Assembly Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good afternoon everyone. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is called to order. We are going to operate right now on a Subcommitee basis. We don't have a quorum yet, but before we begin, I'd like to cover just a few logistics for all those who will be providing comments today. We ask that you please state your name and the organization you represent, and if you support or oppose the Bill being considered, any Member of the public may also submit written comments to our Committee through email.

Emails may be sent to the address found on the Committee website, which is agri.comittyassembly.ca.gov. Today, two bills have been pulled from the agenda. Item four, AB 3053 Calvary and item five, AB 2870 marasuchi. So we now have six bills on the file. Today, two bills are on consent. We will hear Bill presentations in file order. If the author of the next Bill on the file is not in the room, we immediately move to the next Bill on the file.

And just to continue with the tradition that I started in the last Committee hearing, I wanted to share historical fun fact and so California is known as the Golden State. I think we all hear that very commonly. This is primarily due to the gold rush of 1850, which brought a massive influx of people to California. What is less known is that from 1850 to 1860, the value of the gold mine in California was about $400 million in 18 $60.

During that same decade, California produced over $700 million in ag goods. So as the gold mining era came to a close, California realized that while there was not much gold left in the hill, there was plenty of gold left in the field. So I suggest that maybe we should be called the golden ag State. But anyway, so I do want to acknowledge we have Doctor Joaquin Arambula, who was here way before the Committee hearing started. Thank you for being on time.

You can go ahead and proceed and present your bill, which is file item one, Assembly Bill 2528 by Assembly Member Arambula.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Vice Chair. I'd first like to begin by thanking the Committee and specifically you, Madam Chair, and Victor Francovich for the work that we've been able to do. I am happy to incorporate the Committee's recommendations as outlined. Additionally, to address Committee Members' concerns, we will be further narrowing the bill to explicitly only include Central Valley counties with critically overdrafted basins.

AB 2528 ensures that California meets its climate goals, protects groundwater, and improves air quality by increasing the availability of land for renewable energy products. According to the CPUC, California must add more than 114,000 utility scale renewables to the grid, including at least 70,000 utility scale solar. Most of these projects will happen in the Central Valley. In the Central Valley right now, many agricultural landowners are at risk of losing access to water that is essential to their ability to farm their land.

Many of these landowners will be left with no viable economic alternatives. This confluence of water sustainability needs and clean energy demand creates an opportunity for us to craft an approach that addresses multiple economic and environmental goals. I believe that it is possible for us to achieve a carbon free future with good paying jobs, cleaner air, and mitigation of climate change, while respecting local control and giving a lifeline to landowners. Testifying in support of Assembly Bill 2528 is Shannon Eddy with the Large-scale Solar Association and Matthew Allen with Western Growers.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Shannon Eddy with Large-Scale Solar Association. We're a trade association of utility-scale solar developers and owners. Happy to be here today. We believe this bill really provides some solutions to multiple state priorities. So I just will walk through those briefly.

As Dr. Arambula pointed out, because of our multi-sector climate targets, our grid is going to need to triple in size in the next 20 years. More than half of that will be solar, 70,000 megawatts, as he pointed out. For context, we have 17,000 megawatts online today. So we have a lot of work to do in a very short period of time. To site that much solar, we need about 500,000 to 700,000 acres. And we also are in a state that's fairly transmission constrained. And what that means is that projects have to take on things like substations and longer gen-tie lines in order to interconnect to the grid. So that adds cost to a project.

And to add cost, you need a bigger project, and that then takes up more land. So these are projects that need mostly contiguous, big areas of contiguous land, near transmission, and also preferably with low species conflicts. And that combination is very difficult to find in California, especially right now, because the desert is mostly off limits to solar. And so that brings us to this bill, and also to the recognition that more than 1 million acres of productive ag land are expected to come out of production because of water constraints. And so siting.

So let's talk a little bit about just siting solar. Going through the siting process for any solar project is difficult at every phase. Adding the complexity of a Williamson Act cancellation to that, it adds time, it adds more cost and more complexity. To the extent that we could end up in a situation, and we have, where developers have to abandon a site, you all know probably more than I that Williamson Act covers more than 50% of the ag lands in the state.

