you for your efforts. Do we have a motion? Oh, no, we don't have a quorum. So we'll see you later, and we'll hope to get you the votes. Would you like to close?

Thank you for. Thank you for the opportunity to present. You know, when I first ran for this office, a long time ago now, what I heard from my constituents was, we'd love to see this legalized or regulated in some way. But what really bothers us is the environmental damage that's happening. And this has been going on for decades now. We just need to. We have the resources. We just need to put the focus on trying to clean up these sites.

And the importance is I've been on sites and I've been out with IERC and I've seen firsthand what's happening. I've seen what happens to our wildlife and I've seen the effects of the clear-cutting that happens and the use of pesticides, and it's devastating. And this is our treasure. These are our natural resources and we just need more urgency to get these, get these areas cleaned up. So I respectfully ask your aye vote when you have a quorum.

Thank you so much, Doctor Wood. Have a great day. Thank you. Without further ado, Assemblymember Carrillo, come on down. What item number do we have for him? Item number 10.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 2443. And I would like to start by thanking the Committee and her staff for their work to ensure safeguards are included as part of my bill. And I will be accepting all the Committee amendments.

The amendments will limit the number of threes that can be taken by a commercial or industrial project. This number is consistent with what is currently allowed by housing projects. The amendments will also limit permitting to occur only by cities and for projects within city limits. AB 2443 would authorize the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or CDFW, to enter into an agreement with a city to allow the taking of Western Joshua Tree associated with a commercial or industrial project. And let me be clear.

My intent with this bill is not to undo any of the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. In fact, I supported the trailer bill even with the concerns that I was hearing from my district. The Western Joshua Tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecological and culturally important. Western Joshua trees span across a large portion of California's desert. I understand the importance of conserving such a unique and beautiful part of my district.

As an Assembly member, I must consider all the issues that are facing my constituents today and the ones we can foresee in the future. The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows any county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Western Joshua Tree associated with single-family residences, multifamily, and renewable energy projects. These established agreements have only recently begun by made with the local governments.

It is not too early to start thinking about the vital economic development for the local governments in the growing Antelope Valley and the Victor Valley. Now is the right time to have that conversation. With the increased cost of living, a lack of space in the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, more people are continuing to move into the high-desert region. Members, please ensure that these essential projects can be permitted by local governments who understand the need of economic development. We meet to testify in support is Brad Jensen, director of legislative affairs for the County of San Bernardino.

Good morning, members. I'm Brad Jensen from the County of San Bernardino and the legislative affairs director. We're very strongly in support of AB 2443. Did I put an extra four in there? Apologies. This is a very important bill for us. Last year, the Legislature passed the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. Most of the Joshua trees, which is an iconic native species here in California, are in our county, but they also include parts of LA, Kern, and Riverside County.

The bill allowed local governments to permit single-family, multi-family public works projects and accessory structures. We strongly advocated to allow local agencies to also permit industrial and commercial projects. Unfortunately, the bill was passed and all of that permitting is now done through CDFW in Sacramento. Our concern with that was just the delays in permitting. It's a very heavy volume. Last year, Director Chuck Bonham testified in front of this committee that they do about 1000 permits a year for takings of western Joshua trees.

There's about 10 to 12 million Joshua trees in that part of the state. And so it's a very heavy workload, which means a delay in the completion of our projects. And so we're very supportive of this bill. We think that this empowers local agencies to be a partner with the state to handle this type of administrative workload. We would appreciate your aye vote in committee.

Thank you so much. Do we have any other members of the public that are in support?

Chair and members, Bruce Magnani on behalf of the California Cement Manufacturers Environmental Coalition. We think this is a good policy, giving some control back to the counties. Thank you very much.

Okay, anybody else? Okay. Witnesses in opposition. Main witnesses. Good morning.

Good morning. Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, and Mojave Desert Land Trust, in opposition. First, I missed the testimony, so I'm assuming that the committee amendments were taken and want to really thank the author and the committee for working together. We still have concerns about the scope of the bill.

You know, when the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act was adopted last year in a trailer bill, my clients were neutral on the bill and frankly, were not very happy about it, but are going along to see, you know, in the next couple of years if this will actually produce a beneficial outcome. We're deeply concerned about the fees that were assessed in the bill.

This proposal is a change than in what was negotiated last year in terms of delegating more authority for industrial and commercial projects to the local government. We feel that the bill is premature because the department hasn't even yet issued or signed a delegation agreement with the local government. We don't exactly know how this is going to work out.

However, with that being said, we appreciate the issues that were raised by the Assembly member and would like to continue to work with him to see if we could put some additional sideboards on this delegation authority as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Any other Members of the public in opposition? Okay with that. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? No questions. Okay. I would just like, you know, I come out of local government, as does Assemblymember Carrillo. And I appreciate your wanting to try to strike a balance here because local governments don't exist unless they have some commercial construction as well. But I. You have to have respect for the Joshua Tree as well. So I really understand the balance that you're trying to strike, and I thank you for your efforts to do so. With that, would you like to close?

I just want to commit that we will continue to work with the concerns that the opposition has brought up, and we'll be happy to continue those conversations. As far as it being too soon to start looking at these changes, it is not too soon because these local governments depend on the economic development.

And without having then really be able to attract the development that is needed for the job creation that we need in the high desert, I believe that this will strike a right balance where local governments will be able to continue to have their economic growth. But my commitment is there to continue to work with the concerns. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when.

You do accept the committee amendments?

I do accept all the committee amendments, yes.

Thank you for narrowing the scope with that. Okay. We don't, we don't have a quorum yet, but as soon as we do, the matter will come up for a vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Have a good day. Assemblymember Soria. Oh, Quirk-Silva came in? Oh, there she is. They're both wearing the same color. Good morning. Okay, we have item number three, Assembly Bill 2038. Take it away.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Today I present Assembly Bill 2038. I would like to begin by accepting the Committee's suggested amendments and thanking the consultant for their work on this Bill. Thank you. This Bill would ensure that eligible community-based organizations recognize Native American Tribes and Certified Community Conservation Corps who provide non-commercial access outdoor programs will have the same ability to interstate lands and waters as the general public, but without additional restrictions, fees, or permit requirements imposed on them.

Last year, I had the opportunity to participate in a select Committee by Assemblymember Reyes that actually talked about this particular issue, and that's what brought this piece of legislation. As we know, California is known for some of the most beautiful and iconic outdoor places our world has to offer. From the giant sequoia trees to amazing desert landscapes and unique West Coast natural beaches, outdoor access is linked to countless benefits and perhaps most importantly, health benefits for all ages.

For our state's economy, the Bureau of Economic Analysis notes that in 2022, outdoor recreation contributed almost $74 billion in economic spending annually and 567,000 direct jobs. Despite recent significant strides to prioritize equitable outdoor access through historic investments and initiatives, barriers continue to persist for many California's communities of color, preventing them from accessing the outdoors. Barriers like transportation costs and equipment expenses continue to hinder enjoyment of public spaces.

Community-based organizations and tribal outdoor equity programs help further the state's goals by serving as trusted guides for groups from underserved communities to experience the outdoors. Regrettably, they often face regulatory barriers not imposed on the general public, including high fees and limits on activities such as times, dates, locations, and frequency. This Bill will ease burdens for eligible entities and streamline regulatory management of small, non-commercial outdoor equity activities, increase resource efficiency, and lessen the administrative burden on state land managers and eligible entity parties.

With me today is Ben McCue, Executive Director of Outdoor Outreach, and Mario Ordonez-Calderon, Executive Director of Un Mar De Colores.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. First, I just want to say thank you so much to your Committee consultant for all the hard work put into this Bill, analysis, etcetera. Outdoor Outreach has worked for over 25 years in San Diego to support our community, specifically those in the community who face a lot of barriers to outdoor access and access to our coast and to parks and beaches.

In that time, we've served over 20,000 individual youth, specifically from these communities that have been impacted by discriminatory and exclusionary land use practices from our past. We've really served and a community need to help bridge that distance between these communities and our amazing parks and beaches. And participants have shared with us how these connections have really made their lives incredibly richer, improve their mental and physical health, and strengthen their sense of belonging and their love for nature.

In recent years, we've been incredibly proud of the efforts of the state, the Governor, the Legislature in really supporting this outdoor equity work and recognizing its importance to our state. Despite this support, many of our programs are confronted with access challenges to state lands and waters that are not faced by the general public.

Essentially, there's a double standard across our state where if you're a kid who comes from a family who has a car, who has the time to take you out, who has the equipment and the knowledge, all of our state parks and beaches that are open to the general public are essentially open to you.

If you're a kid from a community that doesn't have a car in their family, whose parents maybe are too busy working to take you out to the coast or the beach, or you simply don't know that these places exist or how to get there, you're lucky if you have a program like Un Mar De Colores or Outdoor Outreach that can help take you there.

Problematically, you're facing a double standard where due to these operational constraints, you're limited to maybe only being able to go to parks and beaches on the weekdays, certain areas you can't even go to because of restrictions. And if you're a member of the ladder group, you're most likely a kid coming from one of these communities that are low-income, you're a person of color and you face a lot of disadvantages.

And for that reason, we're really supportive of this Bill and specifically see it as creating a statewide standard that would help support programs like ours better help the state deliver on its promise of equity and justice around our state parks. Thank you.

Good morning, honorable Chair and Committee. My name is Mario Ordonez-Calderon. I'm the Executive Director of Un Mar De Colores, a 501(c) nonprofit based out of San Diego, California. And we increase coastal access by providing surf therapy, environmental education, and long-term mentorship to underserved youth. A lot of the families we serve are first-time ocean experience families, and they rely on our programming in order to connect to all the healing that occurs when you experience outdoor spaces.

And it's unfortunate that these families have incurred long systemic barriers, social economical barriers, to experience the ocean, experience the coast. And because of that, we exist. And we've been given the responsibility through state initiatives and state grants such as the California Coastal Conservancy. These California Coastal Conservancies explore the Coast Grant and the California Coastal Commission's Whale Tail Grant. So we, in essence, are carrying out these equitable initiatives that are statewide.

And because of that, we want to support AB-2038 because we face a lot of barriers as an organization connecting our families to the coast. So thank you very much.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Members of the public in support.

Hi, Kristin Gorey. On behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps. In support. Thank you.

Alrighty. Any witnesses in opposition? Of course. With that, do we have any questions or comments from the Committee? I don't see any. Thank you so much for your prioritizing access and the importance that being out in the open has on our youth and one's mental health, whether it's old or young. So I really appreciate the Bill. Thank you. And now you do take the amendments, I'm assuming, which just deal very briefly with a little notice. And other than that, would you like to close?

It's early, so I won't, but I would say, you know, I came from a family of 10 and my parents often took us camping, Southern California, and of course, that gave me the access and to not only take my own family, but it is those experiences that really can change you forever. And so I love this Bill. It's one of my favorites this year, and I would appreciate your support. Thank you.

Excellent. As soon as we get a quorum, we will go forth and take a vote. Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Soria.

I love it. You're moving swiftly. Madam Chair and Members, I'd like to start by thanking the staff and also the chair for working with our office to develop the language in the bill. AB 2060 seeks to streamline the permitting process in support of flood managed aquifer recharge, or what is known as flood mar, activities, when diverting local flood water into regional groundwater basins.

Flood Mar is an integrated and voluntary resource management strategy that uses floodwater resulting from or in anticipation of rainfall or snowmelt for managed aquifer recharge on agricultural lands and working landscapes, including, but not limited to, refuges, floodplains and flood bypasses in response to excessive rains and flooding. Last year, which had a significant impact in my district, the Legislature passed SB 122, which contained provision streamlining permitting procedures for flood mar projects in cases of emergency flooding.

