Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. If Members of the Committee could come to room 2100 so we could establish a quorum, that would be appreciated. We have 17 bills on today's agenda and six bills proposed for consent. Bills will be heard and file order.

Other than we will make an exception for the speaker emeritus who has a flight to catch in a little bit. Since we don't have a quorum, we're going to proceed in Subcommitee and establish quorum when we have the sufficient membership. So we'll hear from our first author, Assembly Member, Speaker Emeritus Rennan, you may present your Bill. AB 2285.

Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you for being so accommodating. I'd like to begin by accepting the three suggested amendments in the Committee analysis.

Thank you. So noted. You can proceed whenever

AB 2285 encourages the State of California in its land conservation efforts to recognize the importance of making some investments in historically underserved urban communities. Understandably, the path of least resistance in reaching land conservation goals is investments in rural and suburban areas where land is attainable and affordable.

While it is important to conserve those lands as the state works to reach its 2030 goals, it's also important to conserve lands in highly urbanized, historically underserved areas. Bringing nature to people and the rewilding of urban areas, to the extent possible, should be a co equal goal that we embrace. This Bill binds us to that commitment.

This Bill asks us to reconcile and balance funding and policy decisions as they relate to our actions to protect, conserve and restore nature in all settings. With me today to speak in support of the Bill is Doug Houston, representing the California Parks and Recreation Society.

You just have one witness. Yes. You have up to four minutes if you like. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Yeah. Good morning, Mister chair and Member Doug Houston, representing the 4000 plus Members of the California park and recreation society. And we're asking you for your favorable consideration of this Bill. So AB 2285 is taking its cue from the findings of the first partners outdoors for all initiative.

This Bill seeks to elevate the awareness around the importance of continued investment in reducing nature poverty in our urban areas. The operational premise associated with 2285 is how we, as a state state can best invest in bringing nature to people.

So along with amplifying on the importance of outdoors for all, AB 2285 is a statement Bill encouraging policymakers to be mindful of balancing policy and budgetary decisions relating to investments in the protection, greening and rewilding of lands at our state. And we're asking for support.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room who would like to testify in support with me to testimony? Sir, if you could just move aside so that others might express their support for the Bill. Please limit your testimony for this, for your name, affiliation and position on the Bill. Sorry, that was the me too section. Yeah, this is me, too. Oh, great. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Isidro. On behalf of the County of Los Angeles and support.

Thank you.

Hi there. Megan Mekelburg here. On behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, the California Association of Local Conservation Corps Sempra Virus Fund, and the East Bay Regional Park District in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition? Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? No one? All right. Any other witnesses in opposition? I see no one in the room. We'll go back to the Members here. I see a question from Senator Laird.

Thank you. I just have a couple of comments. First is it's great to see you because I had to present your Bill and judiciary last week.

You did a great job. Thank you.

I had a lot of fun not knowing your Bill at all and then presenting it. So when I got the question about what's the urgency with this Bill, I said, the Members termed out, this has to be done by the end of the year. So I was doing my best.

The other comment is, I think this is a great Bill, and the problem that has existed is 30 by 30 was floated and there was no flesh put to it. I earned the ire of my successor by referring to 30 by 30 as like Pat on Saturday Night Live. Every time you start to understand what it is, it slips out of your hand. And it is bills like this that start to describe it and put meaning to it. I think it's great. I'll look forward to moving it when we have a quorum. Thank you, Senator.

All right. Thank you, Senator Padilla. All right. Seeing no other Members wishing to weigh in, would you like to close? Thank you. So we'll hear the Bill at the appropriate time. Vote the Bill appropriate time when we have a quorum. Thank you very much, speaker emeritus. Do we have any?

I think Assemblymember Ramos is in the room with file item number three, AB 1284. You can proceed whenever you're ready, Assemblymember.

Thank you, Mister chair and Senators. Today I'm here to present AB 1284, and I would like to start off with accepting the Committee amendments. AB 1284, a Bill that would encourage the California Natural Resources Agency to enter into co management agreements with California Native American tribes.

California's native people have a special relationship with the land and waters of this land. For centuries, California's first people have cared and nurtured these lands as they have been continuing to be a major source of substance and are foundational parts of the culture of the State of California.

From the forest to the rivers, each of these natural resources have a deep connection to the cultural identity of tribes here in the State of California. That is why it's crucial that tribes throughout our state are brought to the table to help helped tackle some of the most difficult ecological challenges threatening our environment and their homelands.

Today, the state has already committed to working with tribal communities, as demonstrated by the steps it has taken to seek greater cooperation with tribal governments through consultation and collaboration.

It has also committed to correcting historical wrongs through supporting recreation efforts and ensuring that our school began to tell the true history of California's first people in the State of California.

This Bill would take this relationship a step further and allow the natural Resources agency to enter into government to government agreements for the development of policy in regards to the management of natural resources that sovereignty, tribal lands and ancestral lands. However, I do need to stress that this Bill does not intend to affect any water rights.

This Bill, again, does not intend to affect any water rights. This Bill is intended to encourage agreements between governments for the management and conservation of our natural resources through co-governance and co- management agreements and clarifies that the Secretary of California Natural Resources Agency is the authorized representative of the state to enter said agreements.

While we hope this Bill will help our state become better stewards of our own land, that continues to be California's first people's land. It is important to recognize that this Bill ultimately aims to ensure the survival of tribes historical, cultural and spiritual sites for years to come.

With me today is Councilmember Kendra Jones from the Pue-lik-lo tribe of Yurok people and Councilmember Jaytuk Steinruck of the Tolowa Dee-ni' Nation. With me here is also Megan Rocha, the Executive Director of the Pue-lik-lo tribe that will be available to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Just as a matter of practice, we will limit testimony to two minutes per witness.

Hi, Kui. Good morning, Chairman Min and honorable members of the Committee. My name is Kendra Jones. I'm a Councilmember of the Pue-lik-lo tribe of Yurok people, formerly Resighini Rancheria.

Our reservation is located in Northern California near the mouth of the Klamath River, and we have a larger ancestral territory along the lower Klamath River and Pacific coast from north of Klamath to Little River. We are proud to sponsor AB 1284, and I am here today to share some key reasons why this Bill is so important.

As tribal people, we have a responsibility to protect and steward our lands and waters. Unfortunately, colonization has prevented us from fully upholding our responsibility. We believe this Bill will help right some past historical wrongs. If enacted, it will create a clear path for true co governance and co management of ancestral lands and waters.

Tribes have thousands of years of stewardship knowledge that supports the biodiversity, conservation and adaptive management. We believe tribal state partnerships benefit all Californians. AB 1284 will also restore tribal connections to ancestral lands and waters. It gives us the ability to implement our traditional knowledge, to increase workforce development, and to protect cultural resources and sacred sites.

Ultimately, AB 1284 creates the space for tribal people to be who we are, to reclaim our rightful responsibility and take care of our places. In the fall of 2023, our tribe, along with the Tala Dani Nation and Trinidad Rancheria, designated under our sovereign authority the first Indigenous Marine Stewardship Area in the US.

This IMSA is located in shared state waters. We did this deliberately and with the intention of entering into future code management agreements with the resources agency and to help them meet 30 by 30 climate goals. While the agency weighs what this means for them, we sit ready to work together to protect our ocean and coastal resources.

This Administration has developed policies that seek to honor and uphold tribal stewardship and cultural lifeways. AB 1284 ensures that those policies endure for future generations. Thank you, and we urge you to move this Bill forward.

Thank you.

Hagia Hashem, honorable chair and members of the Committee. Dalahan Shahushi Jaytuk Steinruck, I'm a Councilmember of the Tolowa Dee-ni Nation , co sponsor of AB 1284. We are headquartered in Smith river near the Oregon border. I'm here to emphasize the importance of AB 1284.

It serves as a catalyst for tribal sovereignty and environmental stewardship, especially for the efforts put forth by the Yurok Talwudan Indigenous Marine stewardship area and the tribal marine stewards network.

By recognizing the rights and responsibilities of tribal nations in managing our ancestral lands and waters, as we have done since time immemorial, this Bill lays the groundwork for meaningful partnerships that honor indigenous knowledge

by acknowledging the unique cultural, spiritual, environmental interests of tribal nations. The establishment of the IMSA signifies a profound commitment between our tribal nations to protect and preserve coastal and marine ecosystems.

AB 1284 offers vital support for this endeavor by encouraging partnerships between the Natural Resources Agency and tribal governments through co governance and co management agreements facilitated by this Bill, California can further enhance the assertion of tribal sovereignty and ensure the tribal nations have meaningful involvement in the management of our ancestral territories.

Tribal nations and groups like the TMSN, a coalition of tribal nations dedicated to marine conservation, stand to benefit greatly from the provisions of this Bill. By fostering collaboration among member tribes and with state partners. This legislation strengthens tribally led initiatives aimed to build resilience and promote sustainable management practices.

AB 1284 is more than just a piece of legislation. It is a testament to California's ongoing commitment to honor tribal sovereignty and promote tribal self determination. The Tolowa Dee-ni nation urges your support for this Bill as aligns with the fundamental principles of justice, equity and respect for indigenous rights.

Thank you for your time and consideration for this Bill.

Thank you so much. Do we have any other witnesses in the room? Me too testimony in support of the Bill.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the Pew Charitable Trust and Ocean Conservancy, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members Rico Mastrodonato with The Trust for Public Land, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members, Lily Scurria, on behalf of California Trout, in support.

Thank you.

Mister Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in support. Thank you.

Megan Mekelburg, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, Save the Redwoods League and the Sempervirens Fund, in support.

Thank you.

Pamela Lopez, on behalf of the Tule River Tribe, a land co-management tribe, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Divyansh Agrawal from the Junior Philanthropist foundation and in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Daniel Barad, on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Thank you.

Maya. Good morning. Kenneth Brink, Vice Chairman from Kaduk tribe in strong support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no more me toos, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Just one. Do we have one? All right. You have up to four minutes, sir. You can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair Members Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the Valley Ag Water Coalition, representing 40 agricultural water suppliers that deliver farm water supplies throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Our client doesn't object to government to government consultation between state agencies and federally recognized tribes.

And I will start off by indicating that we did have a good meeting with the author and his staff yesterday afternoon. I think we have a path forward to where we will be able to remove opposition. I'm hopeful to that point.

But I did want to let you know that we believe the Bill is inconsistent with Governor Newsom's statement of Administration policy on Native American ancestral lands. That policy focuses on co management of and access to natural lands that are within the tribe's ancestral land and under the ownership and control of the State of California.

The policy also focuses on working cooperatively with tribes to acquire natural lands that are in excess of state needs. The essential elements of that policy have been codified in the government code, which again only speaks to working cooperatively with tribes that have ancestral territory within state owned lands.

Now, the Bill also references the state's 3030 initiative, which is focused on land and coastal waters. The initiative does not include the conservation of inland waters.