And so what we've done is we've tried to create a very surgical approach to canceling the Williamson Act under very strict circumstances where there are water constraints, only for solar wind storage, and now across a narrower footprint. And also, it's important to point out that this gives local governments full discretion. This is completely voluntary on the part of the county. Happy to answer questions.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association. We thank the author for bringing this bill. Western Growers represents growers in the fresh produce industry in California, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. And many of our farmers, especially in the Central Valley, are experiencing or will be seeing pressures and constraints on their water supply. And as of today, we have seen this water year above average snowpack numbers.

Yet as we're seeing that, we're seeing for farmers south of the Delta getting only 35% of their contracted amounts of water, yet they still get the privilege of paying 100% of that contracted amount. Furthermore, for the GSAs, many GSAs are limiting extractions, and many further will be. And when these extractions become limited, growers have a really tough challenge ahead of them. They have to make some important decisions, and sometimes those decisions really result in taking land out of production, unfortunately.

In addition, the GSAs are now charging growers pumping fees, and those really range, on a per acre basis, anywhere from $50 up to over $2,000 per acre on those fees. And those are extraordinary amounts. So when we layer of all of this together, we really do think that AB 2528 is an important bill. We support it because it will streamline the process for a farmer to transition some of their fields from ag production to solar, and in that way, save on those cancellation fees. We support the bill and think this is a win win for communities, farmers, and the state overall. Thank you.

Thank you for that testimony. Before moving to anyone that is in opposition, I am going to call the roll because we do have a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, if you can, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

So right now, we'll go ahead and hear if there's anyone in opposition. You can come up here.

Good afternoon, Chair Soria and Members of the Assembly Agriculture Committee. My name is Daurice Kalfsbeek Smith and I'm the supervisor for the second district in Colusa County and the Vice Chair of our Board of Supervisors, and we're here to oppose AB 2528 today. I do just understand that the author committed to narrowing his bill to the Central Valley and look forward to seeing that language, but wanted to speak to all the interests of the 58 Williamson Act counties.

I'm here today as one of the 40 supervisors from as many counties throughout the state that make up the board of Rural County Representatives of California. For decades, rural counties and RCRC have been at the forefront of implementing, funding, protecting and conserving open space and agriculture acreage as part of our essential role under the Land Conservation Act, otherwise known as the Williamson Act.

Since 1965, the Williamson Act has been the single most effective mechanism for conserving agland, open space and natural resources that this Legislature has ever conceived. Most of our counties would not look anything like they do today without the creative and unique mechanism for supporting agriculture families and their ability to keep this act enables.

Even when the state backed away in 2009 from helping counties fund the act, something that the state had been doing since 1971, 50 of the 51 then participating counties decided to maintain and continue funding their local Williamson Act programs on their own dime. Colusa county has 350,000 acres under contract, which 259,000 are in ag production. The remaining are super Williamson Act lands that provide open space conservation benefit for us and the state.

As some of my supervisorial colleagues in neighboring counties can attest to, our local land holders are constantly under pressure to sell their land to the latest and most powerful industry group to see them and their lands at a cheap cost of doing business. So let me provide you. Well, we'll skip that part because some of our concerns have already been addressed by the Committee Member. But in short, counties have been at the forefront of protecting our unique agriculture lands, lands that are truly irreplaceable.

We do so at great cost, but with great willingness. But when large-scale development interests come barreling in our direction, there's only so much our locals can do to withstand the pressure to sell and quit agriculture. I ask this Committee to think closely and carefully about opening up the Land Conservation Act of 1965 because big solar won't be the last special interest knocking at your door looking to sweep up these precious lands.

And just as Colusa county as a whole, we are open to diverse energy sources and we've opened up our general plan to address issues with battery storage and those types of things. So we're committed to alternatives. This is just a very loose spill, and that's all I have. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members, staff, Dr. Arambula. I'm Alex Biering. I'm a senior policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau, which represents 20,000 farmers and ranchers statewide who have an average farm size of about 400 acres. I just want to say we're really grateful for the time that everyone has spent with us hearing our concerns over the last weeks and days. Also very appreciative of the Committee's work to narrow the provisions of the bill, particularly related to critical, critically overdrafted basins.