This bill sought to balance the need for swift action in response to sudden flood events with the need to ensure the mitigation of the potential negative environmental impacts of such a diversion of the steps that was exempted to ensure timely completion of projects was engaging with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to create a lake and stream bed alteration agreement. However, last minute single use permits issued shortly before a flood event are not the only kinds of permits that. That can benefit from this streamlining.

Temporary urgency permits are another mechanism by which a water agency or other entity may be permitted to divert flows for Flood Mar projects. These permits do not enjoy the same ministerial approval process of SB 122, which are emergency permits but can be used for up to 180 days, which can help cover multiple flood events from the same weather system.

However, they're still subject to negotiations with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to create lake and stream bed alteration agreements, which can delay them long enough that they may fail to serve the real purpose. AB 2060 updates the temporary use urgency permit process to allow for bypassing of the LSAA process when the projects in question meet the same level of environmental protection required under SB 122 emergency permit process.

This will improve the tools available to our water agencies to help manage floodwaters while simultaneously recharging our aquifer, which we know we have strived to do so, especially after SGMA. And so today. With me here today is Mike Jensen with the Merced Irrigation District.

Good morning. Thank you for considering our bill, and I want to thank Assemblywoman Soria and her staff for all their efforts on this. Well, as the Committee staff, just to give you a very high level summary, we are an irrigation district on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. We represent about 160,000 acres of a 500,000 acre groundwater basin. We have water rights from Lake McClure and the Merced river, and we provide a net benefit to the groundwater basin.

The challenge is people pumping groundwater outside of our basins. Since we share that basin, we want to do everything we can to ensure we're complying with SGMA. We have a approved groundwater sustainability plan from DWR. We have our GSA's in place. We're doing everything that we should be doing at this point. In 2023. We had applied for a flood mart permit, essentially trying to divert some floodwater from local streams. We've got about 12 or 13 streams that come through our communities.

We did get a permit, and with that came about 14 pages of conditions that were just not workable for the farmers that would be diverting the water. It was restrictions on when pumping could occur to divert water into fields. There was requests for biologists to be on hand, just things that were not practical for the typical farmer in San Joaquin Valley.

We've been working with the Assembly Member trying to figure out another path forward so we can't take advantage of that floodwater and appreciate your consideration again and would respectfully request your aye vote today.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Witnesses, excuse me. Members of the public in support.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Brenda bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen on behalf of the American Pistachio growers and the African American farmers of California, in support.

Thank you. Good morning. Erin Norwood. On behalf of the Allman Alliance in support, thank you.

Good morning, Alex Biering on behalf of California Farm Bureau, in support.

Excellent. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? One more in support? Please come down.

Crowded. Bob Reeb. On behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses that are here to testify in opposition? Okay. Seeing none. Anybody in the audience want to just chime in as an opposition? No. Okay. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Assemblymember Bennett? No. Okay. Thank you for your efforts to try to strike this balance and be practical with that.

Would you like to close?

I would just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And you do accept the Committee's amendments items? I think you said that at the beginning. Great. So we don't have a quorum. There were no amendments because it was so perfect with that. We don't have a quorum, but we'll take a vote as soon as we get one.

Okay.

Thank you so much again. Really appreciate it.

Excellent. We will fill the time with Assemblymember Hart. Take it away. Item number 12, which is SAB 2558, dealing with fish passage. I can't say that quickly. Fish passage.

We will fill the time with Assemblymember Hart. Take it away. Item number 12, which is AB-2558. Dealing with Fish Passage.

Madam Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB-2558. A Bill to restore salmon and steelhead trout habitats. Existing law requires Caltrans to assess and remediate any potential barriers to salmon and steelhead trout passage before commencing a transportation project or road repair. This requirement focuses on assessing and removing barriers only when there's a stream crossing directly, impeding fish passage. Many transportation projects may not directly impede fish habitats, but can still adversely affect the populations of salmon and trout.

Even without a stream crossing present, AB-2558 will require Caltrans to remove and remediate man-made barriers that actively impede and or adversely affect fish passage and habitats, including culverts, grade control structures, and other highway infrastructure. The Bill will also require an annual report to the Legislature with the status of fish barrier removals and justification for any delays. AB-2558 is necessary to restore salmon and steelhead trout populations and maintain California's ecosystem.

Speaking in support of the Bill with me today are Analise Rivero, representing California Trout, and Candice Meneghin, representing Coastal Ranches Conservancies.

Good morning, Chair Papan and Committee Members. My name is Candice Meneghin. I'm the Executive Director of Coastal Ranches Conservancies in Santa Barbara County. We're a co-sponsor of 2558 and a fierce advocate for environmental protection on the Gaviota Coast. Gaviota Creek is with many other coastal watersheds in Assemblymember Hart's district, are home to Southern California steelhead populations that are in critical danger of extinction.

Transportation infrastructure is a major cause of decline to the majority of anadromous fish species in California, and laws such as SB-857, fish passage, and its continuation via AB-2558 are necessary to support some monitored recovery. SB-857 requires Caltrans to assess barriers and report to the Legislature, and AB-2558 merely extends SB-857 and does not change the intent of the Bill.

Despite having grade control structures prioritized in the Central Coast Fish Passage Advisory Committee priority list, these structures aren't technically stream crossings by definition, and while still a barrier to fish passage, this ambiguity resulted in Caltrains failing to include them in construction plans for a recent Gaviota Creek Wall permanent restoration project. In an effort to address this ambiguity, we define fish passage barrier in AB-2558.

AB-2558 also includes manmade infrastructure that lies in stream, has a nexus to or lays adjacent to the state highway system, thus ensuring barriers are not excluded from consideration in transportation projects moving forward and infrastructure is modernized per the governor's salmon strategy. The impact of the state highway system on fish passage and connectivity is undeniable, and ensuring that Caltrans balances their California transportation and biodiversity goals is essential. I'm happy to answer any questions and respectfully request your AYE today.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Analise Rivero. I'm the Associate Director of Policy for California Trout. As the sponsors of the original 2006 piece of legislation, SB-857, as Candice referenced. Assemblymember Hart's current Bill AB-2558 builds upon. We are heartened to see that SB-857 was actually referenced in Governor Newsom's salmon strategy released earlier this year.

The plan states that by 2026, we will implement a strategy to fulfill SB-857 of 2006, which requires Caltrans to track and remediate all fish passage barriers to salmon and steelhead habitat caused by transportation infrastructure. AB -2558 further strengthens that goal and ensures that the Legislature will continue to stay aware of progress by extending the reporting requirement.

Further, the increased connectivity resulting from the removal of Caltrans as fish passage barriers underpins biodiversity resilience in the face of climate change, a goal set forth in numerous strategies, including 30 by 30. All this to say that the Bill contributes to the furtherance of numerous state priorities. Finally, I will note that CalTrout actively works with Caltrans to remove hostage barriers, and we look forward to continuing that partnership as project implementers and assist them in meeting these important goals. I respectfully request your support today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Members of the audience, in favor.

Good morning. Gabriela Facio with Sierra Club California. In support.

Good morning. Natalie Brown with Planning Conservation League. In support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife and Trout Unlimited. In support.

Good morning. Abigail Schmidt on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. In support.

Good morning. Tiffany Yap from the Center for Biological Diversity. In support.

I didn't see any opposition on file, so I'm assuming there is none. Great. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. The trout and salmon. Thank you. Would you like to close?

And I thank all of you and respectfully request an aye vote thank you.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Hart. Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, I want to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments on page six through eight of the analysis. I also want to thank the Committee, Committee staff and the chair for their hard work and engagement on this particular issue.

You know, the fundamental issue that this bill addresses is the fact that when the state created the groundwater sustainability agencies over 10 years ago to stop the overdrafting of groundwater basins, the state continued to allow new water wells to be permitted by counties without any considerations of their impact on their neighbors watering wells or land subsidence. Imagine trying to regulate and ration 10 straws dropping into your soda while more big straws are dropping in randomly with no guidelines on their impact.

Even the best managed gsas are challenged by that scenario. That's why two years ago, the Governor issued an Executive Order requiring counties to evaluate new well permits. He ordered counties to see if a new well was going to impact neighboring wells or cause land subsidence. If so, they were not supposed to permit the new well. The Department of Water Resources, and I really appreciate Mister Gosselin being here today, spent the last two years gathering data and studying the implementation of the Executive Order.

And some what they found is that some counties made a very good faith effort to abide with, but other counties did not. They found that in a two year period over 1900 wells went dry. Some counties in particular, for example, in spite of the Executive order, they required localities to only that required localities to only approve new wells that did not increase the risk of subsidence.

The Department of Water Resources found that in the areas where subsidence is a serious problem, the counties that approved the most new wells also saw the most subsidence. In some areas, as much as half a foot in one year, and in one area, 1ft in one year, a dramatic decrease in subsidence. Sometimes wells were permitted right across the street from existing farmworker wells that went dry almost immediately.

Literally private equity firms from outside the United States were racing in during our worst drought in 1000 years, and getting dozens of large capacity wells permitted with no review of their impact on neighboring wells or land subsidence. That's simply not sustainable for California in the long run. So the Department of Water Resources decided to sponsor AB 2079 and address the need for significant improvement in the well permitting practice. AB 2799 would do essentially three things.

Increase communication between the groundwater agencies and the counties or the well permitting agencies. Second, protect drinking water wells, especially wells of low income farmworker communities. And third, reduce the risk of land subsidence. The bill sets clear standards for how close a large capacity water well can be placed to a neighboring well. It also identifies where land subsidence is severe enough to justify denying the well permit until the land subsidence is under control. DWR and my office have worked collaboratively with many stakeholders.

We've taken a number of amendments to address concerns. We remain committed to address future suggestions. In an effort to minimize the impact on existing farm operations, the bill exempts replacement wells. So if a well being used today in a land subsidence area goes dry, a farmer would still be able to easily replace that well under this bill. Additionally, because we want to make sure that people have access to drinking water, this bill exempts public, state, small and urban retail water systems.

With today's Committee amendments, we're also exempting water banking systems because we do not want to discourage responsible stewards that are trying to find ways to balance their surface and groundwater levels. Towards my conclusion, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop land subsidence and the negative impacts of large capacity wells on low income farmworker wells without addressing the fundamental problem of new water wells not being properly evaluated for their impacts.

The long term sustainability of agriculture is the goal of well intentioned, competent managers of groundwater agencies. Its the goal of the Department of Water Resources. The long term sustainable agriculture is my goal and the goal of my office. But to achieve that goal, that means the sustainability of Californias groundwater basins requires a change in the status quo. Fundamentally, today, new water wells are permitted without adequate guidelines or review. This is a significant problem that, that Members of this Committee have authority over.

California's future is much brighter if we have a long term sustainable agricultural interest. I ask that you allow this bill to move on so that it can have the robust analysis and discussion that an important issue such as this deserves. And with me today, I appreciate the Department of Water Resources Deputy Director Paul Gosselin.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members, it's a pleasure to be here. I'm Paul Gosselin. I'm Deputy Director at the Department of Water Resources for Sustainable Water Management. As Assemblymember Bennett described, this bill comes from the Executive order that was issued about two years ago. And it was hard to remember back then, but we were in the midst of the most severe drought the state has seen in over 1000 years, and it was pretty dire circumstances.

And the Executive order was intended to try to minimize some of those impacts that we see exacerbated during droughts and so when you have large ag wells near shallower, vulnerable wells, they do interfere and cause them to go dry. And that was one of the things we were looking to do during the drought, is to not introduce new wells near vulnerable areas as well as subsidence, which is also, we've seen increased rates during droughts. So it was important during that time.

But fundamentally, the issues in 2079 are important. Whether there's drought conditions or not, the placement of wells near vulnerable wells can cause interference. We've seen that. We've had additionally a community service well done in Ducor that the state, state expended a couple million dollars on county issued a permit right across the street and immediately started to see impact. So putting in a minimum spacing standard will help minimize.