While it's true that actions described in the Pathways report 3030 report that includes actions to improve water quality and ecosystem health, the latter are associated with actions on working and natural lands.

So this Bill before you today differs significantly from policies and statutes by adding waters that are within a federally recognized tribes ancestral territory and by adding co governance of both lands and waters.

As this Committee well knows, the regulation of and enforcement of water supply in California is through the State Water Resources Control Board, which lies within the Environmental Protection Agency.

While the amendment that limits this to areas of jurisdiction in the California natural resources is welcome, it does still include the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Project, which provides water supply to 27 million Californians and millions of acres of Farmland.

So again, we met yesterday, and I think the path forward on this Bill may rest with including savings language similar to that which was included in the Delta Reform act of 2009. That ensures that the agreements that the state enters into will not interfere or alter existing water rights.

So we'll work on language and provide that to Assembly Member Ramos as the Bill moves forward. So just two final concerns in wrapping up, Mister Chairman. By striking the reference to state owned and state controlled lands, the Bill would seemingly now authorize the natural Resources agency to negotiate agreements that affect private property.

Now, that is unlikely that an agreement would do so, but the Legislature shouldn't be enacting ambiguous laws, and the phrase agreed to be stricken today should either be retained or the resource agency's authority to go beyond state owned or state controlled land should be clarified in the Bill.

Finally, the Bill authorizes the secretary of the natural Resources agency or a delegate to enter into agreements and be a signatory on behalf of the state.

While it's appropriate for someone other than the secretary to take the lead in consultations, our client believes only the secretary should be authorized to enter into agreements and become the signatory on behalf of the state. Thank you. And I'm available to answer any questions that the Committee may have.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses who want to testify in opposition to the Bill, Me Too witnesses? You can come up whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mister chair. Adam Quinones, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, no position on the Bill. We did express some concerns to the Assemblymember. Really appreciate his time, his staff's time, in discussing those concerns. We look forward to working with him.

Our concerns were specifically related to water rights, so really appreciate the Assemblymember addressing that in his opening statement. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other opposition witnesses, we'll bring it back to the dias. Senator Laird.

One opening comment with regard to the opposition, I believe the author took an amendment that says that the scope of the agreements are limited to areas under the natural resources secretary's jurisdiction. So I think the concern that was expressed was ameliorated by one of the amendments.

And I'll let you and the staff clarify if that's true. But it seems to be.

And then a general comment, because as the author knows, when I was secretary, I negotiated agreements with tribes that moved them into the marine protected areas and that they could take from the conservation areas if they demonstrated a historic take for subsidiary or ceremonial purposes.

And it was one of the first agreements that sort of recognized historic rights for tribes in the waters. And the next step was this. And so there was advocacy for co management agreements, but there were a lot of difficulties.

There was a difficulty because there was no definition of what co management was, and that has now been taken care of by the Fish and Game Commission adopting a definition that is referenced in this Bill. So that is a very good thing. And just an observation.

There was this whole range of capacity among the tribes on the coast, and the tribe out of Trinidad, I think, has its own fleet, has its own employees, can go and actually do what might be full on co management, as opposed to other tribes that just didn't have any capacity at all.

And so I am hoping that when the co management agreements are entered into, there's a recognition of what that capacity is between the tribes and that there's a real advantage taken for those tribes that do have capacity.

But I don't know if we're getting near quorum, but I will look forward to moving the Bill when we have a quorum.

Thank you, Senator, with that. Yes, we do have. We'll establish quorum in just a moment. Do we have any other questions or comments from I just want to thank you for working with my staff and want to note that I think the comments that Senator Laird made are accurate.

You have taken amendments that would limit the scope and make very clear that CNRA and its departments cannot enter into any co management or co governance agreements with Native American tribes on issues that are under the jurisdiction already of the State Water Resources Control Board, like water quality control plans or water rights determinations.

And so I think it's reasonable and fair to allow CNRA to partner with tribes in its management of the state's natural resources. I think this is a good bill and I appreciate you bringing it forward with that. Before you close, we'll take quorum here real quickly since we look like we have it.

Assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. We have a quorum.

A quorum is established. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister chair and Senators. And thank you, Senator Laird, for continuing to work and paving the way for this Bill to start to continue to move forward in that direction of co management and co governance. Co governance on a sovereign government to government body. From the state to the tribal governments.

This is a Bill that's drastically needed to ensure that the rights continue to move forward for California's first people. I ask for your aye vote of AB 1284.

Thank you, Senator Ramos. We do have a motion on the Bill. The motion Bill has been moved by Senator Laird. And the motion is do pass as amended. Appropriations assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that vote is 70, but we'll put on call for now. Thank you, Assemblyman Ramos. Thank you so much. Before we move to our next author, since we have a quorum, we'll move to the consent calendar which are filed. Thank you. And it's moved by Senator Laird. File items number five, AB 2096, by appen.

File item number 13. I'm sorry. File item number eight, AB 3121, by Assemblyman Hart. File item number nine, AB 1881, by Assemblymember Davies. File item number 13, AB 2276, by Assemblymember Wood. File item number 15, AB 2393 by Assemblymember Dixon. And file item number 16, AB 3007, by Assemblymember Hoover. Assistant, please call the roll

[Roll Call]

That vote is 7-0 and we'll leave it on call.

Mister chair, would you like to catch up with the one we heard? Thank you, sir. I would move item number 14 by Assembly Members.

We have a motion on file item number 14. AB 2285 by Assemblymember Rendon, assistant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That vote is 70. We'll leave it on call and with that we'll move on to our next author. I see we have Assembly Woman Bauer-Kahan. Is it Kahan or Khan?

Kahan.

Okay, thank you. In the room here to present file items number 1 and 2. File item number one, AB 460. You can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators, I apologize for my tardiness. It's wonderful to go home every day, but sometimes traffic gets in my way. So I want to start, first of all, by thanking Committee staff and the chair for the support on 460. It's been a long year plus working on this effort.

And the Committee has been incredible in their partnership to help move California forward as it relates to water policy. So I really wanted to make a huge shout out to the Committee on this One. I'll be accepting Committee amendments today as set out.

And, you know, when I became water chair three years ago, I lost a lot of sleep over everything. I learned about the future of water in California. When your job is to spend all day thinking about what water will look like for future generations.

And you're being told by scientists that in less than 25 years there will be no more water, no more snow in the sierras. Which is, as I'm sure everybody on this Committee knows, one of the largest sources of water for the State of California.

You realize the imperative that we have as leaders of this state to take this problem incredibly seriously. What it looks like to ensure that every californian has access to clean drinking water, which I know is an issue that Senator Hurtado has been focused on diligently for the past few years for her community.

And so, as I learned about that, it means a lot of things. How do we build the storage that's needed for the water in years like this, when we have plenty how do we make sure it moves in the way it needs to move from community to community?

Because as we all know, La doesn't get their water from that backyard. They're moving it across the state and getting it from others. How do we make sure that we're being responsible and efficient in the ways that we spend the dolLars that Californians give us as it reLates to water?

And so this really is an effort that came out of that, which is to say that when we are in years of drought, and it's wonderful that right now we're not.

But when we are, how do we make sure that we're all playing by the rules, that we don't have a tragedy of the commons, where some are taking more and others have none.

It is a limited resource, and we need to make sure that we are all doing what we can to live responsibly within the means that we have, because water is a limited good.

So this Bill, you know, came out of an incident up in Shasta county where we saw folks clearly and egregiously violating their curtailment orders and not leaving enough water for their neighbors.

In doing so, the Bill has been limited in its scope today to continue to move forward, to just focus on the fines, because the fines that were charged to those folks that violated the order were the cost of doing business.

And in order for us all to live together and to follow the rules, we need to make sure we have meaningful enforcement mechanisms for the rules on our books. That should be true of everything we do in this Legislature. If we think it's meaningful, it should be enforceable. And so that's what this Bill is really focused on.

And so, again, I want to thank the partnership of the Committee to getting to where it is today. As you all know, it doesn't do everything I dreamt it would do when it started, but we're moving the ball forward for California, and that is something.

And so, although I think this is just a piece of what needs to be done to get California to where it needs to be to make sure we have water for the future, I think it's an important step forward, and I look forward to hopefully moving it forward today out of Committee.

So with me today in support is Kenneth Brink, Vice Chairman of the Karuk Tribal Council, and Reggie Collins, legal and policy Director of Caltrap.

Thank you very much. Chair Min has stepped out to present a Bill, and I have won the booby prize. And so let me just say that we will note that you accepted the Committee Members amendments and the two witnesses, since they're two, have up to two minutes each. Welcome to the Committee.

All right, Ayukii. Hello. Thank you. Chair and Members, my name is Kenneth Brink. I'm the Vice Chairman of the Karuk Tribe, formerly fisheries ballotist for 22 years. I'm in support of 460. I do believe it's very, very important for the salmon, the coho, that's a threatened species.

Not just is it just a fish that we're trying to protect, but we're also trying to protect the culture and the livelihood of people downstream. The salmon is a big part of our culture and our ceremonies. It's not just a fish that swims up the river. It's a part of our livelihood.

And I'm here to speak for that fish because it doesn't have a voice. You know, when people are able to take the water for a fine of $50 a day, unlimited amount, and dry the river completely up and fish die, and it pretty much goes invisible because there's nobody out there to regulate it.

You know, the salmon is to kill a threatened species. I thought it was a pretty capital crime, but apparently in Sissier County, you can get away with it pretty easily. I do believe this Bill will help regulate the flow and deter people from illegally taking water.

They were just able to just go ahead and just defy California regulations and rules and just go ahead and pay the fine. You know, like I said, I heard it was $50 a day, and it does not add up.

So, you know, and for the people downstream, you know, the Shassa is a piece of the Klamath, and we just spent 30 years undamming the Klamath. We have our Governor in support of the salmon recovery. The Scott and the shast are huge parts of the Klamath recovery.

So to restore and take care of the Shasta is to look after the largest wild Chinook population on the Klamath River. So I would really like you guys to consider moving 460 because it is justice for the people downstream. It is also tie in the governor's work from the headwaters to the ocean.

The project's going to tie together. You know, some of the Klamath dam removal is just one piece of this project. So thank you. Thank you very much.

Welcome. Thank you, Members of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. My name is Reggie Collins, and I'm the legal and policy Director for California Trout, a statewide conservation nonprofit organization.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 460, a crucial Bill aimed at enhancing the State Water Resource Control Board's ability to manage California's precious water resources effectively. The board's mission is to preserve, enhance and restore California's water resources and ensure their efficient use.

AB 460 provides the state board with necessary tools to deter future water legal water diversions. As we discussed, the Shasta River Water Association's legal diversion of water in August of 2022 serves as a stark reminder of the challenges we face.

Despite curtailment notices, the irrigation district drained half the Shasta river, endangering ecosystems, downstream water users, and endangered species. These water users willfully violated curtailment orders and as a result, faced penalties of cumulatively per individual dollar, 50 per rancher. This is not the only example.