But in some ways, that actually makes it even more important to get the water provisions right. And I still feel like there's some amount of vagueness here that needs to be tightened up a bit. It doesn't require, the bill doesn't require any coordination with relevant groundwater sustainability agencies or water districts, for example, to, say, verify that land doesn't have a water pumping allocation, or a surface water supply.

So what we want to avoid is a case where a landowner would be able to declare their land water deficient for the purpose of avoiding some amount of cancellation fees, but then still have that allocation in hand to potentially sell later, which is a definite possibility because there isn't really that specificity in the bill. If the sponsors want to really be part of a solution of groundwater sustainability and clean energy, you have to lock in provisions that prevent that sort of double dipping.

So we're encouraged also, as a result, to see the cancellation fee potentially cut in half, the waiver. But that's also identical to what's in the solar use easement.

And I know that this is something we keep bringing up, but I feel like if that money that's used in the solar use easement funds, studies that like Department of Food and Ag and Department of Conservation have to do in order to determine if solar is the best use for the land, that accountability and that work should still be done through this process as well. Which begs the question about whether it just makes more sense to improve the solar use easement option as a tool.

If it's not working. Let's figure out why and fix that without poking an enormous hole in the Williamson Act. So no one in this room, me of anyone, is naive to the fact that land uses in critically overdrafted basins are going to change dramatically in the next few decades. But the Williamson Act is the foundational component of California's long-term agricultural vitality, which is why.

Why we're going to have to stay opposed until some of those provisions are tightened up and just given a little bit more specificity. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Now I'm going to open it up to the public. If again, you can state your name, organization, whether you support or oppose the bill.

I'm a tweener. Michael Jarred with the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. We're opposed unless amended. But we would like to just thank the Committee and the Committee staff for their amendments. We think it's moving thebBill in the right direction. We're going to review the actual language and our position. Thank you.

Sid Nag, with Rural County Representatives of California, double dipping a little bit, as my colleague Alex just mentioned, but we are opposed. We are looking forward to Dr. Arambula's amendments to see if we can adjust our position going forward. Thank you.

Cara Martinson, on behalf of American Clean Power in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, pleased to be in support of this measure. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Erin Niemela, representing Intersect Power, also in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Awad Khadani, on behalf of Clearway Energy, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Delaney Hunter, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Lily Mackay, on behalf of TerraGen, in support.

Margaret Gladstein, on behalf of Longroad Energy in support.

Meegen Murray with the Weideman group, on behalf of RWE Renewables in strong support.

Good afternoon. Ashton Aron Ugale with Environment California in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of California Citrus Mutual and the California Walnut Commission in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers in support.

Now we'll open it up to the members. Do members have questions or comments at this moment? Assemblymember Connolly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to start by thanking the author for your work on this bill. It is moving in the right direction. I know you and your staff have taken the time to speak with my office about some concerns, and I think that work is ongoing. So much appreciated. I think where I'm at still and certainly understand the water constraints that our state is facing and the impacts on a lot.

Unfortunately, all too often ag land going fallow, particularly in the Central Valley. I also am on board with rapidly developing more clean energy, including solar. But in my view, big picture, we need to make sure that we keep agriculture strong in California. I am concerned that this bill, in effect, would move us quickly toward opening up agricultural land for energy development.

I particularly like the idea, again, as I mentioned in judiciary, as a big proponent, and also have seen the tangible effects of the Williamson Act, to actually look at convening a Williamson Act working group to take a deliberative approach to this complex issue. I think that was a suggestion in a letter from the Farm Bureau that I thought was well taken. So I think looking forward to continuing the conversation, particularly on the floor.

But at this time, I'm going to continue to lay off the bill.

Thank you for the author, for bringing it forward. I want to acknowledge someone from my district here as well. The Williamson Act is precious to many of our farmers, including myself. So I'm very apprehensive of opening up a can of worms until we know where it's going to take us. I agree that it'd be great to have a working group or having a discussion on this, because I know my district would be very upset about me jumping into this realm without more discussion.