And I think this was one of the confusions in the Executive order, was trying to be a little bit too specific on a very complex issue, but minimizing impacts is a reasonable step. Some counties have, have done this well spacing. Secondly, too, for subsidence areas, not introducing new wells into subsidence areas is going to be a component of our subsidence management strategy. And we've seen, frankly, one of the, there's been a lot of good successes in SGMA so far.

I think 10 years in, we can be very confident we're going to achieve sustainability. But subsidence is one of those things that we have not seen significant progress in most areas. And starting with at least not introducing more extraction in these areas is a minimal first step. There's going to be other harder decisions and actions needed to arrest subsidence that's causing public agencies billions of dollars and causing severe damage. So this is just a start.

We'll have a lot of replacement wells while GSA's are able to work through strategies on minimizing subsidence, as well as improving the communication that was started through the Executive order. So thank you.

Thank you so much, Mister Gosselin. Okay, do we have members of the public that wish to come forward in support of this bill?

Good morning. Kim Delfino for the Environmental Law foundation. Thank you. In support.

Good morning. Kyle Jones with Community Water Center and also on behalf of Clean Water Action and Leadership, Council for Justice and Accountability and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Roger Dickinson, on behalf of Civic Well, with some familiarity on this issue. In support. Thanks very much.

Gabriela Facio with Sierra Club California in support.

Marquis Mason, California environmental voters in support. Thanks.

Dave Runsten, Community Alliance Family Farmers we would like to support or support if amended, we can't abide the quarter mile blanket distance from rural residential wells. In many places it's unnecessary and in others it's infeasible. And so we're hoping that we can amend this and preserve certainly the places that have put in place regulations that are more nuanced. Thank you.

Okay, do we have any primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce, and we are unfortunately in an opposed, unless amended, position on AB 2079. We recognize that permanent subsidence is a serious issue, but we do not agree that the provisions of this bill are the correct way to solve this problem.

While we appreciate the Committee's proposed amendments that expand the exceptions to this bill, these exemptions do not address the court issues with the design of this bill, which you've just heard CAF highlight through. Though this is styled as a well permitting bill, this bill does implicate and affect SGMA. SGMA's intention is to address negative impacts of groundwater overdraft, including permanent subsidence, and to do so on a holistic and local level, which my colleague will speak more about.

This bill's singular focus on new well permitting goes against this holistic view and mistakenly assumes that the number of wells is a cause of subsidence rather than water use or other factors. We are concerned that the stringent limitations on new wells, which in some areas amount to moratoriums, will have significant impacts on agriculture and industry and will make healthy, high quality foods more expensive.

The combination of the subsidence level moratorium and the deep well screening requirement will jeopardize important groundwater storage efforts in the state that might not formally be considered a water bank. Investments in storing water underground for later use can be stranded if wells cannot be installed to retrieve the stored water. The deep well screening requirements also mean that any well that could be installed may pull up water that is compromised in quality and unsafe to use.

We are concerned that the well spacing requirements and definition of large diameter, high capacity wells will impact small farmers and small businesses the most. Small farmers have fewer potential locations on their land to place wells due to their smaller footprint. Furthermore, calling any well that produces more than two acre feet per year, which is de minimis under SGMA large and high capacity, further impacts small farmers the most because they're treated the same as a larger, more resourced operations that can install much bigger, more efficient wells.

They're also least likely to be able to afford the extremely deep wells that would be required under this bill. So for these reasons, we are currently in an opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for your time. I'm Kristin Sicke, General manager of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. We're an irrigation district and Member of Aqua and Naqua. I also serve as the GSA manager for the Yolo sub basin, which is a non critically overdrafted sub basin. I'm here to express my concerns with the current language of AB 2079. As a GSA, we are committed to avoid subsidence now and into the future and we take it seriously.

However, I do not agree that this bill is an appropriate solution to the problem. This bill ignores local hydrogeology. It applies blanket provisions on well permitting which does not consider unique hydrogeology, local conditions, or the nuance of a conjunctively managed basin. Our conditionally approved GSP Identifies distinct hydrogeologic units even in our sub basin. This bill duplicates or discredits county or GSA procedures that were established with complying with the Executive order.

Those good faith efforters like us, our GSA worked with stakeholders in the yellow sub basin for two years to develop a robust well permit review procedure to provide written verification to comply with the governor's Executive order. We spent over over $125,000 and have coordinated very closely with our environmental health division at the county. The county has developed setback criteria based on proposed pumping capacity of a well and unique hydrogeology of our sub basin to assess well interference impacts.

This bill is significantly different from the Executive Order. It creates additional unfunded mandates on the county that is lacking staff and resources to implement the onerous reporting and update their procedures related to the blanket setback and screening requirements. This bill restricts local control and undermines credibility, and it undermines the trust that we've been working to build over the past eight years with the community. It restricts the local control of groundwater previously guaranteed by SGMA.

As a GSA manager, we've participated in hundreds of community meetings doing our best to educate and empower stakeholders to get involved and to assist us in defining local sustainability. Lastly, this bill derails progress on important planning and implementation efforts. We need to focus our efforts on addressing DWR's corrective actions on our GSPs. It distracts from the GSP revisions, project implementation and focusing our efforts on healthy community outreach and growing our credibility.

We encourage legislation that focuses on progress to groundwater sustainability through local implementation of SGMA, dedicated groundwater recharge and expedited permitting for recharge events. I very much appreciate your time and listening to my comments.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Okay. Members of the public in opposition come forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Beth Olaso, on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and Cucamonga Valley Water District, we appreciate the Assembly Member taking the Committee amendments. We think they'll go far to recognizing the difference between urban retail water suppliers and ag basins, and hope, once we see the amendments, that they'll be far enough, we can remove our opposition. Thank you.

Hi. Pilar Onate Quintana here for the Irvine Ranch Water District, currently in oppose unless amended mode based on the bill in print. However, based on the Committee amendments that we're currently reviewing, we're hopeful that we will be able to remove our opposition. However, if there are additional conversations to be had with the Department and the author, we are hopeful that we can continue to engage in those.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members Ivy Britton with the Northern California Water Association. In opposition unless amended.

Good morning. Catherine Freeman, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties representing 58 counties. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Bearing, California Farm Bureau. Also opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members Jason Ikert, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association and the Rancho California Water District, both of whom have an opposing, less amended position. But we appreciate the work done by staff and the Committee amendments that were accepted here today, and we're going to be taking a very close look at the bill.

Good morning. Chris Anderson, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, with a position of opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed, unless amended.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District as well as the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, both in opposition. Thank you.

Emily Pappas for Turlock Irrigation District and Eastern Municipal Water District, opposed, unless amended. But we're reviewing the amendments from this week and appreciate working with the author's office.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, opposed, unless amended.

Good morning. Lily Mckay with United Water Conservation District. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Noel Cremers with Wayne Institute. Oppose, unless amended.

Good morning. Katie Little with the California League of Food Producers opposing unless amended.

Madam Chair and Members Kendra Dajogo with the Gualco group, on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Kern County Water Agency, Kings River Water Association and Modesto Irrigation District, opposed, unless amended.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members Bob Reeb with Reeb Government relations on behalf of the Valley Ag Water Coalition, in opposition and on behalf of Desert Water agency and Solano County Water Agency, opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Chair Martin Radacevich on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District with concerns with the bill, and we look forward to continue working with the author's office on this. Thank you.

Morning. Chair Members Ed Manning for Western Growers Association opposed and less amended.

Cody Boyles on behalf of California Fresh Fruit Association opposed unless amended.

Madam Chair and Members Annalee Augustine on behalf of the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers Association Association, California Bean Chippers Association and Association of Wheat Growers respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Jason Bryant on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association. We have an opposing, less amended position. Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much. I will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. So, Member Bonta.

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I just wanted to hopefully give you an opportunity to clarify the oppositions comments related to SGMA. My understanding is that SGMA doesn't entirely cover the coordination required in this bill, and some of the concerns raised by opposition are resolved with the amendments that you offered. And also SGMA doesn't focus on the number of wells, but rather on how much water is used. So just wanted you to be able to speak to that a little bit more.

Thank you very much. And I'll take a crack at it and then we'll have the expert water person follow up. But I appreciate the question and the opportunity. SGMA was a difficult and challenging bill to move through the Legislature back in 2013. When it moved through and with all of the issues, we were just about the last state in the western United States to actually try to regulate groundwater.

And that sort of free for all that we had up to that point in time, is what was causing so many problems, like significant land subsidence and problems with low income farm worker wells, et cetera. So lots of compromises were made as that legislation came forward. But one thing that did not get addressed, although my understanding is the issue came up a few times, is what about new wells?

And the groundwater agency is responsible for, if this is my basin here, the groundwater, I'm responsible, me and the other board members, for trying to get the pumping levels down to a sustainable level. And yet we have no authority on how many new wells come in while we're in the process of actually doing this.

And so if a county continues to only use a ministerial approval, that basically was trying to check and make sure that the well met public health standards, meaning there was not going to be contamination of new water. You're sitting there trying to create a plan, and you don't know what the standards are. Even for the new wells coming in, you can't address any of those kinds of problems. So it's an obvious.

It's just an obvious gap that was left in SGMA, and it was a gap that has resulted in enormous problems over the last 10 years for low income farm worker communities. As Mister Gosselin, and my apologies for mispronouncing your name earlier. As Mister Gosselin pointed out, you have a hundred acre farm, and yet they still decided to put their well right across the street from a low income farm worker area where they were trying to do that. So we're trying to maintain local control.

We're trying to maintain that local buy in. At the same time, it's pretty obvious after their two year study that it just hasn't worked. We had an Executive Order that said, you should take care of these two problems. You shouldn't permit wells where they're going to cause land subsidence, or where they're going to have a significant impact on neighbors. Some counties, like we said, made a good faith effort, but a number of counties have not.

And so for all of those reasons, this is an appropriate gap to fill in. And I would offer that the low income farm workers deserve it. And it just makes common sense that if you're digging a hole and that's causing problems, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Everybody hears that.

So if we had land subsidence of a foot in a year, which is an enormous rate of land subsidence, and you say it's still okay to permit hundreds of new wells, we're talking large capacity wells. And the final thing I would offer to you is that in my county, when SGMA was first passed, there was a rush for new well applications because everybody wasn't sure what was going to happen with SGMA.

And it was the existing farm worker, the established families that had been in agriculture for a long time, they came to me and said, we need a well moratorium until we can get our groundwater plan put together. And as a county supervisor, not, you know, the groundwater agency couldn't do it, but the county could. As a county supervisor, I advanced this well moratorium.

Those same farm worker families called me the night before the hearing to vote on this and said, glad you're doing it, but we're not going to be there to support it because we're getting so much pressure from other people to try to block this. And my point is, in a democracy, it is really easy for powerful interest to block something. It is really difficult for the common interest to come forward, even in that situation. So there are many people that are going to benefit from this.

You're not going to have very many low income farm workers showing up here. You're not going to have the common interests represented as well. But there's a reason why California has been slow to both adopt the original groundwater agency plan and slow to address this gap after 10 years. But I really welcome, and the final thing I'll say on this is that this is not just an Assemblymember coming up with an idea.

This is a two year study done by the Department of Water Resources, a 40 page report that they put out for everybody to review with data that really justifies the actions and the things that are offered here in this bill. Thank you very much for your question, Mister Gosselin.

Thank you. A couple minor well, a couple points. One is that this is not a SGMA bill. Even though well permitting anything touches groundwater, the SGMA light comes on. This bill would be applicable 15 years ago. Because getting back to what the impacts, what we're trying to prevent is the placement of wells in proximity, that judgment of well placement near domestic and other vulnerable wells, those impacts have occurred prior to SGMA. They've been exacerbated by the lowering of groundwater levels.