In the past few months, we've seen large scale water theft in the Oxnard Plains and in the San Joaquin Valley. The minimal penalties currently in place have proven insufficient to prevent such harmful behavior.

AB 460 addresses this by significantly increasing those penalties to $10,000 per day and $2,500 per acre foot of legally diverted water, making the cost of violation substantial enough to deter future violations. California's water laws must evolve to meet contemporary challenges.

The recommendations from the Governor Newsom's water strategy underscore the need for modernization in AB 460 aligns with these recommendations.

I want to extend my gratitude to the author's office, Members of this Committee, and those in opposition for their dedication to working through this very difficult issue to find a solution and a compromise that addresses the needs of all stakeholders.

In conclusion, AB 460 is vital for the sustainable management of California's water resources, and it strengthens enforcement mechanisms by increasing penalties to deter illegal actions and ensures that the state board can effectively protect our water supplies and ecosystems.

For that, I urge you to support AB 460 for the benefit of our environment, public health, and the future of all Californians. Thank you. Thank you.

That completes the statements by the two primary witnesses. This would be the opportunity for a me too in support. Just your name, your organization, and that you're in support. Welcome.

Hi, my name is Annalise Rivera and I'm here in support on behalf of Trout Unlimited, California Outdoor Recreation Partnership, the Northern California Council of Fly Fishers International, and Friends of the River. Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Loomer, on behalf of the Yurok tribe, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dennis O'Connor, with the Mona Lake Committee and also speaking for the Planning and Conservation League, both very disappointed with the dropping of interim relief, but both very much in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Delfino, representing the California Water Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Golden State Salmon Association in support. Thank you.

Senior confess policy analyst with restorative Delta in support.

Thank you.

Gabrielle Flaccio with Sierra Club California in support.

Jan Warren, Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County in support.

Ivy Britton, Northern California Water Association please to remove our opposition and support the Bill. Thank you.

Good Morning Mister Chair Members. Glenn Farrell with GF Advocacy on behalf of the State Water Contractors. With the amendments, the author is accepted to really focus on enhancing fines and penalties that give the State Water Board the tools they need to effectively deter illegal diversions. We've removed our opposition and stand in full support of the Bill today.

Tofianche Agarwal representing the Junior Philanthropist Foundation. We are in strong support.

Isabel Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Cody Phillips with California Coast Keeper Alliance and also on behalf of League of Women Voters of California in support.

Margies King Mason, California Baumunda voters in support. Thanks

Daniel Broad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support. Thank you.

Juan Altamirana with the Trust Republic Land in support.

MJ Kushner with Community Water Center in support.

Keiko Mertz with Friends of the River in support.

Jay Jefferson with Metropolitan Water District. We've removed our opposition and are prepared to support the Bill with the amendments being proposed by the Committee. Thank you.

Craig Tucker on behalf of Friends of the Eel River, in support of the bill.

Any other me toos in support.

Darryl little on behalf of NRDC in support. Thank you.

Seeing no additional me toos, this is the chance for an opposition. I don't know if there are any primary witnesses.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members. Chris Anderson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies. We want to thank the author for one, narrowing the scope of the bill and two, accepting the committee amendments.

With the acceptance of committee amendments, we'll be removing our opposition to the bill. Again, I think this is an important step and will deter future egregious incidents like the one that the Assembly Member cited in her comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other primary with an ambivalent support, opposed or neutral position?

That's all of us.

Then let's just move to the me toos.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. Really want to thank the author for narrowing the scope of this bill. We really support the fines and with the committee amendments, we're recommending removal of opposition on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce and we are removing our opposition. Thank you so much to the author and to the Committee for their work on this bill.

Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency as well as San Gabriel Valley MWD, as well as a few agricultural entities like California Seed and California Feed, we are neutral. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Don Gilbert on behalf of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Want to thank the author for moving forward with the Bill that everyone could get behind. We remove our opposition. Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Really appreciate all the work here. Removing our opposition to neutral. Thank you.

Jaime Minor on behalf of Santa Margarita Water District, Turlock Irrigation District, and Eastern Municipal Water District, pleased to remove our opposition and appreciate the amendments.

Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau, ditto to what everyone else said and also removing opposition. Thanks.

Good morning. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully also removing opposition. Thank you.

Marge Lie, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, removing opposition.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Kendra Daijogo with the Gualco Group, on behalf of the Kern County Water Agency, Kings River Conservation District, California Association of Wine Grape Growers, and Modesto Irrigation District. We align our comments with ACWA and CMUA. Thank you to the author.

Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association. And I'm going to be a ditto for everybody else who's just gone before me. Thank you very much for the author.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen on behalf of a variety of ag associations, happy to move to neutral. Thank you.

Good morning. Ed Manning on behalf of Western Municipal Water District and Mojave Water Agency, neutral on the bill.

Julee Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District, recommending removing our opposition. Thank you.

Jennifer Williams with the East Bay Municipal Utility District. We appreciate the amendments the author has taken and we have removed our opposition.

Dominic Di Mare here on behalf of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, also removing our opposition. Thank you, Assemblywoman.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Fresno, Tulare and Solano, as well as the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, London Breed, all reviewing the most recent amendments and hoping to be updating positions soon.

Also, on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, formally moving from an opposed to neutral position, and thank you for narrowing the bill and working with everyone.

Good morning. Kiera Ross on behalf of the City of Stockton. We are continuing to look at the amendments, but at this point remain in respectful opposition on the Bill.

Finally, it's the longest opposition section we've ever had with nobody being in opposition.

Hi, good morning. Kaitlyn Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association, moving to a neutral position and thank you to the author.

Good morning. Victoria Rodriguez, on behalf of Milk Producers Council, still looking at the amendments, but looking towards removing our opposition. Thank you.

Anyone else in the me too section? Technically opposition. Seeing no one, I will bring the matter back before the Committee. Are there any questions or comments? Motion by Senator Hurtado.

Thank you.

Senator Eggman.

Well, Assembly Member, I have not voted for other versions of this bill, but I am glad to be supporting today despite my city still being. They think they might be opposed, but they're not quite sure. But everybody else has gone on.

So, I appreciate the work and I appreciate the passion that you bring to this work and your ability to articulate the bill and your position. And I look forward to voting aye today.

Thank you, Senator.

Yes, Mister. Senator Padilla.

Thank you Mister Chair. And just briefly echo those comments. I want to thank the Assembly Member. I've said to you before many times, I want to collaborate with you on a lot of the goals that you have in mind.

I respect your expertise and sometimes two, I think hopefully intelligent minds don't always agree on the path, but you have my commitment to keep working towards the goals that you want to achieve in a way, way that works for folks. And I'm happy to see a broad consensus here today. And thank you for working with everyone.

Thank you, Senator.

Any other comments or questions by Committee Members? Seeing none, you may close.

I just want to reiterate my thanks to the Committee but also to our Native people for being here. They've really been an important part of the water conversation here in California for the, you know, in recent years.

And I think it's critically important because there's no question that when the Native people had possession of land, we did a lot better with our natural resources, and I think we should be taking their lead and learning how to move forward. So, with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Hurtado. Do pass as amended to Judiciary. Will you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Okay. We have, we'll put that on call, and we will get additional Members. And you have a second bill?

I do.

Then we'll move to item number two, Assembly Bill 2214.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators, I'm proud to present AB 20214. This is a joint effort with Assembly Member McKinnor, and it really focuses on the pervasive problem to both the environment and our health of microplastics.

As you may have seen in recent days, there was a lot of press about how a study was done that showed the amount of microplastics in human testicles as well as breast milk. And this is something that is pervasive not only in our waterways but in our bodies.

And we don't, I believe, fully understand the impacts of that to our communities and to the health of future generations. But it's something that we need to get our arms around.

And as I began the effort to work on microplastics a little over a year ago, what I started to realize was that because the source of microplastics are so diverse, there was no one agency in charge of eradicating microplastics in our environment. And as a result, it felt like nobody was in charge.

So we weren't moving forward with solving the problem. And so I decided this year to take a different approach to this problem and really focus on exactly that, getting our agencies together, asking them to work together to identify and solve that problem and then deciding who's in charge of the problem. So somebody actually works towards solving it.

So it's a fairly simple effort to try to get California to move forward in its microplastics. Eradication and the amazing positive impact that will have on our environment and our health. So with me today in support is Jennifer Fearing with the Ocean Conservancy and Isabel Gonzalez, the Nature Conservancy.

Welcome. You have up to two minutes.

Good morning, Members Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of both the Ocean Conservancy and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, we're pleased to be among the nearly two dozen organizations urging you to vote Aye on AB 20214 which will leverage the diverse expertise of state agency staff to collaboratively address the urgent issue of microplastic pollution.

Absent urgent interventions, microplastics will continue to pose a threat to our environment, wildlife and public health. The distinct types of tiny fragments in the microplastic family come from varying sources and thus require different interventions to address.

There are microplastics that fragment from durable goods and packaging microplastics derived from synthetic textiles, often called microfibers, and microplastics designed to be tiny like pre production pellets made of plastic called nurdles that account for annual global leakage of 230,000 metric tons.

Round plastic beads called microbeads are intentionally included in specific products like cosmetics, household and industrial detergents, and cleaning products, and are regularly discharged into our wastewater systems and aquatic and marine ecosystems because there is no point of capture.

And microplastic fibers, the most abundant and widespread form of microplastic pollution, are pervasive in the environment, drinking water, food supplies and pose a serious risk to humans in particular. Most of you, thankfully, supported Assemblywoman McKinnor's Bill last year to implement a key microplastics prevention recommendation that was included in the administration's statewide microplastics strategy, published in early 2022.

AB 1628 would have required washing machine manufacturers to have filters that reduce up to 90% of microfibers otherwise released into wastewater and then the environment. Unfortunately, Governor Newsom vetoed that Bill, noting ongoing Water Board assessments and asking the author to develop incentives.

We support this effort to enroll the state agency's experts in the development of workable and practical options to address the cross sectoral issues. We need teamwork. AB 2214 requires the Ocean Protection Council to establish and lead an interagency coordination group to identify and recommend statutory changes needed to implement the recommendations described in this strategy.

Because, again, the pollution has such a multifaceted aspect to it, it demands this coordinated action across various sectors and jurisdictions by bringing the state government experts together to identify explicit ways to address the microplastics in our environment. This will help ensure California's ongoing leadership in effectively managing and mitigating these adverse impacts.

We urge your support for AB 20214. Thank you very much.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members Isabela Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy. Just here to add our voice in support of AB 2214. In 2020, the Nature Conservancy partnered with UC Santa Barbara to quantify the amount of microfibers in California's environment.

The study found that in 2019, an estimated 4000 metric tons, or 13.3 quadrillion fibers, yes, quadrillion with a 'Q', were released into Californias natural environment. That number represents 130,000 times as many fibers as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy, equivalent to 80 million rubber duckies.