I believe the gentleman who put the Williamson Act together was from Davis, California, which is also in my district. So I appreciate your testimony today. I look forward to you continuing to work on this if you get it out of Committee. But I, too, will be laying off today.

This is, it could potentially be good policy for areas that are fallowed. But there is a big difference between the Central Valley. Most ag occurs there, and areas that I represent, Ventura County, which is a shrinking footprint. I also know that we're one of the counties that have save our open space resources. We have a voter initiative that protects all ag land. The Williamson Act is very precious in Ventura County.

So I would have to have many more discussions if we were looking at doing something in Ventura County. In addition, our local Farm Bureau is opposed, all constituents. So my understanding is that you are focusing only on the Central Valley.

During my opening, I mentioned it was only the eight counties and the San Joaquin Valley and those that are critically overdrafted basins.

Okay. So I will support you today. I think there are many more conversations to be had. We obviously are all desiring to move to a clean energy future as quickly as possible. But we also know that the Governor and the Legislature have adopted the 30 by 30 plan, and it's critically important to set aside areas for open space and ag and keep them that way. So this is a real balancing act, and I just encourage those conversations to continue. Thank you.

Any other Members that have questions or comments? Assemblymember Wood.

I'll speak loudly. I apologize for missing the discussion, but I did want, so that's always really dangerous. But I had met with the author, I had some concerns, recognizing that the district he represents, very different than the district I represent from a variety of different perspectives, and said I would support the bill today, but want to be sure that there are continued discussions with stakeholders as this process moves forward.

So I had very good conversations with the opposition and with you, Dr. Arambula. This is a broad policy piece, and I think there have been some amendments taken that narrow that, but it's worthy of additional discussion, and I hope that this book was born, that those discussions continue ahead.

I really appreciate the Assembly Members for raising the concerns through this process. I believe we've been able to improve the bill by helping to narrow it and focus it on those critically overdrafted basins. And so I'm happy to take the amendments that we spoke about to limit it solely to the San Joaquin Valley and those eight counties with critically overdrafted basins.

Great. Seeing no other member wanting to, Okay, Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer.

This will be quick. And I know you put in a lot of work, and based on the amendments that I believe you're going to take and some other things, I'll go ahead and move the bill. And so that we can also, hopefully you can narrow whatever we need to do to get to a place where everybody's comfortable, because it is that important to my colleagues who consider the Williamson Act almost the Bible. And we need to honor that in every way, shape and form.

Thank you for that. So before we go to your closing, Assemblymember Arambula, I just want to make a few comments. Obviously, thank you for meeting with us and working through some of the concerns that I also laid out. I will say, you know, I hear both, obviously, the folks that are in support of this piece of legislation, but I also equally hear those, the concerns from the opposition.

And I just want everyone to know that obviously I'm committed to preserving ag land in our community and open space and wanting to make sure that we are truly the golden ag state. So I'm committed to that. But I also think that there's an incredible opportunity. The bill is not perfect. We've laid out some general kind of provisions where we can really narrow the bill to a place where maybe most people will be comfortable.

But again, we look forward to continuing the work because there is a lot of work to be done. I will say that one of the provisions that I do appreciate is the local control piece, because at the end of the day, the county Board of Supervisors, which I appreciate, supervisor, for being here, have the last say on whether the ag land would end up transitioning into being solar. So we will continue to work with the author.

I know that he made a commitment to us and to several of the colleagues so that at least those that have laid off maybe have an opportunity to support if this bill, you know, actually addresses the additional concerns that you have laid out. So, again, thank you for the work that you're doing on this.

Obviously, we represent very similar region, and I'm doing similar bill in terms of, for the west side of my district, and understand that we have to do something, especially in those areas that are no longer being farmed in and will not be farmed in, especially like in my district, as a result of SGMA and all the other challenges that our communities are facing. And so look forward to supporting the bill with your commitment to continue to work on it. We have some provisions.