So it's not a SGMA bill, it's about drinking water resiliency. And in terms of subsidence, yeah, it does prevent new wells going in, into those areas of subsidence. And as Assemblymember Bennett said, GSAs are starting to, trying to figure out how they're going to start to abate subsidence, which really is going to mean starting to lessen the groundwater extraction in those areas, which is going to be very difficult. And we're going to need them to have time to work through that.

We're coming out with a best management practice document later this year to guide them on how to start to minimize and eliminate subsidence, which is in SGMA and is a driver for this. But again, at the same time, as they go through that, it seems counter intuitive to have another county agency to allow more groundwater extraction in the areas that need to be dealt with at the same time. And those numbers during the Executive Order were astounding.

So I think, and again, this is not a moratorium, which I think there's a lot of downsides on moratorium. This is allowing the GSAs to go through the management of dealing with subsidence and once they do, then they can work with the county LEA to kind of get back to business, provided they don't get back into increasing subsidence.

The other important piece I wanted to bring out was we really wanted to keep this bill ministerial for the LEAs, which is real important, which means it doesn't trigger CEQA. And they do similar things for water quality, placement of wells, and you have septic and others, and that's all done ministerially. So we wanted to have a similar lens on not impacting adjoining water supplies and keeping it ministerial.

And I think we recognize some counties and some GSAs, through this coordination, through the Executive Order, actually put together some novel approaches.

And so we're going to looking forward to continued discussions with Yolo and others, as well as other issues raised by people who have testified today and others on trying to clarify and amend the bill and make sure that it does, at the end of the day, achieve its goals of minimizing impacts to vulnerable wells, start the process of abating and eliminating subsidence, keeping it ministerial in a way that doesn't unduly burdened GSAs of the county. So thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other questions from the Committee? Some Villapudua due to.

So Assemblymember, I have a question going back to what you mentioned about the discussions you had with the farmers in your district. So did it pass? Did that ordinance pass?

It's interesting. There's another supervisor, used to be on the Ventura County Board of Supervisors here today to testify on this. She would also be able to verify a couple hundred people at the hearing. Right. And a big deal. And it passed three to two. And it. And I had so many farmers contact me afterwards.

These are the established farmers, and they were saying, here's what's happening is we've been farming for a long time, and now all of a sudden these people are coming in and they're putting big wells in right outside of our property. And there are people in the Central Valley that have said the same thing, that a big private equity firm comes in, plants 100,000 olive trees right outside of where they've been farming for a long time, and sinks these super capacity wells.

And it's hard for me to describe how much water some of these super capacity wells can, can pump out and then has a negative impact. But even in those situations where they have a negative impact, there's such a, there's so much pressure to not sort of support any kind of regulation. But those farmers did. It passed. And, you know, the county hasn't fallen apart. We had exemptions for replacement wells and those kinds of things.

And, in fact, the groundwater agency was very supportive of it in, when they had a chance to actually do something about it, but they were happy that the county had already done it. So I hope that answers your question.

Did you want to respond?

Yeah, I just wanted to redirect here for a second, because we're talking in this bill about wells that are larger than two acre feet per year, and they're what they can yield, and that's not a massive well, as the Assemblymember is, you know, describing. So, you know, we're, we're even talking about, like, smaller sized wells that just happen to be over two acre feet per year that are going to fall into this net. That's one of the things that's concerning to me.

I mean, you can even look at what the State Water Board did when it put the Tulare Lake GSA basin on probation, and they were focused on wells that could yield 500 acre feet per year. There's a huge difference between a three acre foot per year well, even a 10 acre foot per year well, and a 500 acre foot per year well. So I just like, it concerns me that we're calling anything that's beyond a De minimis use high capacity, and therefore we're limiting it.

That doesn't seem to be targeting these kinds of nefarious actors that we're hearing about. It seems to be targeting anyone who's trying to use their land for production.

Could I ask Mister Gosselin to address that?

Yeah. There is. The eight inches was deemed, and there is a breakpoint where domestic wells typically go four to six inches. And we analyzed well completion reports. My well is six inches. My domestic well, once you go above that, you start getting into agricultural production wells. And that's what we saw. Eight inches and above largely got into agricultural industrial wells. And these are larger to be able to put pumps in, to be able to pull more water.

So basically, for de minimis, two acre feet a year, you're talking about a good sized ranchet, but beyond that, larger wells would dictate a lot more water use for a larger acreage.

And Madam Chair, if I could. I think it's important to note that the two acre limit is the limit where there's no regulation at all, nothing. Right. And so we are. I think it's very accurate for us to talk about large capacity wells because those are the ones that are going to be most affected, because it is in the areas of subsidence wells over two acre feet right. That are not in the eight inch category. I mean, we have an eight inch, you know, restriction here.

The only impact that you have there is what's going on with neighboring wells. But if you don't have subsidence in your area, which is the vast majority of California, if you don't have a subsidence problem, then this subsidence sort of, well, moratorium that they're talking about doesn't apply in those areas. The requirement that you don't approve new wells only applies in the areas where we have the significant land subsidence. More than a half a foot in a year. All right. And then only if you.

Oh, did I get that wrong?

Yeah, it's six inches going. Looking back, starting 2015

I'm sorry. Thank you. I misspoke there. Right. So where you have land subsidence. All right. And so this isn't going after all of those three acre foot wells that are in areas that don't have any significant problems at all. But you have to pick some minimum where you're exempting everything. But it is eight inches, as Mister Gosselin pointed out.

Now, you're getting into wells that are going to be much more than the two acre feet and much more likely to be, and in particular, the large capacity wells that are out there.

Well, I thank you for the robust discussion. You got a lot of opposed unless amended, and I know that the discussions will continue. I thank you for accepting the Committee amends thus far. And with that, we did have a quorum, but they're not in the room, Assemblymember Bonta? Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? We won't take a vote, but we have one. We'll make a note of it. Okay. From Assemblymember Hart. Great. Okay. Thank you so much.

I know that we are trying to strike a delative balance, and we'll continue to do so. Would you like to close? I had three things that is a part of. Please go ahead. No, I want you to be fully heard.

Great. I'll say this. People have, you know, groundwater is complicated. You can't see it. You can say a lot of things about it, et cetera. People have used the complication of groundwater to block over and over again. Appropriate legislation by the State of California just confuse people enough, etcetera. And we're only trying to stop the new wells until the subsidence ends. And so that creates an incentive for the groundwater agencies because they're going to be pressured by the people who want new wells.

Everybody's going to have an incentive to say, let's get this groundwater subsidence under control. So it actually incentivizes them to get groundwater subsidence under control, which is a win for everybody. And the final thing, as you mentioned, there's quite a few people said, but I really appreciate, after doing some other water bills, so many of the comments saying we oppose unless amended, and that they appreciate.

We have demonstrated, and we've taken a number of amendments that I think many people that are in the opposition position have appreciated. They're still evaluating them, and we're continuing to talk about all of these issues. We have a long journey with this, and there's lots of opportunity for us to continue to make those amendments. Thank you very much. I know this is a complicated. We appreciate the extra time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Bennett. With that, we do have a quorum, so we'll go ahead and take roll and then send Member Friedman. If you'd like to come up while we're doing that, that'd be awesome.

[Roll Call]

Okay, I'm gonna. Before you go, I'm gonna do it. Let's take up the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? Who was that? Oh, Rivas. And second by heart. Okay, let's take a roll, please.

Consent calendar. Five items, item number two, AB 1937, do pass to Appropriations, item number nine, AB 2440 do pass to Appropriations, item number 15, AB 2947 do pass to Appropriations, item number 16, AB 3121, do pass. And item number 18, AB 3220 do pass to Appropriation. [Roll Call]

Okay. We're gonna take up and vote on the Bennett bill. We had a motion and a second, did we not? Okay, let's get that one voted on.

Okay. [Roll Call]

Okay, that has eight votes, and we'll leave the roll open for additional votes. Assemblymember Friedman, we'll take up the remaining votes in a minute or two. Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and your Committee staff for working with my office. I'm going to make this really fast and easy for you.

AB 1889 is a pretty simple Bill, and it just says that we want cities, when they're redoing their General plans, to think about animals that might be migrating through their communities so that they can plan for that migration and have connectivity for wildlife built into their planning. Why are we doing this? Well, a few years ago, when I was chairing transportation, I did a Bill that required Caltrans to do wildlife crossings.

Found out this was a huge problem, actually across the state, with large infrastructure and animals trying to kind of get through it and around it, leading to car collisions, animal deaths, challenges for animals that are struggling with climate change and drought. And there are already some counties and cities doing this in their plans. They're just saying, we've got deer. Let's figure out a way to get deer through when we allow for a new subdivision.

So what we want is, for now, for all counties and cities to consult with experts, consult with researchers in their area. We want to give them guidance about what the best practices are for incorporating migratory animal paths within their communities, plan for it when they're planning for their developments. That's it. It's really simple. There's no reason to vote against it. I do have some witnesses here today.

I have former Ventura County supervisor Linda Parks and Julie Anderson, senior resources manager specialist at Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space district. And with that, I request an aye vote second.

Great. Thank you.

I'm a supervisor. Oh, okay. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Papan and Committee Members. I'm Linda Parks. I am a former Ventura County Supervisor. I had the honor and pleasure of chair being on the board with then supervisor Bennett, now Assembly Member. During our time on the board, we adopted the county's wildlife corridor ordinance.

It's the first of a kind in the state, and I'm here to tell you that AB 1889 is both feasible and very needed. AB 1889, like the Ventura County ordinance, provides a clear directive for planners and developers early in the planning process. And AB 1889 is a very clear bill in the sense that it considers the California Department of Fish and Wildlife essential habitat information that planners can use and developers are able to know earlier in the process what is expected of them.

This will minimize both the need to do project changes later in the process by knowing in advance what is expected. And that is also a way to save money and time, both for government, local government, and for developers. I want to emphasize that AB 1889 won't prevent development. Rather, it calls for wildlife friendly fencing, lighting, and landscaping. You don't plant invasive plants and cluster development where it's possible instead of harmful urban sprawl.

We know that CEQA already requires consideration at the project level of the impacts on wildlife corridors. However, having foundational scientific information on wildlife corridors all in one place in the conservation element will facilitate better regional planning and avoid the unnecessary extinction of iconic species like our mountain lions.

As I finish, I just want to thank the legislators and the Governor for their investing in our wildlife crossings, including the Wallace Annenberg Bridge, the largest wildlife crossing bridge in the world that's currently being built over the 101 freeway in Agora Hills. Because of Ventura County's wildlife corridor ordinance, wildlife crossing that bridge to get to the other side will have protected open space corridors when they reach it.

Wildlife corridors are critical for the survival of wildlife, and AB 1889 can economically accomplish that throughout the State of California. So I really urge your support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. My name is Julie Anderson, and I lead the wildlife program for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a special district located in the Bay Area that manages over 70,000 acres of land. We have a mission to acquire and preserve these open spaces, protect and restore the environment, and provide ecologically sensitive public enjoyment.

As project manager for two large scale habitat connectivity projects for things as large as puma to as small as California newts, I urge your support of AB 1889. Wildlife are doing their best to survive despite intense pressure from human development, including roadways, water power lines, and intensifying residential and recreational uses. Wildlife face all of these factors within my two project locations, and they need the ability to safely move through and across the remaining habitat. Connections are vitally important for both people and wildlife.

They're able to live longer when they're connected and can freely move between the places they need to survive. People benefit from these healthy, connected ecosystems through clean air, filtered water, pollinated crops, and healthy soils. Habitat connectivity requires these large infrastructure projects that can cost in the tens of millions of dollars. Let's build upon these voter supported projects by ensuring that open spaces are reconnected and protected through improved development that would prevent future fragmented habitat.