My favorite unit of measurement is rubber duck worth of plastic polluting the state every year. Without intervention, annual synthetic microfiber emissions to California's natural environment are expected to increase by 17% by 2026. The analysis suggests that full adoption of inline filters washing machines will offer the largest reduction in annual synthetic microfiber emissions to natural environments.

AB 2214 is an important step forward in addressing both microfiber and microplastic pollution. TNC is proud to support the leadership of Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan and McKinnor. We request your respectful support of AB 20214. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody to do a me too and support your name, your organization and that you're in support. Welcome.

Ann Warren, Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County in full support.

Good morning Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in Support.

Marquise King Mason, California Environmental Voters in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Nania Karaju on behalf of the Junior Philanthropist Foundation in strong support.

Good morning. Sylvia Solisha on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Director at FracTracker Alliance in full support.

My name is Virginia Reed Ashford Davis and I live in LA and I urge you to vote yes on AB 2214 to address the microplastics crisis.

Thank you for traveling here today to do that.

Doctor Bonnie Hamilton speaking in full support for the Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area. Thank you.

Anyone else with a me too in support? Then we would move to opposition. Is there anybody in opposition to this Bill? I have no primary witness listed.

Can I go? Yes Mister Chair Members, Mandy Isaacs Lee, on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council we don't have an official opposed position on this Bill, but we're in a little bit of a tweener position.

We've been engaged with the author's office for months on amendments that we believe will tighten up the Bill as it is in print.

Part of the principles that guide our amendments are that we are keenly aware that whatever the OPC is going to recommend to the state in the form of statutory recommendations will make way for future legislation.

And we wanted to make sure that what the OPC is providing to the state in the form of recommendations were done in a way that were well informed.

The spirit of our requests are mainly because we want the state to focus on the larger contributors so that the recommendations can remove the largest amount of microplastics from the environment. Right now, the language in the Bill names not only our industry, but other industries that represent a tiny portion of the overall microplastics litter in the environment.

For our industry in particular, we represent about less than 2% of the letter. And so our conversations as of yesterday have been going very, very positively. We did not submit a letter for that reason, and we look forward to continuing conversations with the author.

I'm also mindful that several of you also sit on the Next Committee that this Bill is referred to, and we're hopeful that we can get those amendments in by that point. So thank you very much.

Thank you. So we seeing no other opposition witnesses in the room? Let's bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments from Members? Senator Laird, opposition? Me toos. Do we have any opposition? Me toos in the room? All right. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dias. Senator Laird.

I have a rather wonky question, and that is this. You're calling on the Ocean Protection Council to do this in the Bill, but it covers the entire land as well, right? I mean, this isn't defined to just oceans. You're trying to do it for the entire state.

That's right. So, I mean, we were trying to figure out a way to bring everyone together, and we thought this was the best way to do it. Obviously, it is an ocean problem as well. So we thought this was a good source of convening. But yes, it would address both land based and ocean based.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Anyone else? Yes, Senator Eggman, I guess.

And my staff notes also reflect that, like, why go after the smallest percent in my washing machine? Why not do textiles and tires?

So 1.0 of clarification, which is your washing machine probably is the largest source of, as mentioned, microfibers are, we believe, the largest source. So the washing machines is why we were going last year with Assembly Member McKinnor's bill, but we're not there. So. But yeah.

So one of the things that we've discussed with the tweener, I guess that would say opposition, because she's not officially opposition, is amending the Bill to not call out those exact industries, but instead instruct the OPC to focus on the microplastic sources that are the largest contributor to human health and the environment specifically.

So there really is focused on exactly what I think you want me to be focused on, which is the largest contributors. So that's the amendment we're working on, the languages in progress.

I'll be glad to support today and be watching for that progress.

Senator Grove.

Thank you. I appreciate where you're going. I do. I think that's something that needs to be addressed.

But I think the thing that bothers me most about being in the building and listening to some of the legislation that comes through is that we ban things with that technology and solutions instead of a gradual something to wait till something comes up.

Because on the list of the list of items that I have, like my colleague from Stockton said, obviously textiles and tires. But the list of stuff that I have, you know, if this ban takes place for microplastics, it's all consumer products, including rinse off and leave on cosmetics.

So I realize that some people don't wear a lot of makeup. I happen to do that because I'm 60 and I like to cover up my wrinkles. So I guess my question is, do I go to Nevada to buy my cosmetics?

Because cosmetics will no longer be available in California, because there'll be a band on the microplastics or the disposable. There's no technology replaces, which is, I'm assuming, why the products industry is trying to negotiate a different amendment. So they could be excluded, which would be a good thing, by the way.

But there's also industrial detergents, household industrial detergents, medical devices, medications, food products, paints, industrial coatings, waxes, polishes, decorative glitters. My granddaughters, all 11 of them, will probably not approve of that. And textiles, which, which I agree with my colleague in Stockton. And then also 3d printing, laser printing, Toner.

Realize we do a lot of email and we're trying not to. We're phasing out paper. But still, you know, 3d printing was one of the most ingenious things of the last, you know, 10 years for being able to do 3d printing versus using steel products to be able to have to do that.

They're also in controlled release fertilizer applications for our farmers wholesale banding of this doesn't account for the innovations that I think that we're going to need to replace these products. And the OPC, I think, was doing based on legislation that was passed, working on getting it, you know, phased out, but not an all out ban.

Do you have concerns over any of that? No.

No. I didn't want to interrupt you. So if you were done, Senator. No. So the Bill just so, yeah, I wear cosmetics as well, as I'm sure you can tell, because I'm not 20 anymore either, Senator. So I am not here to ban cosmetics, leave on cosmetics, any type of cosmetics.

And the Bill itself really doesn't do that. I think it does. What I hope, I think you're saying you want us to do, which is to bring the experts together to figure out how to solve this problem in a way that makes the most sense.

One of the reasons, and I know Senator Allen isn't here, but his green chemistry division, which I think has been ingenious, is so smart, is because it allows the experts to figure out how to do this and how to do it without regrettable alternatives, which is something else that is really critical.

And so the Bill doesn't itself ban anything or in fact, regulate anything. It asks the agencies that are charged with the different sources of microplastics to get together to figure out a path forward and to say who's in charge of what that path forward looks like.

So we don't have a diffusion of responsibility that has led to this problem where we don't seem to be trying to tackle any of it. And to be honest with you, what we've seen in the Legislature in the past few years is bills introduced to do exactly what you were talking about, to ban cosmetic leave on cosmetics.

And I don't think that's the right approach. I think the right approach is to have the experts focused on this, to try to figure out a path forward that is healthy for the environment, healthy for people, and allows us to continue to operate California the way we need to.

And so nothing in here would ban any of the things.

Do you think OPC that's charged for this in previous legislation is not doing that job?

So right now, OPC has this much of it, and so do a lot of other agencies. So DTSC, CalRecycle and others. And so each of them is trying to do their part, but they're not working together in a way, I think, that is truly solving this problem.

And so this just really brings them together to allow them to solve it in a more comprehensive way. So that's the problem I'm trying to solve.

Thank you. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Any other questions or comments? We have a motion from Senator Padilla. The motion is do pass to environmental quality. Would you like to close? Assembly Woman?

Respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. So the motion is do pass environmental quality from Senator Padilla. Assistant. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote count is 60. We'll leave that Bill on call. We'll move now to the next file item order. And that's file item number four. I see Assemblywoman Papan in the audience presenting AB 1359. Can present whenever you're ready, Assemblywoman.

Thank you. Good morning, Senator and Members. So geothermal energy presents a tremendous opportunity for green energy. AB 1359 is a simple bill that will jumpstart geothermal energy production. It focuses on making the CEQA permitting of exploratory wells local. It will repeal the requirement that CalGEM be the lead agency to do a CEQA review of exploratory wells.

By way of background, before development of a geothermal field can begin in earnest, the developer needs to drill exploratory wells to gather data and confirm feasibility. Under CEQA, the exploration phase and the building of a geothermal field are treated differently. They're treated as two different projects.

Unfortunately, an old misguided provision of law designates the state Geological energy management division, or CalGEM, as the lead agency for CEQA for exploratory wells, rather than a local agency acting as a lead to do the CEQA review.

This provision was intended originally to streamline the process and get geothermal plants online faster, but has ended up with projects languishing in CalGEM purgatory before they can even begin. Counties already typically serve as a lead agency on the geothermal field projects themselves and are well equipped to serve as a lead agency for the exploratory drill applications.

It's important to note this Bill will not weaken CEQA in any way. In fact, this may be the only CEQA Bill in which the sponsors want to be treated just like every other CEQA project by having the exploratory CEQA submissions reviewed locally. Here to testify with me today is Mister Miles Horton on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power.

Thank you Mister Chair and members. Thanks to the Committee staff and thanks to Assemblymember Papan for putting forward this thoughtful legislation. I'm Miles Horton on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power. We are a community owned power provider serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. One thing we're really proud of is we're pretty ahead of the curve on clean energy.

We're actually over 90% clean in our portfolio today. But what we're running into is there are times, you know, like night, winter, when there's no sun, there's no wind, and batteries are depleted, and we're still relying on natural gas during those periods.

And because we're paying this sort of increasingly kind of aging natural gas system just to stand by, even as our share of renewables in our portfolio has gone up, our payments to natural gas have actually gone up as well.

And so the state's going to be in a similar boat as we get closer and closer to an all kind of renewable grid, where we're just paying this natural gas system basically as a whole second grid just to kind of standby.

And so, looking at this problem, our analysts identified next generation geothermal power as a key part of the solution for meeting our climate goals and saving our customers money.

There's a lot of potential to use new next gen geothermal technologies that can be used in more places than conventional resources, use less water, deliver a lot of other benefits, and provide those attributes we're currently getting from fossil fuels.

But unfortunately, there's a kind of a superficially minor, but really actually existential threat to anybody trying to use next gen geothermal in California, and that's Public Resources Code Section 3715.5, which this Bill proposes to repeal. This has functionally banned new geothermal power in the state outside of Imperial county, which has a special dispensation.

So, as Assemblymember Papan mentioned, this specifies that CalGEM has to be the lead agency. Since the state adopted a goal of 100% clean energy, CalGEM has approved zero new geothermal exploration wells in Imperial County, meanwhile, which has a system we want for the whole state. They've approved a significant number just in the last few years.

AB 1359 is really just a straightforward Bill that returns geothermal exploration to the normal CEQA process, same as any other project. This is not CEQA streamlining. And I'll just close with you see really broad support from the industry. It was too late for the analysis, but the climate center actually weighed in in support.

I think there's broad recognition of the problem and a desire to let these next gen technologies help us meet our climate goals. So thank you. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of the Bill? Me too Testimony? Hi.

Good morning. Kendra Harris, The Climate Center in strong support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing no other witnesses in support, we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition? Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Any other witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the members. Do the members, any members have any questions or comments?