I know that you've made commitments on additional things, so we will be working with you closely to ensure that the bill moves forward in a place that we're comfortable with. So if you'd like to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present today and for the hearty discussion amongst our colleagues. It's important for us in our democratic process to listen to each other and to improve the bills as it goes through. And I'm grateful for each one of you for taking the time to engage with us to dig into the issue and your attention to this matter. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. We do have a motion by Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. Do we have a second? Assembly Member Villapudua seconds. Madam Secretary, if you could please call the roll.

On AB 2528, motion is do pass as amended. Soria? Soria, aye. Alanis? Alanis not voting. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry, not voting. Connolly? Connolly, not voting. Irwin? Irwin, aye. Jones-Sawyer? Sawyer, aye. Sanchez? Ta? Villapudua? Villapudua, aye. Wood? Wood, aye.

The bill has five votes at the moment. We will make sure to hold the, you know, call open until the other members come, but thank you again.

Thanks.

At this moment, we'll go ahead and take up the consent. And we have, we have a motion by Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry and a second by Assembly Member Alanis. Members, there are two bills proposed for today's consent calendar file item seven, AB 2324 Alanis' avocados sale or donation by the Secretary of Agriculture. Of agriculture. Excuse me. And file item eight, AB 2721. That is an Ag Committee Bill related to transporting kitchen grease fees in addition to registration fees, extending the sunset date.

If there are any questions, concerns, Members of the Committee. So, we do have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, if you could please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. AB 2324, Alanis and AB 2721, Agriculture. Both bills are do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

So, that Bill has eight votes, and that is the consent calendar has been approved. Now, we'll move over to file item three, Assembly Bill 2509 by Assembly Member Kalra. Thank you for being here, and you can proceed with your Bill when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 2509 would codify definitions of integrated pest management and invasive species and require the Invasive Species Council of California to prioritize principles of integrated pest management and all of its activities. Integrated pest management, also known as IPM, is a pest management strategy that seeks to maximize the effectiveness of pest management remedies while minimizing harm to people in the environment.

It accomplishes this by moving away from traditional chemical-only treatments in favor of nuanced solutions that utilize various pest management methods, including non-chemical, biological, physical, and cultural techniques. While IPM can address most pest management needs, it is especially useful in ecologically sensitive situations like invasive species management. IPM's status as an effective, environmentally friendly approach to pest management has caused it to become an increasingly popular subject of legislation. Unfortunately, there's no codified definition of IPM, leaving each piece of legislation to create its own.

This can lead to confusion, delays in Bill implementation, and conflicting enforcement action. AB 2509 addresses this issue by codifying the University of California IPM Program's definition of IPM. Numerous stakeholders came together to ensure that this definition balances important human health, environmental protection, and pest management needs. With me to provide supporting testimony are Doug Johnson, Executive Director of the California Invasive Plant Council, and Marc Landgraf, Assistant General Manager of the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority.

Thanks. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Doug Johnson I'm the Director of the California Invasive Plant Council, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting California's environment and economy from invasive plants. We represent a community primarily made up of ecologists from local open space districts, national forests, and parks, state local regional parks, open space land trusts, conservancies, et cetera. We sponsored this Bill to define two terms that are critical to that stewardship work, invasive species and integrated pest management, or IPM.

Invasive species are recognized in multiple state plans as a significant threat, including the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy, Pathways to 30 by 30, and the State Wildlife Action Plan. Having a definition and statute really supports strong programs to address this critical issue. The definition we are proposing matches the federal definition and text already in food and ag code. The other term is integrated pest management, or IPM.

Defining IPM, as Assembly Member Kalra mentioned, will avoid having the term used in multiple ways various places in the law. The definition we're proposing is the widely recognized, longstanding definition from the University of California. It's the definition used by the state's sustainable pest management workgroup. And as mentioned, IPM encourages prevention first, non-chemical methods, but it does not rule out pesticides if and when needed in certain cases. The organizations we represent are charged with stewarding our lands and protecting biodiversity.

They use a range of methods as part of IPM, and they do use a small amount of pesticides when needed on an as-needed basis. So here from one of those stewardship organizations is Mark.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Committee Members. Mark Landgraf, Assistant General Manager with the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. We manage about 30,000 acres in Santa Clara County for those are natural and working lands both, and that's for natural resource protection, supportive agriculture, and to connect people to nature.