Support of this Bill provides local jurisdictions the opportunity to identify, establish, and protect habitat connectivity while allowing development in locations that may be of less benefit to local wildlife. Thoughtful land use planning connects our landscape and provides access to intact natural areas for future generations by bringing the state closer to its 30 by 30 goals. I'd like you to consider what my 10 year old daughter likes to remind me we should do what is best for animals because people have taken too much from them already. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have witnesses in favor? I mean, Members of the audience in favor.

Good morning. Abigail Smith, on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Jennifer Fearing and in support of AB 1889, my clients, the National Wildlife Federation and San Diego Humane Society, whose affiliate, Project Wildlife, is the state's largest native wildlife rehabilitation organization. Thank you.

Melissa Lovato, on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

Hi. Good morning. Tiffany Yap, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Wildlands Network and the Nature Conservancy, in support. Thank you.

Candice Meneghin on behalf of Coastal Ranches Conservancy, and Friends of the Santa Clara River.

Kim Delfino, in support on behalf of Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sierra Forest Legacy, and the Sonoma Land Trust. Thank you.

Analise Rivero, on behalf of Cal Trout, in support. Thank you.

Natalie Brown on behalf of Planning Conservation League and support. Thank you.

Tasha Newman on behalf of The Wildlands Conservancy, in support.

Gabriela Facio, Sierra Club, California, in support.

Nickolaus Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation, in support.

Marquis Mason, California Environmental Voters, in support. Thank you.

Okay, do we have witnesses in opposition? I didn't see any Oppo registered. So great with that. Any. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments to Assemblymember Bennett.

The author today, the author brought us two experts in terms of this issue, and I really appreciate both of them here, both from the north and the south in terms of California. But I'd like to highlight, Supervisor Parks was the leader of the effort in Ventura County to try to bring us what is now the world's largest wildlife crossing. And so they know what they're talking about, and they certainly know about the value and the benefits of this.

So very much appreciate the Bill and would like to have made the motion, but it's already happened. Thank you.

No problem. Any other comments? Very cool stuff. Very cool stuff. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you for being here. We have a motion and a second, so let's go ahead and would you like to close?

Just you know, we're constantly moving bears out of neighborhoods in my district, and maybe if someone had planned a little bit better back in the day, we wouldn't be having this ongoing problem.

And there were no amendments on this, so the motion is due pass to I'm guessing Approps. So let's take a vote. Thank you.

Item number one. AB 1889. Motion do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

And that has how many votes? Okay, we'll leave the roll open for additional votes. Assembly Member Holden. Thank you.

Sorry. Oh, yeah. Excited to get up here.

Thank you for falling into today's proceedings.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I appreciate Mr. Holden's giving me the opportunity to present for Mr. Grayson his actually, Assembly Bill 2091. I'm presenting for our colleague who's unable to join us today. Again, good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. AB 2091 is a bill that would help expedite public access to open spaces across California.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, most local agencies, including park districts, are required to conduct a significant environmental review for any projects or actions that would have an environmental impact, unless an action is categorically exempted. Currently, a categorical exemption exists that allows a park district to acquire land for purposes of preserving open space without needing to perform or review under CEQA, which I think makes sense to all of us.

However, no exemption exists for changes of use, such as when a park district would like to open acquired land for public access, even if the acquired land already has existing roads or trails that existed prior to the acquisition of the land, AB 2091 will exempt the opening of existing roads and trails for specified non-motorized recreational uses to the public on open space properties owned and operated by a local agent agency.

This limited exemption would only apply in scenarios where roads and other disturbed areas existed prior to public agency acquisition. The roads had to have been there prior, and where no significant capital improvements are required to allow the public to use these for public access on these open space or parklands.

Additionally, the bill would have no impact on existing land covenants that would apply, such as grant agreements, conservation easements and plans, or long term management plans, and the park districts would still be responsible for enforcing management policies that protect species and habitat. Importantly, this bill will also help save park district resources during this process, which can be used to help facilitate more recreational access. To testify on behalf of the East Bay regional parks, we have Jennifer Galehouse.

Good morning, Madam Chair, esteemed Members of the Committee. I'm Jennifer Galehouse on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District, I'll just mention two things. One, this bill's more about the timing of CEQA, and that's that the acquisition of the property. It's about allowing public access before the development of the park. And two, that the categorical exemptions are a little unclear on changes in use, and this bill clears that up for this particular change of use under these circumstances.

And also there's a lot of protections and guardrails as far as protecting species, native plants, tribal resources. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

Excellent. Do we have any witnesses? I mean, any members of the audience in favor? Come on down.

Abigail Smith, on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Good morning. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association in support.

Ethan Egler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? I didn't see any. There was none registered. Questions by the Committee. Assemblymember Addis.

Thank you so much. I was just wondering if you could clarify a little on the CEQA. You're saying this is more about the sequence of when CEQA happens? I try to be incredibly thoughtful, as I know everybody does around any kind of CEQA exemption. And so if you could just clarify especially.

I know the opposition isn't here today, but some of the opposition had to do with making sure that cultural resources were impacted and that wildlife was still protected. And I'll just say I can imagine lots and lots of places across my district that this would be helpful, but I want to be secure that I'm not opening up CEQA in a way that wouldn't be palatable.

Right. This only applies when there's no physical alteration that's happening. So when the district is actually ready to develop the parcel, that is, make a physical alteration, put up a building, add a new trail, grade the road, something like that, they'll do a full-blown CEQA, and they plan to do that right now. They've used public dollars to acquire land and they want to allow the public to access existing trails, open it up for experiencing nature consistent with 30 by 30 and things like that that we've prioritized in the state.

They don't have the money yet to actually develop the park, but they'd like the public to be able to enjoy it in the meantime. And so they looked at the categorical exemptions that exist for change in use, and it's a little bit ambiguous whether they could use one of those or not clearly shows that they can have a change in use for this particular circumstances.

And actually, it's a lot more narrow than some of the categorical exemptions for change of use that are already available through the CEQA guidelines. So that's what I mean by it kind of pushes the CEQA off to when you actually have a physical change. Perfect project.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? And we had a motion, did we not? And a second. Okay, great. Would you like to close?

Thank you. On behalf of our colleague, Mister Grayson, I appreciate an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you. Let's do it.

Item number six, AB 2091. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave it open for any additions. Thank you so much. Have a good day. Assemblymember Holden. Good morning. Thank you for your patience.

I feel like an honorary Member of the Committee. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. First, I'd like to thank the chair and her consultant for working with my office and our sponsor, the California League of Cities, on what I believe is a bipartisan issue that affects us all, wildfire preparation and preparedness. Second, I would also like to indicate that I accept the Committee's amendments.

Members, it has been acknowledged and documented that eight of the 20 largest wildfires in California's recorded history have occurred in the past seven years. This legislative body has deliberated, supported, and voted on measures that try to strike the right balance between public safety and environmental protection. As voting Members, in many instances, we look to the expertise of our local governments, who are often on the front lines of wildfire preparedness.

Unfortunately, many of our local entities have expressed concerns that long delays and lack of guidance are preventing local jurisdictions from being able to conduct wildfire prepared activities on lands located in fire hazard severity zones that are adjacent to urban areas. AB 2330 is proposed to amend as amended, seeks to provide a clear process to accelerate wildfire preparedness.

Activities in local responsibility areas, or lras, to ensure environmental protections are met and public safety is upheld by allowing local agencies to submit a wildfire preparedness plan to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for review within 90 days to inquire if an incidental take permit or ITP or other permits are needed. Once a completed ITP application is submitted, the Department of Fish and Wildlife must process them within 45 days.

Having approved applications received, receive a five year permit for wildfire preparedness activities to occur within a fire hazard severity zone, require CDFW consult with the state fire marshal to overlay existing critical habitat maps with lands that are within the fire hazard severity zones and finally, requiring Fish and Wildlife to post a summary of these efforts on their webpage on an annual basis.

This bill has no opposition and I respectfully ask for your I vote joining me here as my witnesses to testify as fire Chief Chris Nigg with the City of La Verne and Melissa Sparks Kranz with the California League of Cities.

Good morning Chair Papan and Members of the Committee Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities and we are pleased to work with Assemblymember Holden and sponsor AB 2330 the size and severity of wildfires in California is increasing due to climate extremes in California's recorded history. We just heard the top eight largest wildfires and the top two most destructive wildfires occurred just seven years ago, and the deadliest wildfire occurred in our state six years ago.

Cities are responsible for fire management activities and local responsibility areas within their jurisdiction and have identified fire hazard severity zones consistent with the state's ranking moderate, high and very high. Local agencies have faced difficulty in discerning if environmental take permits are needed for planned wildfire preparedness activities and then navigating the permitting process in a timely manner to ensure vegetation management activities can occur as quickly as possible.

To improve this communication and expedite the permitting while maintaining the standards of the California Endangered Species Act, the bill would authorize local agencies, including cities, counties and special districts, that have fire protection authorities, to submit their projects to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and to streamline the ability to receive a permit and conduct wildfire preparedness activities to avoid, minimize and fully mitigate the impacts to wildlife.

The bill's intent is to protect communities from the threat of wildfire through vegetative management practices, incorporate the best available scientific information for both wildfire preparedness and conservation practices, and to provide sufficient flexibility to maximize the participation in this streamlined pathway and to gain the maximum protections of life and property from the threat of wildfire without compromising wildlife benefits and upholding the environmental permitting process. At the Department of Fish and Wildlife, we appreciate the opportunity to present on AB 2330.

Respectfully request your I vote and I'm pleased to introduce the fire chief from the City of La Verne, Chris Nigg, to provide testimony and support today.

Good morning Chair Papan and Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Nigg. I'm the fire chief for the City of La Verne, which is located in the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County. I am both a Member of the League of California Cities and currently the Vice President of the League of California Cities Fire Chiefs Department. I also serve on the Executive board of the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association.

I'm the President of the La Area Foothill Fire Chiefs, President of the LA Area Fire Chiefs Regional Training Group, JPA and prior to my appointment, fire chief appointment served as the President of the Orange County fire marshals. As noted, it is critically important for municipal jurisdictions to reduce the public's vulnerability to the destructive forces of California's wildfires, more specifically those communities who make up the state's wildland urban interface. Accordingly, we are required to either enforce or conduct fuel management activities in the name of defensible space.

As professional firefighters, we are trained in predicting how a wildfire will turn and travel based on topography and diurnal weather patterns. However, as wildfire impacts have exacerbated in recent years, it's become increasingly clear that these fires are not as easily extinguished as they once were. Large scale conflagrations have become almost impossible to keep up with when conditions align. Firefighting resources are finite and although those resources are extraordinary at what they do, they can't be everywhere all at once.

Research and data continue to highlight the benefits of providing a minimum of 100ft of defensible space between a structure and fuel bed continuity. In fact, it is for those reasons that the California Fire Code now requires it. That said, professional fire departments throughout our state are charged with ensuring wildfire vulnerable lands adjacent to our communities are proactively cleared in order to reduce the impact of wildfire to life and property.

AB 2330 would help our jurisdictions by better defining the process of obtaining the necessary permits we may need to move our fuel management projects forward. We believe the bill balances improving our ability to communicate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife while providing for a defined, timely, publicly accessible transparency and readily available reference to environmentally protected areas within the CAL FIRE hazard severity zones. The mapping component of the bill alone will be a tremendous resource to have from both the state and local agencies perspective.

By overlaying these existing critical habitats within the fire hazard severity zone maps, we are afforded greater insight and objective clarity which will help us through the planning and execution phases of annual fuel management, ultimately alleviating confusion between local jurisdictions and CDFW. We see this as a benefit that is complementary to the process outlined in this bill. Thank you for having me at your hearing. We appreciate this Committee's consideration of the bill and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And there was no opposition, so I don't see any. But let's have people come down in favor of, please.

Good morning. Chris Anderson, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies and Support.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalvis, on behalf of the cities of Thousand Oaks and Torrance, in support.

Good morning. Stacey Heaton with the Rural County Representatives of California, in support. Good morning. Noel Kramers with Wine Institute, in support.