We have a motion from Senator Laird. Seeing Senator Grove.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. There's a lot of technology that's being developed right now under underground storage and steam and how it's last almost 400 days versus just 4 hours in the middle of the night. I think it's great technology that can be developed if they could.

They actually have investors willing to participate, but they're scared to death they'll never get a permit in the State of California. So they're not interested in investing in California, but they are doing it in Texas. And I think you've opened up a real solution here. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Anyone else? All right, I have one comment here. Geothermal is obviously a potentially important renewable energy resource in this state. It has the potential to be an important source across the country.

So I'm supporting the Bill today for those reasons and also because this Bill does not weaken environmental review, but simply shifts the CEQA lead agency role to local jurisdictions. But with that, would you like to close?

I ain't going to let Texas beat us, so I respectfully request an aye vote.

Can't let Texas beat us. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is do pass to environmental quality. Assistant, please call the roll,

[Roll Call]

All right, the count is 8-0. We'll leave it on call. Thank you Assemblywoman.

A huge thank you to Mister Hart. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking Chair Min and the committee staff for working with my office on clarifying amendments that removed all opposition to this bill.

I also want to thank the staff at the Department of Fish and Wildlife for their technical assistance on these amendments, which have made the bill stronger and more consistent with the goals and vision of the Department. With that, I am pleased to present AB 2196 today, which simply codifies the CDFW's existing Beaver Restoration Program.

The importance of solidifying the permanence of this program lies in the incredible impact that the north American beaver can have on the environment.

According to CDFW, the beaver is both an ecosystem engineer, helping to create and maintain diverse habitat throughout the state, and a keystone species, filling a critically important role in maintaining the ecosystem for the other species that depend on it.

Damp complexes can help change water flow, helping to create habitats for rare and endangered species, and can reduce the intensity of floods, improve soil health, reverse erosion, create subterranean water recharge, sequester carbon, and stop or reduce the severity of wildfires, something that is extremely important in my district.

These benefits are part of the state's climate smart strategy and the implementation of the state's natural and working land strategy.

Recognizing the environmental benefits of these animals, the Administration and CDFW have prioritized beaver coexistence and non-lethal responses with the creation of the Beaver Restoration Program, which recently actually received $2 million for non-lethal beaver damage mitigation projects to promote and enable beaver coexistence.

AB 2196 again simply codifies this important program and statute to ensure this important program will continue. With me to testify in support is Jennifer Fearing, representing the bill's sponsors, and Annalise Rivero with CalTrout.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, Mister Chair Members. Jennifer Fearing again here now on behalf of the Water Institute at Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, urging your yes vote on AB 2196.

Despite the many benefits that Assembly Member Connolly described that beavers provide, up until the past couple years, California beaver policy focused solely on recreational hunting and lethal nuisance management.

In response, my client, Occidental Arts, launched a Bring Back the Beaver campaign to educate citizens about the importance of beaver to improve water supply for humans and the environment and increase resilience to drought and climate change.

We have been working collaboratively with agency scientists, environmental organizations, consulting biologists, and interested Californians to support existing beaver colonies and, where appropriate, reestablish beaver to enhance watershed restoration and salmon recovery efforts. The pace of change in the last two years has been tremendous, and we want to make sure it continues.

That's why OAEC is pleased to be joined by more than 40 organizations in support of AB 2196. We work as practitioners, land managers, farmers, advocates, and in other ways to collaborate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife on this effort to restore beavers.

While in some cases beavers will return to their own areas that they once inhabited, relocation is also part of the restoration strategy, along with coexistence, habitat enhancement and expansion, and process-based mimicry.

To help ensure that the full complement of California's efforts associated with beaver restoration remains a state and Department priority beyond the current beaver believing Administration, it is important and valuable to codify the core activities described in the budget change proposal that created the Beaver Restoration Program at the Department.

We appreciate that AB 2196 pursues this objective and ensures that California's leadership and effort over the last few years will continue and ensure a legacy of this new and enduring chapter of ecological leadership. My client, San Diego Humane Society and National Wildlife Federation also urge you to vote aye on AB 2196.

I could, and often do, go on and on about beavers, but in the interest of time, I will stop here and I'll be available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. You have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and Members, I'm Annelise Rivero, Associate Director of Policy with California Trout. CalTrout strongly supports AB 2196 because our scientists and partners know firsthand the profound ecological benefits beaver provide for trout, salmon, and other freshwater fish.

Beavers are remarkable animals who positively impact the environment in a myriad of ways, as described well in the findings and declarations provisions in AB 2196. Indeed, the administration's new salmon strategy includes the beaver can be important allies in Salmon Habitat recovery. Salmon and beaver evolved together.

Beavers create dams that in many cases allow fish passage while creating deep, cold pools of water that are ideal nurseries for juvenile salmon. For years, salmon restoration programs have supported beaver analog dams, where humans add woody debris to North Coast streams to improve salmon habitat.

It is time to let nature's best engineers to do some of this restoration work in certain areas around the state. CalTrout agrees and thinks AB 2196's simple codification of the existing program is helpful to continue positive momentum for salmon, trout, and other species restoration. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Me too testimony, seeing a line. Okay, go ahead.

Mister Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Solano County Water Agency in support, and reminding the Committee Members that the California Central Valley Flood Control Association is now neutral on the bill and appreciate the work of the author and the sponsor in getting to that point.

Thank you.

Megan Mekelburg, on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District and the California State Parks Foundation in support.

Thank you.

Isabella Gonzalez-Potter with the Nature Conservancy and proud beaver believer in support.

Thank you.

My name is Virginia Reed Ashford Davis. I live in Los Angeles and I urge you to vote for the beaver.

Thank you so much.

That's a hard act to follow. Kim Delfino, representing Audubon California Defenders of Wildlife, Trout Unlimited, and the California Native Plant Society in support.

Sheri Pemberton, representing the California State Lands Commission in support. And we look forward to hopefully working with the Department one day to relocate beavers on lands under our jurisdiction. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lily Scurria, on behalf of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin and Clean Water Action, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez, on behalf of Lieutenant Governor. Eleni Kounalakis, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Michael Jarred, on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers and the California Institute for Biodiversity in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Thank you.

Gabriella Facio at Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses, do we have any other any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none in the room. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Quite a lot of support. No opposition. You've been very busy as a beaver. Coming back to the dais. Yeah. Thank you. I'll be here all week. Yeah. Senator Dahle. I might have said, damn it.

I noticed that you don't have any opposition, but I did want to, you know, the north state, where we have irrigation canals that beavers move into and sometimes obstruct what we're trying to do with moving water around. This isn't going to prohibit them to be able to manage their canals.

Because we do have problems, we have to try to relocate them and it's hard. They're very effective at building dams and stopping water where we want water to go. So, I noticed that the opposition's off and I know that the Central Valley folks were probably interested in that as well because we've constructed those waterways.

So can you maybe address that?

That's my understanding, but Miss Fearing can confirm.

Mister Chair?

Yeah, of course.

Thank you for the question. Actually, this did come up in the conversations with the Central Valley folks and that, we actually added language to the bill to avoid and alleviate issues was language that we added to address that concern. I'll just say the program itself is really benefiting from the kind of collaboration and conversations about landowners to make sure it's built out.

And I'll just say the demand for beavers on other state lands gives yet another avenue for folks who are having issues. A way for those beavers to potentially be removed and relocated to watersheds where they can do their thing and be appreciated for it.

Cool. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Senator Eggman and then Senator Laird.

Thank you. And I won't do any dad jokes, those have been covered. But talk a little bit about beavers are good, nutria are bad. Right? Because nutria are the ones that get into our levees. And so, as I understand, the program is administered in that same area. So how do we make sure we're distinguishing between nutria and beavers?

I'll yet again call in our expert.

Fun fact. The woman at the Department of Fish and Wildlife who runs, was tapped to run the Beaver Restoration Program, also runs the Nutria Eradication Program. So, her rodent karma is being balanced by her leadership in these two areas. Nutria are an invasive species.

They don't actually produce the same kinds of water benefits that science and practice shows that beavers are able, who are a native species in California, to produce.

So, I think the scientist and the Department is well aware of the distinction between the two and are working to address the problems of one and promote the benefits of the other.

Okay. Yeah, it's just interesting. You got to keep that in balance, because if you let the nutria out, then we've got problems. Thank you.

Thanks for the question, Senator. Yep. Senator Laird.

I was just going to say that one of the supporters is the San Luis Obispo Beaver Brigade, and I had never heard of them. And.

Just months ago, they invited me out to the Salinas River in Atascadero and we hiked to where the beavers have been instrumental in sort of restoring the habitat and the pools. And it just works against everything there in a good way. And I just didn't know this existed. And they reintroduced themselves there decades and decades ago.

We can change that.

And they have been good neighbors to everybody, whether it's local farmers, whether it's the fish. There was even some benefit on flood control that I found hard to imagine. So I think this is great. And there really needs to be education because I don't think.

I mean, I had this experience that's strange that this overturned, which is 40 years ago. When I went to Tierra Del Fuego, they introduced beavers. And when they did it, it didn't occur to them that there were no predators.

And so, the beavers had taken over the backcountry and were taking down trees and building dams and doing things that were not constructive to the environment that doesn't exist in California so that we get to realize the good benefits of this. So, I would move the bill if there's been no motion yet.

Thank you, Senator Laird. All right, seeing no one else on the dais, we have a motion from Senator Laird. Assemblyman, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. I think we all recognize this is kind of a fun bill and one yet that has also multi benefits for our communities and our environment. Thank you for your consideration. Would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The vote is 8-0. We'll leave that on call. Thank you very much, Assemblyman. Alright, we've got a couple of bills coming up from Assemblyman Hart. File items number 6 and 7. File item number six is AB 1866. Assemblyman Hart, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair and members, I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 1866 which addresses the urgent climate and public health crisis crisis of idle oil wells. AB 1866 requires oil operators to develop a comprehensive plan to plug the estimated 40,000 idle oil wells in California.

This Bill also removes the option to pay as little as $150 per well to avoid submitting a plan. Over half of the idle wells in California have not produced oil in decades. According to state data, the number of idle wells continues to grow year after year. It may take over a century to plug all idle well under current law.

Many of these wells are at high risk of becoming orphan. Which means that they will be left without a financial responsible owner. A proactive approach is necessary to protect California taxpayers from the estimated $10 billion in cost to plug these wells should they become orphan. The benefits of AB 1866 extend beyond taxpayer protection.

Plugging idle oil wells presents a significant opportunity to strengthen California's economy and create jobs. A recent study revealed that plugging these wells could create over 24,000 jobs statewide. Idle oil wells in California act as a major source of methane gas emissions, groundwater contamination and air pollution.

By one estimate, about two thirds of the unplugged oil wells are leaking methane, a climate super pollutant over 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide. AB 1866 also requires operators to prioritize plugging wells within 3200ft of where communities live, work and play.