We use integrated pest management on a daily basis. And so, we're grateful to the author for providing this legislation that defines and clarifies integrated pest management. We use the methods, especially in an early detection and rapid response approach, in order to control invasive species so that we can protect native, sensitive species of plants and animals. We also use it for wildfire risk reduction and to enhance the visitor experience in our preserves.

The Bill is extremely important to us because it, as Doug and Assembly Member Kalra referred to, allows for a variety of tools, and we employ tools on our land, such as grazing and hand pulling and other methods, including mowing. And we do use herbicides as well. We use herbicides very judiciously and only when it is the most efficient and effective method. We do a lot of hand pulling that involves volunteers.

In fact, if any of you are familiar with yellow star thistle, we do a lot of hand pulling by volunteers of yellow star thistle at our preserves in sensitive areas. You can imagine that's a pretty dedicated process for our volunteers, but we do use herbicides when that is necessary. And so, this legislation is very important and urge your support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition that wants to come on up? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment. Do we have members of the audience who would like to register their support or opposition for the Bill? Please state your name and the organization and whether you support or oppose.

Good afternoon, Chairman, Members Abigail Smet, on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Park District, and the California State Parks Foundation, all in support.

Seeing no one else. Do any Members of the Committee have any questions? Assembly Member Connolly.

Thank you, and I appreciate the author's work on this. Again, this is one where our offices have been working together. You're correct. It is coming down to the definitions, most notably invasive species, and then also IPM. My issue is I'm also running a bill relating to controlling the use of pesticides and implementing IPM by Caltrans on our state highways, AB 99, which is now in Senate Approps., so it'll be taken up later this year.

So, I'm good with going forward with this, but with the understanding, let's keep working through some issues. My concern in that case, not to expand too much, but is IPM effectively becomes pesticides as the go-to, depending on how it's interpreted so oftentimes in contravention of what locals are trying to do to actually use better practices, frankly. So, I was heartened by the testimony and just kind of ensuring going forward that we can make this the best it can possibly be.

So, I'm a yes today with ongoing discussions.

I appreciate that Assembly Member Connolly. First of all, in regards to AB 99, which I also fully support, this Bill does not impact any of AB 99's additional pesticide provisions or limit the state's ability to further restrict pesticide applications. And in fact, even the definitions are essentially identical in terms of IPM definitions. Additionally, it doesn't impact any local jurisdiction from taking action. Some local jurisdictions have. This doesn't impact that at all.

It simply puts forward a standard approved protocol that although it does allow the use of chemical agents, that's kind of like the last resort, and other practices are used first, and it doesn't prevent either the state or local jurisdictions going further or even banning pesticides. That's not what this Bill is intended to do.

This Bill is intended to really just give a common definition, so everyone understands when we talk about integrated pest management what that means, whether they're doing state legislation or even at the local level. There's some commonality in definitions, which I think is important, but ultimately, it's really about allowing those that are on the ground to make up their best judgment as to what works the best. And so, it's absolutely consistent with the work that you're doing.

And we made sure to keep an eye on AB 99 as we were crafting the Bill as well.

Very much appreciate that. Thank you.

Any other Member questions or concerns? Seeing none. Is there a motion? Motion by Assembly Member Alanis. Second by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer. Madam Secretary, if you could. Oh, before. Excuse me, Assembly Member Kalra, if you would like to please close.

I just want to thank you, Madam Chair, and your committee staff, for working diligently with me and my staff. The definitions are always way more complicated, figuring them out than you would expect. And so, I really appreciate the work of your committee in getting us where we are today. Thank you. Respectfully as for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Kalra. The motion on the Bill is do pass to Appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 2509, Kalra. Motion do pass to appropriations. [Roll call]

Great. So, the Bill has seven votes. It will get out. We'll just leave the Bill open for other Members to add on.

Wow. So we're going to continue on file item number two, Assembly Bill 2799 by Assemblymember Fong. So, Assemblymember Fong, please proceed with your Bill when you're ready.