Good morning. Noelle Cremers with Wine Institute, in support.

Good morning. Anthony Tannehill, California Special Districts Association, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Bob Reeb with Reeb government relations, on behalf of El Dorado irrigation district and support.

Good morning. Kiara Ross, on behalf of the City of Pasadena, in support.

Abigail Smith, on behalf of East Bay Regional park district, in support.

Excellent. Thank you so much. I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Addis.

Thank you and thank you so much for bringing this forward. I just wanted to ask if you are taking co authors, I'd very much be appreciated to be added and be happy to move the bill if we don't have a motion already.

Yes.

Assemblymember Gallagher.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I fully support this bill and thank the author for bringing it forward. What I wanted to say on it, we need to do more of this, and I want to bring it to the Committee's attention that, you know, we've been trying to do the same type of thing in my area for a long time now. We're dealing with state or federally owned land in our case, but the need is there nonetheless, and we need more streamlined process.

So I'm happy to support this, but I would really like to, you know, just make the plea to my fellow colleagues. We need to do the same thing. I mean, right now we've had bills for several years that don't even get a hearing in natural resources Committee to do essentially very similar things to what you're doing here, which is streamlining the process for a fuel reduction process. The problem is fuel, 100%. The chief will, he just said that the problem is fuel.

They've been allowed to accumulate for decades now in our wildlands and our forested lands, and we have to be able to get in there and do this work quickly and having some streamlining of that process, CalVTP is not working. So anybody who's coming up here saying, well, we have CalVTP for that, talk to many fire councils about how that's working out for them and how much is really expediting the process. It's not. We need more things like this.

And I'm glad this is getting a hearing and water Committee, but, you know, we have bills right now to propose doing similar things and they aren't getting, you know, the current Chairman is not giving them a hearing in the Committee. So when we talk about wildfires and why I do something about wildfire prevention, this is the kind of stuff that we need to do and we need to be thinking through how we do a lot more of this.

It's great to do it in this instance, but I'm telling you, like, we have a much bigger problem. So appreciate the bill coming forward today. I will be supporting it, but I hope that we can do more of this. Thank you.

You're welcome. With that, I don't see any other comments from the Committee. Did we have a motion a second already? We did. Addis was the motion and Villapudua was the second. So let's go ahead and take a vote. You want to close?

And I appreciate the fact that the Committee, the Administration, environmental community has worked with us on this as well. It's been a very important bringing together of stakeholders that have a variety of different interests. But we were able to see it come together in a very appropriate way. So I appreciate that and ask for your aye vote.

We can strike a balance. Okay. Thank you.

Item number eight, AB 2330. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Role Call].

I believe we have enough votes. We'll keep it open for add ons. Assemblymember Pellerin, item number seven. Come on down. Assembly Bill 2103 dealing with state parks. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Members, I will accept the Committee's amendments which add a five year sunset and ensure that state parks purchases properties at fair market value. Following the 2020 CZU Lightning complex fire, which burned across the entirety of Big Basin Redwood State park and portions of surrounding parks, the California Department of Parks and recreation initiated planning process to reimagine big basin redwoods.

In this effort, state parks has partnered with various conservation organizations to identify and evaluate land parcels that are essential to improving forest health, connecting landscapes, and building climate resilience. Conservation nonprofits that partner with state parks often purchase properties with the intention and shared goal with state parks to ultimately transfer ownership of land parcels to the Department for long term protection.

The current process of state land acquisition, which requires approval by the Public Works Board and Department of General Services, is often delayed when conservation organizations end up having to wait many months or even years to transfer property to the Department. It creates uncertainty for conservation partner entities regarding whether the land they purchase will be bought or accepted by the Department in a timely fashion.

This uncertainty and untimeliness will often leave organizations in a vulnerable position, as they must continue to own and manage high conservation value lands for long periods of time. AB 2103 will help provide certainty to acquisition partners by adding property acquired for Big Basin Redwoods, Ano Nuevo and Butano State parks to the list of exemptions from the Public Works Board process. This bill is narrowed to the region due to the need to rebuild after the CZU fire and by speeding up the land acquisition process.

This bill serves as a tool for permanently protecting lands for conservation, cultural, and recreational purposes, as well as meeting our climate goals. With me to testify and support are Rachel Dan from the Sempervirens Fund and Abigail Smet on behalf of the California State Parks foundation.

Thank you, Assembly Member Pellerin Good morning chair and Members, my name is Rachel Dan. I'm the Director of government relations at Sempervirens Fund. Sempervirens Fund is California's first land trust and the proud sponsor of AB 2103.

For over 100 years, Semper Byron's Fund has been a committed partner with state parks to to protect and connect the redwood forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains. In 2020, the CZU Lightning complex fire burned over the entirety of Big Basin Redwood State park, as well as portions of Butano and Ano Nuevo. In the wake of this catastrophic fire, state parks initiated a planning process to reimagine the future of Big Basin California's first state park.

The resulting vision identified the need to acquire additional land to support the relocation of visitor serving facilities previously located within some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the park. The vision also identified the need to strengthen the landscape connectivity, improve forest health, and enhance climate resiliency.

To help fulfill the reimagining Big Basin Vision, the Department partnered with conservation organizations in the Santa Cruz Mountains regional, including Semperviren's Fund, to develop a tool for identifying land parcels adjacent to, within, or near the current boundaries of these state parks that are essential to realizing this vision, conservation organizations like us are key partners. To acquire these lands, we often need to move quickly to purchase and protect parcels, which we then transfer to the Department.

Unfortunately, as you just heard, the current process for transferring land to state parks is drawn out and can take years. In the meantime, partners like us are limited in our ability to manage and protect additional key parcels. AB 2103 will pilot a streamlined process for transferring lands associated with rebuilding Big Basin in the surrounding parks by allowing the Department to acquire property on its own behalf. Much like the Wildlife Conservation Board, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, a number of other state agencies already do.

AB 2103 is a crucial step in rebuilding the parks that have been decimated by catastrophic climate events in recent years and for fulfilling the vision of a connected climate resilient and accessible state park system in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We respectfully request your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Abigail Smet on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, a Member supported nonprofit dedicated to protecting and preserving the California California State Park system for the benefit of all California State Parks are a critical role. They have a critical role to play in reaching the state's 30 by 30 climate resilience and outdoor access goals. They cover 1.6 million acres of protected land and almost one quarter of the California coastline. They're an invaluable asset in conservation, historical preservation and providing public access to California's incredible landscapes.

This bill, as previously mentioned, would, for a limited time, exempt land acquired for the purpose of rebuilding and reimagining the oldest state park in the state and be able to make it more climate resilient and better serve the needs of its visitors after the devastating 2020 CZU Lightning complex fires.

I'll be brief now that the details have been covered, but I'll just say this is a very narrowly tailored and really effective way to rebuild this park efficiently, and we hope that we can use this to expand access and climate resilience in the Santa Cruz Mountains specifically. Thank you so much. Do we have folks in the audience that want to come down and express their support?

Thank you so much. Do we have folks in the audience that want to come down and express their support?

Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW and support. Thank you.

Hi, Kristin Gorey on behalf of Save the Redwoods League, Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, and Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in support. Thank you.

And I know you don't have any opposition that I'm aware of, so we will bring it back to the Committee, Assemblymember Addis.

I love this bill. Thank you. If you're accepting co authors would love to co author, if I'm not already and happy to miss the bill.

Any other comments, questions? Let's see what it does. That's what I gotta say. Without further ado, would you like to close?

Aye respectfully ask for your. Aye vote. Thank you.

Ayetem number seven, AB 2103. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Great, you qualified. We'll leave it open for additional votes. Thank you. Have a great day.

We're gonna do a little bit of housekeeping and get caught up in some of our votes here, so I'm going to turn it over to the Clerk, and we will go through in chronological order of the agenda items.

Consent, calendar. [Roll Call]

Item number one, AB-1889. Motion was do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number three, AB-2038. Quirk-Silva. Motion was do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number four, AB-2060. Soria. Motion was do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We didn't have a motion for Quirk-Silva. So, do we have a motion? Assemblymember Davies and a second, Alvarez. He beat you to it. So we're going to retake that vote.

Item number three, AB-2038, Quirk-Silva. Motion is do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right. We need a motion and a second for AB-2060, which is Soria. Great Bill, I'll move it. Second from Hart.

AB-2060. Soria. A motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. Item number five, AB-2079. Bennett. Motion was do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number six, AB-2091. Motion was do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

AB-2443. Assemblymember Carrillo. Dealing with Joshua Tree. Do we have a motion? From Davies. A second? From Assemblymember Hart. Thank you.

Item number 10, AB-2443. Motion is do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, great. Assemblymember Hart, AB 2558, dealing with Waterways and Fish. Do we have a motion? Addis. Motion, second by Davies. Let's take a vote. Papan. Aye.

Item number 12, AB 2558 motion was due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Oh, this is the first one we did. AB-2643. Assemblymember Wood. Dealing with cannabis and restoration. Addis is a motion. Second by Hart.

Item number 14. AB-2643. Motion was do-pass two appropriations. [Roll Call]

Excellent. Thank you so much for your patience.

I might have given the wrong vote. Did you go? AB 1889. Friedman, was that the first one you called out?

Yes.

Wildlife crossings. You were listed as an aye. Would you like to change to no.

Davies aye to no. Item number one. AB 1889.

Thank you. Okay, Assemblymember Gipson, take it away.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2465. This Bill aims to prioritize and provide financial assistance to socially disadvantaged groups by incentivizing existing organizations to diversify their governing body by empowering diverse-led organizations. AB-2465 aims to integrate them into California's climate and green infrastructure workforce. There are evidence funding disparities between diverse-led organizations and those that are not. Currently, there are significant funding disparities between diverse-led organizations and others.

For instance, African-American or Black and Latino nonprofit leaders receive only about 4% of the philanthropic funds in the United States, despite comparing approximately 10% nonprofit leadership nationwide. According to the Bridge Span analysis, the unrestricted net asset for black-led organizations are 76% smaller than their counterparts, and the average percentage of revenues was less than half. This inequity in access is certainly concerning when it comes down to the funding that exists, and we understand that correlations to trust absolutely matters.

Diverse-led organizations face multiple challenges such as fewer staff, smaller budgets, and less funding leading to them being redlined, a term indicating severe underfunding and a lack of support. Assembly Bill 2465 proposes three key policy changes to enhance quality in governmental fundings and grants towards these programs involving and focusing on environmental justice, agriculture, urban forestry, land acquisition, and watershed improvement with a sunset date of January 1, 2031.

First, the state agency would be mandated to award preference points to nonprofit organization with a majority of their board members coming from disadvantaged groups. Second, state agencies would be barred from penalizing socially disadvantaged organizations that lack matching funds for grant request. Lastly, socially disadvantaged organizations, historically underrepresented, is considered in this particular Bill that would require them to demonstrate competitive, comparable projects by state agencies.

Here to support this Bill is Charles Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of Outward Bound Adventures, as well as Darryl Lucien, Director of California African American Water Education Fund.

Madam Chair and Members. Darryl Lucien, here testifying on behalf of the California African American Water Education Foundation and 40 Acre Conservation League, which is one of the state's first black-led land conservancies. We're really thankful to be here, really thankful for the consideration that this Bill is receiving. We have a very bold mandate with 30 by 30 in many of our building decarbonization goals and the like. And these are all efforts that really require all of us.

It requires everyone's innovative thinking with respect to the challenges that we face as a state. And so what this Bill really effectively does is it takes grant guidelines that are promulgated by state agencies when they are given funding by you all, to grant out.

What we did is we basically, with the help of some of the co-sponsors, is we went through all of the grant guidelines and we took out all of the best practices that are contained within each of the existing grant guidelines and put them in a Bill. And when we say best practices, what we really are drilling down on is best practices from the perspective of equity and inclusion, and diversity. And so that's really the Bill that is present before you.