These communities are disproportionately impacted by higher rates of cancer, birth defects and other illnesses due to oil production. The facts are clear. This serious problem is getting worse and can't be ignored. AB 1866 is necessary to solve the idle well crisis in California. This proactive solution will protect taxpayers, create thousands of jobs, and safeguard communities.

With me today is Kyle Farrar with FracTracker and Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Wonderful. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good morning, Chairmen and distinguished Committee members. My name is Kyle Farrar. I am the Western Program Director at the nonprofit Frac Tracker alliance. We focus on data transparency and support smart legislation like this.

So I'm speaking in support of 1866 and want to provide my expertise on the oil and gas industry's cost of cleanup and the risk of idle wells to California communities.

There are more than 100,000 unplugged wells in California, and it would take more than $23 billion to properly plug these wells and restore the sites to the prior condition. But the industry has only set aside a tiny fraction of financial resources in bonds.

Production is decreasing and according to industry reports, most profits will be realized within the next few years. Importantly, these profits will not even cover half of the funds needed for the industry to pay for cleanup. It's clear that the current laws for idle wells aren't working.

Number of idle wells keep increasing because operators are allowed to pay a nominal fee instead of plugging a well. Operators can voluntarily submit a plugging plan for their oldest idle wells.

But those plans only require operators to plug four to 6% of the wells and just their oldest wells and those that have been idle for at least eight years. Only about 56 out of the roughly 1200 operators in the state, that's less than 5%, actually chose to submit any plan at all this last year.

So even if all the operators opted to submit a plan and plugged wells at the minimum rates, it would take over a century to plug just the 40,000 idle wells that we have in the state now.

That does not take into account the additional 60,000 operational wells in California that will be idled in the future, the majority of them already producing low marginal volumes. Under 1866, operators can no longer opt out of the plugging requirements. Those requirements will be ramped up to 10 to 20% of all idle wells.

This will lead to at least 6000 wells being plugged in just the first year, nearly 5000 of those wells will be plugged by the top six largest operators in the state. In contrast, in 2021, only 2700 wells were plugged. Plugging all the wells across California,

If you could wrap up that'd be great.

Absolutely. Including the ones currently active result in more than 50,000 jobs. Actually, according to a Sierra Club report, and those numbers align with my own calculations. The data shows that we must act more aggressively. And 1866 does just that by ramping up plugging requirements on all operators. Thank you so much.

Thank you, next witness. You have two minutes.

Good morning to the chair and the Committee, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity.

We proudly sponsor AB 1866, a critical bill to tackle the ballooning idle well crisis head on to protect public health and the environment, address a looming fiscal bombshell, create tens of thousands of jobs for transitioning workers and communities, and to fight the climate crisis. This Bill is a rare quadruple win for the state.

California has about 40,000 idle wells and another 60,000 active wells that will be idle soon. Most here don't produce enough to even be considered a breakeven stripper well. But all pose serious threats to our health, economy, and environment. Wells often leak benzene and other harmful chemicals.

An estimated two thirds of California's idle wells leak methane, some at explosive levels, polluting climate bonds that endanger communities. This is a serious fiscal risk. Oil and gas companies are legally and financially responsible to plug their wells and restore well sites, but have failed to set aside the necessary funds to do so.

This Legislature has already spent at least 100 million taxpayer dollars to pay for their industry cleanup obligations. It's a projected $23 billion to properly clean them all. But industry bonds cover only about 1% if companies try to evade their duties through bankruptcy or other bad faith maneuvering. Billions fall to the public.

Each year we fail to address to act increases the total cost and the risk to taxpayers. AB 1866 protects Californians, health communities, and pocketbooks by mandating they clean up at least a portion of their wells each year. It ends the status quo incentive for companies to choose a minor fee to avoid the greater cost of cleanup.

This Bill is proportional, expecting more from those with the most, who benefited the most. It prioritizes plugging those most dangerous to frontline communities and protects taxpayers by placing the financial burden where it belongs, on the polluters who created and profited from this mess. This is a job creator.

Tens of thousands of jobs for transitioning workers in communities for decades to come. With thanks to the author. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Other witnesses in support of the Bill? Me too testimony. Limit it to your name, affiliation, position in support of the measure. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Kendra Harris, The Climate Center in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning Savannah Jorgensen, on behalf of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California in strong support.

Thank you.

Tina Gallier for 350 Sacramento in strong support.

Thank you Jan Warren, Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County in strong support.

Thank you

MJ Kushner with Community Water Center in support.

Thank you.

Kathy Carriage for 350 Bay Area strong support.

Thank you.

Doctor Bonnie Hamilton for Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area for Climate Reality, California Coalition and for Climate Reality, Bay Area chapter in very strong support.

Thank you.

Gabriela Facio, Sierra Club California in strong support.

Thank you

Josh Gagar, on behalf of the counties of Santa Barbara and Ventura, in support.

Thank you

Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice, in support.

Thank you.

Megan Meckelberg, on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

Thank you

Darryl Little on behalf of NRDC in support. Thank you.

Thank you,

Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the City of Goleta, in support. Thank you.

Thank you

Iniya Rajanikanth with the Junior Philanthropist Foundation in support.

Thank you

Erin Nagali, speaking on behalf of Environment California, in support. Thank you

Thank you.

Doctor Bill Pevec. Climate Health Now a coalition of over 900 California healthcare providers in strong support for the health of our patients.

Thank you

Marquis King Mason, California environmental voters. And I have a laundry list. California Environmental Justice Alliance, SEHA, Physician for Social Responsibility LA, Stand LA and Environmental Defense Center. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses, we'll move to opposition. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Just one, or do we have two? Two. Alright, we have two minutes each.

Chair and members, Sean Wallentine from the California Independent Petroleum Association. Rodent Karma was mentioned earlier. I take offense to that. As an oil lobbyist, you're allowed to laugh. It's okay.

Hey the idle well management plan program was developed in 2016 by then Assemblymember Doss Williams under the watchful eye of Mister Chair Senator John Laird, who was the resources secretary at the time. And I'm happy to report to you all good news that the program is working splendidly.

Operators who are members of our Trade Association are aggressively plugging idle wells. And in fact, we've plugged a record number. In the last two years alone, we've plugged 11,032 oil wells, spending hundreds of millions of our dollars to plug those wells. And we have exceeded the requirements that CalGEM requires in relationship to the Idle well management program.

So when I saw this Bill introduced, I was really surprised, because this is a program that we compliment CalGEM about, and CalGEM actually complements us about, because we're actually exceeding the required percentages.

What we don't want to have happen is to be locked in to the extra credit, so to speak, that we have been doing and spending a lot of money going above and beyond what you have all asked of us, and then lock us into a much higher pace, which is then going to bankrupt us and do exactly what the supporters said would happen, and that that would mean we would leave idle wells.

I do want to make a point, too, about the fee option. I've heard the use of the word avoid. In 2016, when the idle well management plan was thoughtfully developed by this Committee and this Legislature, the fee option wasn't to avoid an idle well management plan.

The fee option was so that operators had flexibility to look at idle wells, which are assets which can continue to.

You can start to wrap up.

Okay, so I'm in the weird position of asking the author and this Committee to keep the fee. The oil industry is asking you to keep a fee.

We would like the flexibility of the fee. And there's $25 million in the hidwath, which is 100% our money, which we've deposited there so that orphan wells can be by CalGEM.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next witness.

Mister chair and Members Paul Deiro, representing the Western States Petroleum Association. I think there's a conflation of issues with a narrative that is very misleading. There is no crisis with existing idle wells. Idle wells are permitted. They are regulated, they are tested.

So if two thirds of idle wells are releasing methane, that's news to me, and they better be shut down. I would support shutting all of those wells down that are leaking to an extent that is completely untrue.

The difference between and the completion of an issue, I believe is the difference between an idle well and an orphan well. An idle well, as I said, is regulated. An idle well is an asset.

And as we look at our production portfolio, we are looking at alternative uses for those idle wells, including hydrogen storage, renewable energy, water projects. So by prematurely plugging in an idle well takes those opportunities away, not to say CCS, opportunities that we're absolutely looking at.

So I think the narrative of idle wells being hazardous and is in a crisis state is a false narrative. I mean, we will help. I mean, we worked with the author before and his other bills.

Happy to work with the author on addressing the real problem, which is 5300 wells that were identified by the California Council on Science and Technology to be orphan wells, which do not have a responsible operator to plug and abandon that well. That's the problem. Idle wells are not we urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition? Me too testimony? Name, affiliation, opposition position on the measure.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition witnesses in the room, we'll bring it back to the members. Senator Grove.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister chair. I guess representing the factory floor of California, 70% of the state's oil production, I guess, well, it's much lower now without permits, but, you know, they're working hard for new technology.

And some of this stuff that you're talking about, like the opposition said, when it looks at, you know, the difference between orphan and idle wells, an orphan well is someone who has abandoned that well and it's gone. And that's why the industry, it's. This is no general fund money.

So when the, when the opposition says taxpayer dollars are on the line, that's not true. CalGEM is 100% industry funded. They don't get one dime from the General Fund. And there's $25 million in there to address the 53,300 abandoned wells.

The idle wells that are either idle because they don't have a permit, idle because it's an asset, and they're trying to reinvigorate that well. The idle well is still something that is very viable.

There's also new technology, like the Bill that we just passed to assemblymember papen's Bill, to allow geothermal and to let it go to local jurisdiction so that we can develop geothermal.

There's new technology in Kern County with an organization that is bringing in steam generated, just like Assemblymember Papan understood on making sure that that's trapped inside the oil the cavity itself where we can't produce oil anymore because we're importing it from foreign countries on the use that we have every day.

But to trap that steam there and it provides almost 400 days of battery storage, like 400 days of storage, not 4 hours. They've tested it in Texas. They're working on it. They want to develop it here. There's resources to develop here. We have the fields to develop it here.

But we can't do it because people are afraid that we're not going to get a permit or bills like this will pass that didn't allow you to use those assets because once you dump cement down this hole, it's over. It takes a lot to get it back.

Having idol and orphan in the same sentence is not something that is even conducive and it's not beneficial to the renewable energy industry and it's not beneficial to the abandoned fields or the fields that we have right now that are almost non operational.

Because of the permit situation and transitioning off of domestically produced fuel here and importing it from foreign sources. So to say that it's, like I said, taxpayer funded is completely wrong, because there is $5,300 on the fee, excuse me, $25 million on the fee program that hasn't been used that will take care of those truly orphan wells that the operators have just left. The other thing is that.

Do you think that it causes conflict with SB 1433, which is a Limon bill that was just passed, I believe, last year? We actually just got it through, and I think the Governor just signed it. We just passed it out of this Committee about gravity based wells.

So they're taking a lot of idle wells, and they're turning them into gravity based wells. And that was a bill that a Senator on our side had, and we all passed that bill. And then your bill circumvents that. So can you explain why you would do that?