Thank you, manager. I'll be quick. For the appropriations chair. The 2023 water year saw massive amounts of rain and snowfall. As you know, Madam Chair, pushing California's water infrastructure to its limits. In some regions, the state received upwards of 322% of normal annual precipitation. The southern Central Valley was especially hit hard, with massive flooding overwhelming the dams, rivers, and canals that manage flows throughout this agricultural region. To help offset stress on our water infrastructure and aid groundwater recharge, many farmers intentionally flooded their fields.

While this was done as a service for the good of the whole industry and the greater Central Valley Community, these farmers received no credits toward their water use bills for this voluntary groundwater recharge and flood management. AB 2799 directs groundwater sustainability agencies to consider efforts by small farms to recharge their groundwater basins through voluntarily allowing percolation and flooding of their land during high water events.

Farms across California struggle every single day with increasing water use regulations and fees. AB 2799 will further encourage a voluntary groundwater recharge adoption during the next high water event. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you, Assembly Member. There are no witness here today to testify in support. Are there any witnesses to testify in opposition? Seeing none at this time. We'll open it up for the public. If there are any public members here seeing none. Well, we'll move very quickly. Do any Members of the Committee have questions or comments? So, motion by Assemblymember Villapudua. Second by Assemblymember Alanis. So, Assemblymember Fong, would you like to close on your Bill?

I ask for an aye vote.

Great. So the. Thank you for that, actually. And I would love to be a co author on your Bill. This is obviously an important issue in my region, and so I think that we do need to do whatever we can, especially for the small farmers, which I think they hit hardest with a lot of the different state policies that we've passed. So we'll do that. And the motion is do pass. So there is a motion in a second. Madam Secretary, if you could please call.

The roll on AB 2799 Fong motion is due pass [Roll Call].

The Bill has six votes, so it is out. But we will leave the roll call open for absent Members. Thank you. Now, we saved the best for last. So we have file item number six, Assembly Bill 1961 by Assemblymember Wicks. Assemblymember Wicks. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Committee staff, for their work on this Bill. California is currently the fifth largest supplier of food and other agricultural commodities, producing nearly half of our nation's fruits and vegetables. I'm sure you all hear that stat a lot in this Committee. However, more than one in five Californians, about 8.8 million people, currently struggle with food insecurity.

Hunger and lack of access to nutritious food are exacerbated by racial and economic inequalities, with 40% of Black households and 30% of Latino households being being food insecure in the State of California. A food desert can be defined as any region in the country with limited access to affordable and nutritious food. Many households within these regions are low income and have inadequate transportation to and from their closest food food retailers.

In 2021, for example, 65% of San Francisco and San Jose Metro Area neighborhoods were considered food deserts. In Fresno, over 20% of the residents live in food deserts. Furthermore, it was also estimated that over 1 million Californians now live within food deserts, and 45% of those residents are considered low income individuals.

AB 1961 will require the Strategic Growth Council to establish and convene the End Hunger in California Master Plan Task Force. This task force will recommend future strategies to address access to healthy and culturally relevant food for all Californians. We recognize that addressing barriers to accessing adequate, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food requires a comprehensive approach beyond short term fixes. By convening experts, stakeholders, and community leaders, we look forward to crafting a holistic plan that tackles the root cause of food access and insecurity, thus creating sustainable solutions.

I want to thank our sponsors who are also here to testify. From the UFCW, Jassy Grewal from the state's council, and Beth Smoker, Policy Director of California Food and Farming Network.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jassy Grewal, Legislative Director with the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, here to testify and support and as a proud co sponsor of AB 1961, the End Hunger in California Act. UFCW is a union that represents worker in our food sectors, from farmworkers to grocery delivery drivers. Sadly ironic, the workers who grow and deliver food face higher levels of food insecurity than the rest of the US workforce.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, 72% of agricultural workers reported trouble paying for food. Food desert communities lacked the resources to attract large grocery store chains, leaving residents with convenience stores and fast food restaurants as their primary food sources. However, it is not just the lack of access to food that is driving families to experience hunger. The cost of food has significantly increased. It has been over 30 years since food was this expensive, and consumers now spend over 11% of their disposable income on food.