Even prior to that, as we had embarked on this effort, we were well into the legislative session last year, and we weren't able to, or we didn't try, but we weren't able to get a Bill introduced because of that. And so what we did is, I believe it was Assemblymember Tina McKinnor authored HR-32, which commemorated black conservation week.

But even within that resolution, that specific resolution requested that state agencies take meaningful steps to diversify where these grant awards are going so that we can reach that. What we like to think of as sort of critical mass of Californians who are really doing the important climate work that needs to be done. And so this Bill really sort of implements that resolution, and that resolution implements the collective best practices among existing state agencies for diversity, equity, inclusion.

So, here to answer any questions that you all may have, thank you for the consideration.

Okay, do we have me-toos in the audience? Please come forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm Charles Thomas, Executive Director of Outward Bound Adventure, one of the state's best-kept secrets. Did you guys know that the oldest nonprofit in the United States, states dedicated to getting communities of color connected to nature is right here in your home state? Just outside the LA area. I'm here in support of the Bill, obviously. And I'm also here to make one thing clear, that the Bill is not asking for any special provision. It is asking to support equity in this case.

My organization was established in 1959 and then got its name in 1962, registered in 1962 by a former Tuskegee Airmen, the first African American male in the Sierra Club, and a teacher. And it actually started in Jackie Robinson's home school in Pasadena. My program operates five different programs. And basically what we do is we engage low-income communities of color, racially marginalized communities, and getting them engaged in meaningful outdoor conservation work. We have worked with about 90,000 people since our inception.

I personally have been doing this work for 45 years. I have been a ranger's aide in the early seventies. I have been an ecologist for the Army Corps of Engineers. I have been an environmental scientist for a consulting firm, and I have been a National Park Service Regional Ranger over the Pacific West region. And during my tenure, and all of those jobs that I've had, I started working when I was three, as you can see.

During my time in all those jobs I had, I was very lonely when I looked around the room to see if there were others like me. But now I run crews. I run crews of gang-impacted neighborhood folks and we teach them to do restoration work. And I am seeing a big issue with us getting funding. So I deeply, deeply support this.

I want you to know that I have two apprenticeship training programs that run out of South LA and go as far as San Bernardino. I'm wrapping it up. I see you. Thank you. And I just want to close with this, this Bill that promotes greater inclusion and consideration of putting more folks to work. That's where the rubber meets the road. We appreciate it. We appreciate Assemblyman Gipson's leadership and authoring this Bill. And we respectfully request and aye vote on this Bill. Thank you very much for your time.

Good morning. Kyle Jones with Community Water Center, a Latino-led organization. In support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And I know there's no opposition, so do we have questions from or comments from the Committee?

I wanted to thank the author for bringing this up. I believe I'm a co-author of this and I would second the motion.

Thank you.

Do we have a first? Thank you, Assemblymember Weber. Any other questions or comments? Yes, Assemblymember Weber.

Good morning. I also just want to thank the author and the sponsors for bringing this Bill forward to help us recognize, you know, the fact that we need to be looking at all different areas within our state to repair a lot of the harms that were done, including ensuring that those who have been historically disadvantaged in terms of being able to have an economic leg up when others were provided, oftentimes things for free.

And now today we see that they have an economic leg up and have the financial backing to get a lot of these grants and opportunities that other communities are not able to have. And so I just really want to thank the author and the sponsors and supporters for bringing this forward so that we can have this discussion within the environmental space as well. So thank you.

Assemblymember Addis.

This Bill is so real, having founded and been in the nonprofit world and seeing how certain groups do have a leg up, especially if they've had experience or they have money in the bank already, and how that can really work against other groups that are new but are doing the right work or come from disadvantaged communities and are doing the right work. And if you're taking additional co-authors, I would be honored to be added. Thank you.

Thank you. Duly noted.

Anyone else? Thank you for your work on this important matter. Sometimes money can be so unfriendly and it takes so much to get at it. So I appreciate the efforts with that. Let's take a vote. Would you like to close?

I'll take your comments as my close.

You're terrific. Thank you.

Item number 11, AB-2465. Motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for those that come back wishing to add on. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos. Assemblymember Lackey, Assemblymember Ramos has been kind enough to let you come forward, so let's get you in and out of here. This is item number 15 dealing with. Excuse me, 17. The other one's on consent. Thank you, Assembly Member Davies. Land conservation and Wildlife. Thank you, Assemblymember Addis.

Ready?

We are ready for San Bernardino. Is San Bernardino ready for us? That's the question.

I do have maps I could hand out that might help me explain this bill.

San Bernardino, we know you. All right, go for it.

Hand those out real quickly. Thank you, Madam Chair and members, for allowing me to present AB 3182. I want to begin by thanking the committee for their Hard work. And of course, we're going to accept the committee's amendments. And as you can tell, for the last two days, I've had no voice and to preserve my voice. I'm going to allow my partner here to explain the bill.

Good morning, committee members. I'm Brad Jensen. I'm the legislative affairs director for San Bernardino County. Very pleased to talk about this Bill today. A map has been handed out, and I'll just give a very brief kind of background on a complicated bill. This is a district bill that addresses a 35 year old problem for San Bernardino County. We have an old joke in San Bernardino. We are far from God and too close to LA. And that's not necessarily the case here.

But one of the interesting things is that this is dealing with some parkland that was purchased with state, state park bond funds from Prop 70 that was passed in 1988. So I'll refer to the map just to tell a very quick story. If you look at the map, you're looking at a corner of San Bernardino County in Chino, and it's right at the confluence of Orange, LA, Riverside and San Bernardino County. So it's a very interesting area of the four corners of the county.

In 1988, we got $20 million out of Prop 70, and we purchased 366 acres of land that we wanted to turn into a park. The land that we purchased is right in the middle of the map. You can see kind of three squares that are kind of a bright yellow. And unfortunately, that land was not contiguous. It wasn't adjacent to one another. It was old dairy land.

If you've ever seen back to the future, when Marty McFly goes back to 1955, he finds that his neighborhood is just a whole bunch of farmland. Well, that was filmed in Chino, and it certainly no longer looks like that today. But initially, the land was purchased in order to preserve the agricultural history of the area. And unfortunately, over the years, we've never been able to put the land together or find a way to use it for parks.

So 15 years ago, a law was passed, SB 1124, that amended Prop 70. And our county essentially operates under that structure that was created. It created a very kind of strict set of steps that the county must follow to develop a land plan. It allows us to sell the parkland that we had purchased back in the early nineties and be able to take the funds and use it within what we call the Chino Agricultural Preserve.

That preserve is indicated by the red lines that you see on the map. And so what we have done over the years is we have sold some of our properties and purchased replacement property that we are holding as open space next to Prado Regional Park. That's at the bottom of the map. There we've bought roughly 475 acres there that we plan to use and hold in perpetuity as open space conservation. It'll be a wildlife habitat and have some trails and things like that.

However, the land that we originally purchased is now much more valuable than when we bought it back in the late eighties. And so we would wish to sell that and then repurpose it and be able to use those proceeds for very substantial park and infrastructure improvements within the Chino area. What we find is we have a 2200 acre park in Prato that we are struggling to get people to come and use. The amenities are not terrific. We're very restricted because it's in a floodplain.

So we have to have very limited types of investment there. And we also are subject to a lot of flooding. And so we want to make improvements to the road and to improve access for our residents. So what this bill does is it amends 1124. It authorizes the county to use the sale proceeds to use it and invest it in a variety of different park and recreation purposes.

And so it is rather complicated to explain, but we are really hoping that this bill will resolve this issue that we've had for 35 years. And we appreciate very much the analysis that was put together. We've had some very positive conversations with Stephanie, and we are accepting the amendments and would appreciate an aye vote today.

Okay, do we have anybody from the audience who's in favor?

Madam Chair and members, Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, in support.

Madam Chair and members, Amy Jenkins on behalf of the City of Ontario and Orange County Board of Supervisors, Chairman Don Wagner.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Paul Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Chino, in support.

Madam Chair, members, Ross Buckley on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, in support.

Chair and members, Don Wilcox, with the California Conference of Carpenters, in support.

Natalia with Crew Strategies, on behalf of Southern California Associations of Governments, in support.

Thank you so much. I know there's no opposition on file. I can bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Okay. I've just got a few remarks before I let you close, if I may. I want to thank you for taking the amendments to return state park's oversight over the spending of those funds. I respect the efforts of the author and sponsors to use these proposition funds for beneficial park and recreational purpose and the unique position you find yourselves in.

Especially considering my own background in local government. It is a blessing, certainly, to have land that's gone up in value. I think we need to be careful, though, in considering how we allow new users of this money, new uses of this money that was approved by the voters. Because of your commitment that you've represented to work with committee staff, this bill has do pass as amended and recommendation today.

But I do reserve the right, perhaps to change and not vote with the bill once it gets to the floor. So let's see how we work our way through the system with that. Do we have a motion and a second? Yes. Motion. Sorry, Davies. And there was a second by Addis. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and take a vote. Do you want to close?

I just want to thank my partner here, Brad Jensen, San Bernardino's County's alleged affairs director, and I would ask for your support. We also have two congressional support letters as well.

Thank you, Mr. Assemblymember Lackey. Let's take a vote.

Item number 17, AB 3182. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Got enough votes. And we'll leave the roll open for additional add ons. Thank you. Assemblymember Ramos, come on down. Okay, this is item number lucky number 13 and dealing with tribal water use. Thank you for your accommodation Assemblymember Ramos. Assemblymember Lackey.

No problem, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I'm presenting AB 20614 a bill that would add tribal cultural use of water to the existing state. Beneficial use of water statute tribal beneficial usage California tribes since time immemorial have been stewards of their environment. Waterways and bodies of water have an important cultural aspect and must be treated as such. A resource tribe continues to harvest plants for different ceremonies.

We just conducted on our reservation our yucca harvest this last weekend, so water is definitely connected to the plant life that keeps resource tribes moving forward with their cultural ceremonies. In the existing state statute, beneficial uses of water have been protected and required to be protected by local water authorities and the State Water Board.

When California's first people are not at the table when these discussions are being had, cultural impacts is something that sometimes are irreversible and resources are depleted as we go out and still gather the plant life and things for our baskets and things to move forward, to teach down for generation to generation. An example of not having tribal voices at the table is along 395 though Lancia area that continues to try to recover from depletion.

This bill would add the requirement for tribal cultural uses to be viewed in the same manner. In making this addition, the state can correct a long standing injustice that tribes have historically been left out of the conversation as it relates to water resources and uses. Tribes can fulfill their sacred duties of being stewards of the land in which they are traditionally tied to. One of these areas of staying connected to the land includes California's first people voice in the process at the table.

Even the State of California moved forward with a conscience to do a formal apology to the California Indian people. I commented, I am committed to working with stakeholders and addressing concerns about the bill moving forward. And Madam Chair, we did have a meeting yesterday in my office where we talked about the issues and some areas that still needed to be vetted out. We were then and still am in favor of accepting one of those amendments.

But I do understand that now those amendments aren't on the table. So as an author of the bill that I am going to be moving forward at a future time to include that amendment into the area. The other amendment that dealt with regulation versus statute. What I want to do is ask for more time to work through that issue and bring people to the table, water agencies and tribes to work through some of those disagreements that are there.

That's the ask today to be able to move this bill forward. With me to testify on the bill today is Vice Chair Malissa Tayaba of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the sponsor of the bill, and Max Gomberg for any technical questions.

Good morning, Chairwoman and committee members. My name is Malissa Tayaba. I am the vice chair and director of traditional ecological knowledge for Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians We are the sponsor of AB 20614 which would establish tribal beneficial uses of water and statute. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to bring forward this very important measure that seeks to adequately, holistically, and expeditiously protect the health of our tribal communities.