I guess I would start with saying that the idle wells are idle for a reason, because they're not producing oil, and that the companies have a choice under this legislation of which idle wells to address over a 10 year period.

So they get to decide which of those assets they want to plug now versus in the future, and that the number of alternative energy projects that would be using idle wells is a very small number, and the companies would be able to preserve those assets they think are adequate to meet that future need by making the choice internally with their company as to which of these idle oil wells that they're going to close.

There are literally thousands, 40,000 idle wells in California. Those represent holes in the ground, that leak, that need to be plugged in order for the renewable energy systems that you're describing, where you're using pressurized gas, you can't have a bunch of idle oil well holes into those caverns that are going to hold pressurized gas.

They have to be closed in order for that system to work. So I think these things can work very well together. And really, what this is doing is saying to industry, plan ahead out a way that you're going to address the idle wells that you have that aren't in production.

It doesn't affect the oil wells that are in production. You have a choice. You can put these wells back into production if you decide that there is a use for them. It's not driving that choice. They have that decision. But right now, we're in limbo, and the wells are not being properly abandoned in the way that they should be.

You can't even get a maintenance permit, so you have to idle a well or put something out aside because you have to have a maintenance permit or a shall issue from CalGEM. So I think the, if I'm not mistaken, the last rig, there's only three operational rigs that I know of in the state of California, and that I would like somebody to address that that runs an oil field, if you would. Is that true? What is the, what is the number through the Chair?

I'm sorry. Yes, you may answer the question. Thank you, Senator Grove.

I don't know the exact amount, but there are a few.

There are a few. Okay. So we went from. And I guess I just say that I took a tour of a field in my district and used to run around thousands of people, second chancers, and I didn't, we didn't see one work crew because there's so few wells operating like drilling rigs operating.

And I guess my other thing is, is that when there was a negotiated deal on SB 1866, excuse me, when there was a negotiated deal with a previous piece of legislation, the previous piece of legislation, if you look at what was negotiated in 2016, which was the oil well management program, a lot of our smaller or mid level independent operators have abandoned a lot of those wells.

Like, they took the initiative to do that. Like, for instance, it was only required for a certain percentage, which is lower. But they've, like, SIPA operators have done, you know, 28% of their wells. So I guess you're going to hold them to a higher standard, but they would have been able to transfer some of the wells they've already closed.

Or you know, you know, abandoned properly into this new law that you're trying to get passed. And they shouldn't have done it previously, because now they're not going to get credit for that, and they've already gone to the expense to make that happen. Does that. I mean, are you aware of that? Or does that bother you at all? Or.

I'm encouraged by that. I think that it's good that the industry is taking responsibility for the idle wells that they have and plugging them properly. And what this bill does is say, continue that. So if the point being made by the opponents is that we're doing it, then this bill isn't going to be a problem. They're going to be able to.

They're not going to get credit.

They're not getting credit for the past, but they're going to get credit for that same work going forward. And the point is we have to, we have to address this issue. We can't just let it sit unattended for the next 40 years. There's an imperative to fix these wells that these companies drill. If they believe they are assets that are no longer productive, then they need to close those wells. If they are productive, they can open them up, and that's their choice. They can continue to drill.

It's not their choice. A lot of these wells are idle because they can't get permits to operate them. But if things change and CalGEM exercises the CEQA program that they're putting in place, and, I mean, I know there will be challenges legally, then they will be able to open up some of these wells, but you're requiring them to shut them down before that even has an opportunity to happen.

This bill has a 10 year lifespan that allows them to choose which wells that they're going to abandon and plug over that 10 year plan. So the bills, the wells that are marginal that they may consider reopening, we'll have--there will be time to work with CalGEM to get the permits to reactivate those wells.

And this is a new regulatory scheme within CalGEM to handle this issue. So I think that, you know, in a perfect world, those two--that same regulatory agency would be talking about those two issues and how they're connected.

Okay. Just like I said, I just disagree with the fact that you, that these statements are made about, you know, methane leaked wells. There are none. If there are, I'd like to see the facts and the proof of that.

The oil industry has, again, on the 2016 legislation, they've abandoned more and inputted $25 million into this Fund so that if somebody did leave the state of California and, like, actually make an orphan well, that there would be resources paid by industry to cover that. And again, CalGEM is 100% in industry funded, and so to say that the taxpayers are on the hook for this is just not correct.

Thank you, Senator Grove.

The only thing I would add is that the taxpayers have been on the hook for plugging abandoned wells. There is not sufficient funding in that program to cover all of the orphan oil wells in the state of California. There are Federal Government dollars, state government dollars going to plug those wells.

We'll have to disagree, but thank you.

Thank you, Senator Grove. We have quite a long queue here, so I'm going to move to Dahle, to Eggman, Laird. Anyone else want to ask? Stern. Thank you.

Good to see you, Assemblymember. I do have a question. First, number one, I look at the language you talk about idle well, which is can still be in production. And it may not be right now. But it could be production.

So I want to get the back in production.

Right. So then I want to talk about orphaned and abandoned. So I sit on Sub Two, which is the finances that goes through for Natural Resources. And we talk a lot with CalGEM actually comes to our meetings. And I've been on that Committee for some time.

And I've been very frustrated with the fact that with CalGEM and getting these abandoned and orphaned wells, not idle. So your bill is focused on idle wells, which I think is something that needs to be talked about here, because those wells are actually an asset. They can repurpose those or they can use them for production.

So when we talk about, we heard the testimony. So my question is, the data that you put out and your proponents put out, is that on idled wells or that's on orphan and abandoned wells?

I don't know specifically which point you're trying to make, but it's probably all of the above.

Well, it makes a big difference, because if it's abandoned, that means that because we have a Fund that the oil companies put into that plug abandoned wells that they didn't, weren't even responsible for. So there's a Fund for that, number one. There's also another Fund that they put in money for.

They're putting a big bill here for some of theirs that's not their responsibility. So I want to make that. We need to be talking about which buckets are coming up. When you talk about idle wells. That's an asset. That's an asset that they may use in the future. And so I'm concerned about that. So now what is your bill address? Idle, abandoned, or orphan, or all the above?

Idle wells. Only idle wells. That it is an asset is true. And there's also a liability. And it can be both. And the point is for the oil companies to decide what they are and to plug properly the idle wells that are no longer assets, that are liability before they become orphan wells that fall to the responsibility of the state of California with the funding that has been contributed by the oil companies that is inadequate to meet that need.

Well, I just want to say that I want to commend the oil companies for, number one, taking care of abandoned wells that you weren't even responsible for, and orphaned wells. And I sit on Sub Two.

For the last three budget cycles, the oil companies have put up the money to have CalGEM hire the folks to come out and actually regulate them. And you know how many they hired in the last three budget cycles? 12. But they've paid for 50, almost 50 a year, I think it was in the last couple years.

So I just want to. I'm not going to support your bill because I think you--I think that we're, you know, we talk about the climate and all the problems. I think the oil companies have stepped up to the plate and they're doing the right thing. And to their testimony, they gave.

11,000 wells have been plugged since 2016. That's. That's awesome. Before that, there was very few plugged, and we've moved in the right direction. And I think we need to give them a chance to continue to do what they're doing and allow them to use those assets, the idle wells, as potential generation for electricity and also storage facilities.

So I just want to put that out there. I think we need to get the facts out. A lot of testimony was thrown around here today, but you're talking about idle wells, not orphaned or abandoned wells, which they have stepped up to the plate for. For those reasons, I won't be supporting your bill.

I think we need to really focus on CalGEM, who has positions open and can't get those positions filled, and that's on us there. If you want to do a bill, there's a bill to make sure that they get those, their obligations filled. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Senator Eggman.

Thank you. I'm not going to belabor this point, but I will say that I also am confused why you're going after just idle and not orphaned and abandoned. Because those, as we know, are the real problem. And idle wells are still part of someone's asset portfolio. This is kind of an aside, but I think it's related.

I co-owned some land on a cabin up in the mountains, and wildfire took it out a couple years ago. We sold off our part. I thought we should sell off the whole piece, but my friend didn't want to sell, and it's sitting there. But it's her asset, right?

So far be it for me to tell her what she should do with her own asset. She's managing it. She's taking care of it. So to me, this is analogous to this, where we all know our bigger problems with the orphan and abandoned, plugged 11,000 this year. Now we're starting going after the idle, which again, to me, is still part of somebody's portfolio of assets. So I won't be able to support it today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Senator Laird.

I just had a question. Senator Grove and you had an exchange that got up to it, but one of the opponents said that they were doing all this work and they were worried your bill would artificially set a level of what they're doing that would penalize them for doing it. Could you respond to whether that's the case or whether you have addressed that concern in your bill?

Yes, I think we have addressed that concern in the bill. There are specific requirements for the different levels of oil companies that are operating that have idle wells, and the responsibility is greater on an annual basis for companies that are better capitalized in a financial position.

We thought it was important to kind of make a distinction between companies that are really well off financially, moderate companies, and smaller companies, and give them different targets over the course of the 10 year period for them to properly plug their idle wells.

And so I think that the companies that were described by the oil companies that are doing a good job should just continue to do a good job on the time scale and framework that has been created by this legislation, and that that's really what we're after. And that still, their discretion, choose to use that asset if they want to put it back into production. They have that right and ability to do that under the legislation.

I'm a lay person on this, so I don't understand. But if they were investing at a high level and they were front loading all their investment, and then they do a lot, would your bill then require them to continue at that level they were doing, even though they front loaded and spent that money?

No, it is a 10 year period with percentage by year, depending on the size of the company that they have to plug, so that over time the wells will be plugged. But that doesn't require them to maintain a higher percentage of plugging than they were doing previously in relation to this time period and the metrics of the bill.

I appreciate that. I think the question was slightly different, because if they front loaded all their investment and thought they were done, and then the bill requires them to do it when they've spent all that money already, does that disadvantage them? That's what I was sort of trying to.

Well, they're required to plug the bills or the wells that they determine to be not assets that, you know, they could choose to operate a well. That's the choice, is that they can take an idle well, put it back into reduction. It's not going to be required to be plugged, but if they're going to continue to keep an idle well inoperable and not working, it needs to be plugged, and that's the point of the bill.

Well, I'm going to vote for your bill, but if it turns out they say that doesn't quite address their issue. I just hope you continue to talk.

I will continue to talk. I've been with them all.

Thank you, Senator Laird.

Have been improving the bill as it went along.

Thank you. Senator Stern.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thought I would just raise it, one fact for the record. I appreciate your work on this and the immediacy of the impact in your backyard, Mr. Hart.

Last week in Bakersfield, if we're looking for an example of a failure of wells not being, idle wells, not being maintained adequately or monitored, after two years of actually more than two years, there's a 2022 order from CalGEM that was defied in the Fruitvale oil field.

But just last week, people's sprinklers in West Bakersfield started showing up with oil coming out of them and gas coming out of them in their water. CalWater had to literally disconnect the entire water system from a connection to a nearby oil field where the operator had not been handling their idle well assets properly.