In 2022, food prices increased by 10%, faster than any year since 1979. In 2023, food prices increased by 6%, and today food prices remain 19% more expensive than food before the pandemic. There is not a silver bullet that will end hunger in California, which is why AB 1961 establishes a broadly inclusive task force that will work to develop statewide goals, strategies, and solutions to tackle the inequalities that exist in our current food system and improve access to nutritious, affordable and culturally relevant food in all communities. UFCW respectfully requests for your aye vote on AB 1961.

Mine might not be on.

Thank you.

I think it is.

Oh, is it on? Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. And you're all like sitting to the side of me. My name is Beth Smoker. I'm the Policy Director for the California Food and Farming Network with 50 member organizations across diverse food system sectors, including anti hunger, sustainable agriculture, farm worker, environmental justice, public health, and local economies.

We're accountable to a steering council of grassroots leaders at the front line of food system injustices and are a proud co sponsor for AB 1961. The Assembly Member and my colleague outlined the startling hunger our communities in California are facing, especially the unfortunate irony that much of the hunger is experienced by workers across the food chain. This is also true for many of our state's small and medium sized farms.

In a 2021 survey of almost 120 small farmers across the state, 62% of those small farmers stated experiencing food insecurity, needing food from a food bank, and or needing or would have benefited from Calfresh benefits.

California has programs addressing food and farming across many departments, such as robust anti hunger programs at the Department of Social Services like Calfresh and WIC, School Meals for All in the Department of Education, Farmworker Resource Center grants at the Department of Community Services and Development, California Farmland Conservancy program at the Department of Conservation. The list goes on. Community Food Hubs program, California Nutrition Incentive program, a lot of programs that come through your Committee and at CDFA and many, many more.

California is clearly doing a lot in this space, but the work is disconnected. Just like solving our state's climate crisis isn't expected to happen at one agency, the same is true for solving hunger. This Bill asks that the state create a holistic plan for ending hunger in California that takes into account all the work the state is doing, identifies gaps, and proposes innovative solutions to achieve a hunger free state that equitably supports our farmers and farmworkers who grow and harvest the food our communities then eat. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for that. Is there any opposition to this Bill? Thank God. Right? At this time, we will open it up to the public. Do we have members of the audience that would like to register their supporter opposition? If you could state your name, the organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Thank you. Libby Sanchez, on behalf of Share Our Strength, No Kid Hungry in strong support.

Sasha Sanchez from St. Francis High School in support of ending hunger in California.

Brooklynn Kann from St. Francis High School. And I am in support of this important measure.

Hi, Jamie Fanous, on behalf of the. Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Foodshed Small Farm Cooperative, Consumer Federation of California, and Agricultural Institute of Marin in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Darby Kernan, on behalf of GRACE to End Child Poverty in California, in support, as well as- and a sponsor, a co sponsor- and the California Food Bank Association in support. Thank you.

Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association in support.

Savannah Jorgensen with the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California in strong support.

Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Great. Now I'll bring it back to the Members. Any questions or comments? We have a motion by Assemblymember Villapudua and a second by Assemblymember Alanis, Assemblymember Wicks, who would you like to close on your Bill?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Just very quickly, I was gonna make some comments. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. As you stated in your comments, the irony, especially in areas like mine, which is considered the bread basket of the state and even of the world, there's still many families that go hungry. Children, seniors. Most pressing, I've heard more recently from seniors in my community that were formerly farmworkers that are in a fixed income. Their income isn't going up. Food, as you mentioned, going up 19%.

And these programs that, because of lack of resources, aren't being funded, like for senior Meals on Wheels. And so I'm glad that you are doing this Bill so that we could find a comprehensive plan and solutions to the issues that are happening, not just in my region, but across the state. So happy to support the Bill today, and then also would love to be a co author of this Bill. So we do have a motion in a second, Madam Secretary, if you can, please call the roll.

On AB 1961, Wicks, motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

The Bill does have six votes, so that means it is out. We will leave the roll open for absent Members.

[Roll Call]

We will be closing the roll. I do want to make an announcement that Assembly Bill 2528 by Assemblymember Arambula did get out. The vote is 6-0, and it's passed as amended, and we'll go ahead adjourn the hearing now.