In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned about our degraded conditions in our rivers, which impact the ability of our people to maintain culture, tradition, and food sovereignty. Our people have relied upon these waterways and the cultural landscapes connected to them since long before European colonization. We have also heard similar concerns from other tribes statewide and determined that current state efforts to protect tribal water uses are insufficient, which is why we are pursuing legislation.

AB 20614 would place tribal water uses on equal footing with other statewide beneficial uses of water, such as recreation and aesthetic enjoyment. A statutory designation would ensure that state regulators understand and protect the water uses of all California tribes. Additionally, the bill would create improved frameworks for state agencies to consult with tribes and benefit from their knowledge when setting water quality standards. Furthermore, it would allow the legislature to track progress on implementation of tribal beneficial uses and evaluate whether regulations conform to statutory policy directives.

There are some problems with the existing process. After years of working with State Water Board and regional boards, there has been little movement on a statewide and regional level to designate, adopt and implement tribal beneficial uses and to set water quality standards that protect the way tribes uniquely use our waterways.

From our perspective, it appears the Water Board's incentive is to not act act due to various political actors that do not want to add tribal water uses into the mix of beneficial uses that must be protected through regulations. This is unacceptable. We are asking that tribal water uses be put on equal footing with other statewide beneficial uses and we feel our only recourse is to bring the issue to you, the legislature. Because the state board and regional boards process is is failing us.

The state has made some improvements in respecting tribal sovereignty and addressing centuries of impacts from colonization to present. However, tribes still face structural disadvantages and inequities when it comes to water. Many tribes are still not being heard and valued. All tribes deserve state action to help maintain our ways of life. This bill represents an important step towards protecting all tribal water uses for all California tribes. Thank you.

Do we have any me toos in the audience? Please come forward.

Alex Leumer on behalf of California Trout, in strong support. Thank you.

Frank Molina on behalf of the San Diego Spanish Chumash Indians, in strong support.

Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife. In support.

Gabriela Facio at Sierra Club California, in strong support.

Kyle Jones with Community Water Center and also on behalf of Clean Water Action and Leadership, Council for Justice and Accountability, in support. Thank you.

Natalie Brown with the Planning Conservation League, in support. Thank you.

Don't touch. But I touched it. I'm sorry. My name is Bo Mazzetti. I'm chairman of Marincon Reservation and also president of the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority, consisting of five tribes on the San Jose river. The San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority is the oldest Indian water authority in the United States. I had a good discussion with Sherman Esquivel of the Water Board this morning, who would like to see this.

He said he's not taking a stand at this point, but he'd like to work with any issue that may arise. And I would ask this body to move the bill forward so we could work and come to conclusion with positive results. Our tribes need to clarify this, and this is the way to do it. What is beneficial uses to our people? We need that. And I ask your board, I can say, you know, I'm proud of this group and the State of California.

They're the only state in the United States. California is the only state in the United States through the SGMA legislation, recognized federal reserve water rights. And we thank you for that. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else? Okay. And I don't have any registered opposition. Is there opposition? Would like to come? There is opposition. Excuse me. Time flies.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Bob Reeb. Reeb Government Relations on behalf of El Dorado Irrigation District and Valley Ag Water Coalition, which are referenced in your committee analysis. So this is a complex issue. If this bill simply added tribal water uses to the definition of beneficial uses in the water code, my clients would have no objection to the bill. But it goes much, much farther than that.

We certainly understand the frustration the sponsor feels regarding the pace of work by the State Board and the regional boards. That said, this bill goes far beyond that which our clients believe is necessary. This bill would place the hand of the legislature on the scale towards what you heard, protection of tribal water uses.

Now, state law and the water quality laws that go back to 1969 and the Porter Colonial Water Quality Control Act do direct the regional and state boards provide reasonable protection to beneficial uses of water. But they also recognize that some of those uses may be diminished to some extent. Without unreasonably affecting that beneficial use. And so when you have the water quality control plans, they then look to implementation that affects water rights.

And there's a lot of people that are frustrated with the pace of work that the State Water Resources Control Board is undertaking on the Bay Delta water quality control plan. It's really not their fault. It's like putting together a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle and all the pieces are like opaque gray. They're doing the best they can and a lot of people are frustrated. But the process needs to play out.

This bill would, in effect, stop progress on the Bay Delta water quality control plan and require the state board to go back to the beginning to establish beneficial uses, then identify the water bodies that those beneficial uses would be a part of, then adopt water quality objectives, and then incorporate those into a water quality control plan. Now the sponsors and their supporters are in a different position on the Bay Delta water quality control plan.

They support the unimpaired flows alternative that state board staff has brought forward. Our clients and others support what has been called the voluntary agreements process. It's really a matter of just allowing more water to go down our rivers and waterways from March to June of each year versus the agreements for healthy rivers and landscapes. That's going to take a more holistic approach to restoring floodplain habitat, aquatic habitat and increased flows during certain times of the year. As I said, it's very complex.

The state board process should be allowed to play out. This Bill is going to insert all manner of chaos into that process. And for those and other reasons, including CEQA impacts and changes to the water quality monitoring council, our clients are asking for a no vote. El Dorado Irrigation District did meet with the proponents a week ago. Yesterday provided the same letter and amendments that we provided to the committee. We have not heard back from the sponsors, the proponents on those amendments yet.

So I understand a work in progress, but we don't view that in this light and would ask that the bill not be moved today. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Any members of the audience in opposition?

Chris Anderson, Association of California Water Agencies. We submitted a letter of concern. Now, I will note that was a seven page letter of concern, which for us to not take a position but engage to that level is unusual. But that's because we've wanted to endeavor to help this bill reflect what are the stated goals of this bill. As Mr. Reeb explained, if the bill just added tribal uses to beneficial uses, we wouldn't be here.

But the fact of the matter is this bill goes far beyond what the stated intent of the bill is. It's obviously now with the dialogue regarding committee amendments, which we thought were very reasonable but still would require a significant amount of work even if those were accepted. But to see that we're not quite sure what the State of that is, is certainly concerning to us as we have really endeavored to try to avoid taking an opposition position.

And I really want to underscore the last thing that Mr. Reeb said, the Bay Delta water quality control plan and the impact this bill will have on it. As the committee analysis correctly highlights, this is a process that has been underway for more than a decade, and we're really at the 11th hour of trying to resolve this, and this Bill is going to cause a significant delay.

I think everybody agrees it is time to update the water quality control plan and this bill is an impediment to that. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, very briefly, similar to Mr. Anderson, seeming does not have an opposed position on this bill. We do have significant concerns. I won't repeat them because they're actually, many of them are well stated in the committee's analysis.

Should the bill move forward today, you know, we hope to sit down with the author, meet with him, hear him out, and share those concerns more thoroughly and see where we could arrive. But obviously we're looking forward to seeing the outcome here.

Thank you so much. I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments?

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward as opposition and others have brought up.

I have the same kind of concerns as well, but obviously it's essential aspect that tribal culture also have good clean water and accessibility to it as well. And so with that, I will be supporting this bill today, but I'm pretty sure the author will probably be working with opposition that has come up. So thank you.

Assemblymember Bonta.

I want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill.

Assemblymember Ramos if what we are being asked to do right now is to put the hand on the scale toward protection of tribal water usage, then count my hand in, please. I understand that this has been a decades long process, perhaps, but it's very clear to me that why we are here today is because tribal voices were not included in the way that they should have been during that decades long process.

So I'm thankful for you to bring forth a spell and continuing to work with the opponents on whatever might be supportive of those ongoing efforts. But at the end of the day, we know at least where my hand lies.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, I just want to thank the author as well for his work. I think, frankly, just bringing the bill forward has put pressure on everybody involved in the conversation and accelerated the work, which is really important. And I appreciate your offer to work with the opposition to figure out some of these more complex issues and as it goes through the process.

And I heard this morning from representatives from the Chumash tribe in my district about their concerns about working with the regional Water Quality control board in the central coast. And I think they appreciate very much the extra push that your bill gives to that conversation. So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else? Senator Bennett.

There are lots of complicated issues when it comes to water in California, and as you see, with the, with the write up from staff, et cetera. And so I wish the author well as he goes forward in terms of trying to work all those things out with everybody. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I'll do a me, too. To Assemblymember Hart's comments, I want to say thank you that Miwok came in, as well as the Chumash, to express their support and their concerns and reasons that this is necessary. And it was very helpful for me because I had a lot of questions about how this would all work. And CEQA, which is always very sensitive in my district. And so because of all those clarifications and advocacy, I was able to help move the bill today.

I'll obviously vote for the bill today and want to say thank you for all the conduct and communication and your commitment to continue working out any issues. But agree with Assemblymember Bonta that at the end of the day, we need to right the wrongs that have happened, especially when it comes to water rights that are incredibly complicated. And so appreciate the conversation and the contact on this.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else? Okay, I got a few comments, if you will. So your goal with bringing this bill forward is both laudable and just no question about it. And I appreciate the sponsors sharing their experience here today. I support your efforts to obtain equity and equity and to obtain justice. This bill is not whether to. Well, let me put it this way. For me, the issue is not whether to consider tribal benefits, but rather how to consider them.

I do have reservations about the bill's scope and the fact that it sets a new President by defining a beneficial use in a statute, if this bill moves forward, would look like it does. I encourage you to consider how a statutory definition may not give you the flexibility in the future should the need arise for tribal benefit uses to evolve.

Assemblymember Ramos, I appreciate your commitment to continue working on this bill to strike the right balance and what may be workable as we go forward in considering what are tribal benefits, tribal beneficial uses? Excuse me. I think it needs additional thought and additional deliberation, which you've represented, you will be doing. I, however, will not be supporting the bill today. I felt that the amendments were reasonable and that we should be very careful about statutorily providing for these definitions.

But I look forward to spending more time with a more finished and carefully crafted product for further consideration down the road. So we have a motion and a second. And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your comments. We did have a meeting where we were going to accept committee amendments on amendment two. We understand that's not on the table anymore. However, as the author of the bill, we are going to continue to work on that amendment. The amendment that we want more time to work out and vet through is the statutory versus regulation. And you heard from opposition as far as some of the concerns that are there.

And you also heard from those on this dais that the voice of the California's first people was not part of the original discussions back in 185021903 and even 1969. So it's time that we bring the tribal voice to the table in a collegial manner, where we have both sides at the table to discuss why it's so important to one and why it's so important to the other that has not vetted through yet. But we are open to making sure that that does happen.

And so as we start to look at this issue moving forward, these are issues that we're tackling that you can see by the dates that have not allowed a voice to be heard from California's first people at the table simply to be part of the discussion on how we move forward. So in asking for your, aye vote in standing up and showing that the state stands by its conscience.

Its conscience based on the apology by the state administrator, the Governor of the United States of the State of California, to right the wrongs against California's first people. It's time that the voice of California's first people is heard, and it's not an afterthought. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and take a vote. All right.

Item number 13, AB 20614 motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That was the only one that had a complete vote. Congratulations.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. And with that, we will do some cleanup and and call it a day.

Okay. On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, item number one, AB-1889. Motion was do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 4, AB-2060. Motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 5, AB-2079. Motion was do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 6, AB-2091. Motion was do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 7, AB-2103. Motion was do-pass, as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number eight, AB-2330. Motion was do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 10, AB-2443. Motion was do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 11, AB-2465. Motion was do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 10, AB-2443. [Roll Call]

Item number 4, AB-2060. Motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 5, AB-2079. Motion is do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, item number 7, AB-2103. Motion is do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 8, AB-2330. Motion is do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 10, AB-2443. Motion is do-pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 11, AB-2465. Motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, item number 12, AB-2558. Motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 13, AB-2614. Motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 14, AB-2643. Motion is do-pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 17, AB 3182. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Alvarez. Alvarez Aye. Garcia.

I'm gonna gavel down, so we are adjourned.