They had a backflow incident and a bunch of methane gas shot out of their gas field right into the water supply of West Bakersfield. Now we get to go to court and go try to chase down the money from some small Texas operator that got hold of that asset from some large oil company years back and subsidiary, and someone went bankrupt and divested and divested.

And then suddenly now we've got Griffin resources that Calgem is the state and the taxpayers have to go chase down to try to make the city of West Bakersfield hold. By the way, Wayne Van Horn Elementary School sitting right there, is drinking out of those drinking fountains. This is not bad facts. This is bad management.

And this is a subsidy that our children and our communities are providing to the oil industry and the most profitable industry in the world with their health and their lives. So not only do I think this bill is necessary, but the majors out there who love to point to these small operators as the big problem, meanwhile, writing down billions of dollars of assets like Chevron just did last quarter, and raising up their hands saying, we don't have responsibility for this work anymore.

I'm actually encouraged by some of the work we've been seeing out of CRC to take some ownership over some of these assets and start to develop some novel approaches that I think are worth looking at. Not just the energy storage underground, but, but also, but also looking at carbon capture.

And I don't see that this bill takes that option off the table. I would have concerns if it did, but I think your 10 year plan leaves plenty of room for that kind of management plan. So I get that there's a lot of firepower on the other side and that everyone loves to blame a state agency, but the billions are with this industry that has continued to shirk responsibility for these assets and use them when they're profitable and bail on them when they're not.

And that's why we need to look at idle wells, not just the abandoned wells, because those are the ones that leave West Bakersfield and the surrounding communities in Ventura County and Santa Barbara County and LA County and all the rest so vulnerable. So I'll move the bill at the appropriate time and appreciate the author.

Thank you. All right, Senator Seyarto.

I have a direct response.

Thank you.

Comments made about my city.

Let's go ahead and wait if you'd like to speak.

I have a question. So in the last two years, given the efforts that have already been made to get these oil wells capped, they've done 11,032. How is this going to make it go any faster than they're already capable of doing and plan to do as they got another 2,000 in the hopper ready to cap?

Is this going to put the brakes on what they're already doing and then have to retool to be able to comply with whatever this law wants to do, this bill wants to accomplish? How is this bill going to make it any better than what they're doing? And I understand there are anecdotal, are not anecdotal.

They actually do happen. There are instances where something goes drastically wrong and people need to be held accountable when their assets do that. But I don't see how this bill is going to. It's kind of like coming in and doing something after something's already done. And I don't know that this does anything but complicate it even more. And so what number are you looking for? That's the number that needs to be capped before we stop trying to make them go even faster.

I think that's a great question, and I would answer it by saying that the companies that have plugged the idle wells that have been described in the hearing today are doing exactly what we're looking for from this bill.

And this bill says you need to hit a certain percentage depending on the viability and the financial resources that your company has over the next 10 years, the mid range oil companies have a different standard and the smaller companies have a lower standard.

And so the idea is to push all of the companies, whether they're highly capitalized or modestly capitalized or very little capitalization, to do their share over time. And I suspect the companies that have done the really great work are the most financially resourced companies. So we want to make it consistent.

We don't want just the big operators to be plugging idle wells. We want everybody that has idle wells to step up to that responsibility. That's the reason for the tiering and for the timeframe to make them to adhere to a program that would ultimately close all the idle wells or return those wells into production or repurpose them for some other purpose that would be part of the renewable energy portfolio. So I think, honestly, this is just a simple producer responsibility issue.

We don't want idle wells to migrate into the category of abandoned wells and orphan wells, where the state picks up the financial tab. So this is saying right now, while these companies have the resources to do the job of taking care of their assets and turning them into productive assets, or to properly plug their abandoned assets that are liabilities. They ought to do that.

I think we already have a process that seems to be working, and I don't want to complicate it with more bills on top of bills that are already been done. And so I'm not going to be supporting the bill today, but I appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Now, Senator Grove, would you like to address?

I would. Thank you. The issue in Bakersfield was a Texas company that was hired by an operator, and an operator, the Texas company, when they did a pressure line test, they failed to close a valve. This is not a leaky well. It's not poorly constructed well.

It was a contractor that came in from another state that did a pressure test, and they failed to close the valve, which caused the oil like oil contaminants to go into a water. They flushed it out, they isolated it, and it has been fixed.

I know that CalGEM is going to find that Texas operator, but to say that there's just these oil leaky wells all over and contaminating the city of Bakersfield or West Bakersfield is just not a true statement. It was a valve that was not closed.

Again, just correcting the record for false statements that continue to come out of people's mouths when it addresses this industry. Also, the comment that this treats all oil companies the same, small and mid level producers will be held to a higher standard because it's on a pro rata share or a pro basis share.

And it will cost smaller operators versus larger operators a substantial amount of money because you have larger operators with larger resources.

And these smaller operators and mid level operators will not have the resources to be able to do that, which may create more orphan wells, which is not something that I know we want to do, but it is something that they can only set aside so much of their resources every year without gaining drilling permits to be able to produce income.

You can't just keep putting money out the door. It's a simple business matter. Again, just want to correct the record on the Bakersfield statement from my colleague.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Assemblymember, you don't need to respond, but if you'd like to.

I'm not going to.

Okay, I will just close here before you close by just noting that I do think there is a problem, contrary to the statements of some of my colleagues up here that we are facing in the state that the current process is not working. And I understand the problem that you're trying to solve.

Certainly we've made some progress in the last few years following the reforms that instituted the current idle well management process. But even as we plugged several thousand older idle wells, thousands of other oil and gas wells became idle at the same time. The implementation of the current program has revealed significant weaknesses in this program.

And so I want to applaud the author for once again taking on this challenge of addressing a very, very real problem. I'm supporting the bill today with the understanding that you'll continue to work with and meet with and negotiate with the stakeholders to address some of the concerns that have been raised. But with that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Hart. We have a motion, I think, from Senator Stern. The motion is do pass to Judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The count is 43. We'll leave that Bill on call. Thank you. Sim Lemon Hart. And you have the next Bill as well. File item number seven, AB 2298. You can proceed whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I think this Bill is easier. This past April, a dead gray whale washed ashore in the Bay Area. Scientists found that the 40 foot adult whale had injuries consistent with blunt floors trauma from a vessel strike. The injuries found on the gray whale underscore the relentless challenges these endangered species face across the globe.

In addition to the threat of ship strikes, shipping noise can disrupt whale navigation, feeding patterns and social interactions. Research points toward a straightforward but impactful solution. Slowing down ships. AB 2298 will establish the California Protecting blue whales and blue blue skies, a statewide voluntary vessel speed reduction program.

The legislation will provide shipping companies with formal recognition and endorsement from the State of California for slowing their speeds to less than 10 knots, reducing emissions and safeguarding whales. AB 2298 will help prevent boat strikes, reduce disruptive noise that hampers whale communication and lower carbon emissions along the coast.

Speaking in support today is Allen Abs, who's representing the Bay Area Quality Management District.

Good morning Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abs. I'm the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District along with the Santa Barbara county and Ventura County Air Pollution control districts. We are co sponsors of AB 2298.

AB 2298 would establish a process to expand the existing voluntary vessel speed reduction program, known as the Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies program for ocean going cargo ships along the entire California coast. I'd really like to thank Committee staff for their excellent analysis of this Bill.

This Bill would recognize the decade long work initiated by the Santa Barbara county and Ventura County Air pollution control districts and create a stakeholder process to expand the existing voluntary vessel speed reduction programs to cover the rest of the state.

The program was created in 2014, originally in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, expanded to portions of the Bay Area, and has resulted in increased slow speed transits from 30% of ships in its inception to over 80% in 2023.

These existing voluntary programs reduce air pollution in coastal communities, reduce underwater noise, and reduce threats of ship strikes to several species of whales, some of which are listed as endangered species.

Our existing programs have been embraced by international shipping companies who routinely tout their participation and as the analysis notes, expanding this voluntary program to other parts of the coast and recognizing participation by shipping companies would increase marine mammal and air quality benefits.

And I'll mention again the program's voluntary AB 2298 is supported by coastal air districts the marine Sanctuary foundation, ocean and mammal protection groups, and other environmental groups. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Hart for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of this Bill? Me too. Testimony?

Jan Warren, Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County support the Bill.

Thank you Brendan Tuig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air Pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts in support.

Thank you Isabel Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy, in support.

Thank you Josh Garder, on behalf of. The County of Santa Barbara, in support.

Thank you Emily Campbell from Santa Maria and Lighthouse Baptist Church, in support.

Thank you Brock Campbell, Lighthouse Baptist Church. In Santa Maria, in support.

Thank you Baltazar Cornejo, on behalf of the California Marine Sanctuary Foundation, who administers. The existing program in strong support.

Thank you Tanishka Kunikala, on behalf of the Junior Philanthropist Foundation in strong support. Thank you.

Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in Support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any witnesses here in opposition? Any lead witnesses in opposition? Looks like we have just one. You have up to four minutes, if you'd like.

Good morning, Members. Chair and Members Sylvia Solish here on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. We had a support position on this Bill, but due to recent amendments, we must regretfully oppose this version.

While we support voluntary vessel speed reduction programs, we believe that the current version of the Bill should offer a state administered program to ensure greater success in and participation. We would prefer to see the set of voluntary rules applied statewide rather than 10 different programs along the coast run by 10 separate air districts.

So that is our concern today, but we look forward to further discussions with the author. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your brevity and your position. Any other opposition in the room? Me too. Testimony? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Members. We have a motion, and we have a question from Senator Seyarto.

I'll be supporting the Bill today because just the mammal life, the marine life aspect alone makes it very supportable.

I'm a little curious about where they arrived because we do have all the different air quality districts, and when you're looking at the tonnage of emissions, a slower going vessel that takes 2 hours longer to get to a destination and what that puts out versus a vessel that's going faster, did we do studies on that?

So we know what the difference in tonnage of release into the air is. And I'll bet you that's a question that the air quality people know. And so I'm curious about that.

Yes, Senator, thanks for the question. So I'm not a maritime expert, but simply speaking, when you think about the speed of a large ship traveling through the water, the amount of power it takes to increase that vessel speed rises at an exponential level compared to the increase in speed.

So in other words, if you're going from 10 knots to 12 knots, it might take this much power. But if you're going from 12 knots to 14 knots, it takes this much power so that the power need rises. As the speed rises, the pollution coming from those vessels is linear with the power needs of the engine.

And so when you get down to, when you start slowing the speeds down from 20 knots to 16 knots to 10 knots, you get a disproportionate benefit in reductions of air pollution.

Okay, so we don't know what the difference in tonnage is really. It's going to vary.

So what I can say, though, is from the vessels that participated in the program in 2023, we've estimated from the reporting that we received, I believe that it was, that it was over 200 tons of knocks from those slower ocean going valleys.