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 quorum for our hearing, we'd appreciate it. We have 20 bills on today's agenda, seven of which are proposed for consent. Bills will be heard in file item or order where appropriate, when authors are present.

If need be, we'll adjourn at noon and reconvene in the room in the afternoon. So with that, since we don't have a quorum, we'll proceed by Subcommitee and we'll hear from our first author, who is here, who is Assemblywoman Reyes, and that is going to be file item number 18, AB 2827.

Assemblywoman, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you. My witnesses, if you would come up. Mister chair, do the witnesses come to the table?

At the dais would be great. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Mister chair and Members. I am presenting to you AB 2827 which protects our agricultural economy. This Bill will require the state to detect and eradicate evasive speech that could harm California agriculture. California is currently experiencing one of its highest levels of exotic fruit fly infestations in its recorded history.

According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, this invasive species can result in billions of dollars in losses every year if they become permanently established here in California. In 2023, there were over 900 fruit fly detections in 15 counties. In comparison, an average year, we'll see about 75 fruit fly detections in seven counties.

Hundreds of crops are threatened by invasive fruit flies, including nuts, citrus, vegetables and berries. It is critical that we bring attention to the impacts invasive species have on our shared environment and ensure we are implementing long term strategies to protect our local economies. We must protect the food sources of millions of Americans.

AB 2827 seeks to prioritize mitigation efforts against the serious threat of invasive pest species. Here to testify in support and answer any technical questions are Taylor Roschen, on behalf of California Citrus Mutual, and Danny Merkley, on behalf of the California Wine Grape Growers Association.

Thank you. You'll each have two minutes to present.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of Citrus Mutual. CCM is an agricultural trade association's promoting and protecting the iconic and delicious California grown oranges, mandarins, lemons, limes, grapefruits and kumquats. California's citrus industry is the cornerstone of not only our state's agricultural economy, but our rural economies as well.

We produce over 80% of the fresh citrus in the United States, generating nearly $3.5 billion in economic activity every year, supporting tens of thousands of jobs across the state. But our industry faces a significant and growing threat from invasive species.

We've been battling the Asian Citrus Psyllid, which carries the deadly disease Huanglongbing, or HLB, for decades, which has already devastated citrus groves in Florida and other parts of the world. If left unchecked, it could do the same here, putting not only our citrus crops at risk, but the livelihoods of our farmers and farmworkers.

I want to note, though, the impacts from pest infestation are not just borne by agriculture, but also our communities. In Southern California, there are 3 million citrus backyard citrus trees. That's almost one for every person in the City of Los Angeles.

The citrus industry spends millions of dollars every year to protect backyard citrus from HLB and exotic pests. Farmers Fund surveillance, trapping, and treatment protocols, and we're proud to do that because it's not just an investment in our future, but an investment in yours as well.

Climactic extremes, weather events, people movement, goods movement, and less investment in pest prevention over time, that has made this job harder, and it will continue to be so. As the Assembly Member noted, the exotic fruit fly infestation has been an example of significant challenge.

Since March of this year, the California State Legislature has approved $50 million in General Fund resources to rebut exotic fruit fly. The proliferation of exotic shot hole borer, which Senator Laird may remember from his time from Resources Agency and Sudden Oak Death leaves our large forest tree canopies dead and dying that have direct correlations to wildfires.

Yellow Star Thistle displaces native vegetation and feeds on limited water supply. Algae blooms harm our water systems and nutrient chew through levee systems, damaging critical infrastructure. We believe an ounce of prevention is worth a dose of cure. AB 2827 is a critical step in safeguarding California's natural resources and working lands.

The Legislature has a demonstrated pattern of success. You set a goal, determine pathways, dedicate resources, and track progress. AB 2827 builds upon that success and that's my vote. Thank you.

Next witness.

Thank you. Chair and Members. Danny Merkley with The Gualco Group representing the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. Many state agencies are charged with individually controlling invasive species, Department of Food and Ag, Fish and Wildlife, and many others. AB 2827 charges these entities to come together and work together, not individually, in their silos.

AB 2827 establishes a statewide goal. Without a statewide goal, typically in state law, no resources are dedicated. Prevention versus eradication. It's like taking care of your body, working out. It's not easy, but it's a lot smarter in the long run than having some of the problems. Same with your vehicle.

Maintenance is not inexpensive but it's a lot cheaper to change your oil every 5000 miles than it is to replace your engine. So a perfect example of that is this year the state was forced to dedicate $50 million for eradicating the Exotic Fruit Fly during this very difficult budget year. With that, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Do we have any other support witnesses in the room for me too testimony? Name, position, affiliation on the measure? Affiliation? Position on the measure? Sorry.

I'm Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in support. Thank you.

Abigail Smith, on behalf of mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, in support. Thank you.

Doug Johnson, on behalf of the California Invasive Plant Council, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses in the room, I will move on to any opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Members. Senator Laird?

Thank you. The witness mentioned something I might remember from resources. But the thing I really remember is being in the Assembly when my district was targeted for the Light Brown Apple Moth and there was such an outpouring that I had to change the outgoing message in my district office because everybody was on the phone 100% of the time.

And what came out of that was a Bill that complements this perfectly because it was a programmatic EIR on what might be sprayed at any time. Because at that time, even though it was a pheromone people were moving out of town, all this stuff was happening. It was just complete craziness.

And if we had a programmatic EIR that said, this is what we know about each of these, you'd have that discussion way in advance, as prevention, to be able to do that with anything that might be sprayed.

This Bill complements it perfectly because it is sort of prevention in another way and it makes complete sense to have in the continuum of things. And if we ever have a quorum, I would be happy to move this bill.

Thank you. We have a proposal to move it after we have a quorum from Senator Laird. Senator Dahle?

Real quick question. What is the cure? What's the process for the cure?

Well, Senator Dahle, that's a great question. And I'm sorry, with the chair's permission, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, various agencies, County Ag commissioners or others are working on what's called C3. It's a comprehensive pest prevention study. That study will identify the pathways for introductions of new exotic pests and diseases.

And it will also identify where we have vulnerabilities and where we need to make investments and look at sort of policy changes that are needed to make sure we're shoring that up.

That could be investments in border protection stations, it could be implementing region wide surveillance systems, or it could be having exactly like that PEIR's for alternative products as well.

Thank you. I'll be supporting the Bill as well. Just wanted to kind of figure out what the plan was.

Thank you. I just have one question. Obviously, this is an important issue, and I appreciate your effort to try to address invasive species. The Committee analysis does raise the potential concern that this is duplicative of existing efforts, including the Invasive Species Council of California.

And I guess I was interested in your thoughts or your witnesses thoughts on why a secondary effort was necessary. Why not work through existing programs rather than have program overlaps and the potential inefficiencies and confusion those can cause. You can go ahead if you'd like.

Thank you. I think that's a great question. I also think that over five years ago, when the invasive Species Council and CISAC, so the Advisory Committee was created, we were operating under a different paradigm. Last year, we had a hurricane in Southern California. So we've got major climactic extremes.

We are seeing new exotic and invasives in California at a more rapid clip than we had at that time. I think CISAC and the Invasive Species Council is a complementary function of this Bill. The recent amendments do charge CDFA to lead that. CISAC is a party on that Advisory Committee as well, and the council.

But we need to bring more people to the table. We need the California Coastal Commission. We need the Conservation Corps. We need others than our traditional resource partners to find that out. And I think having a statewide goal facilitates that.

I appreciate the answer. I'll also be supporting the Bill when it comes to vote. Thank you very much. Would you like to close?

Well, when you do have a quorum, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Recess. All right. Seeing no other potential authors in the room, we're going to take a short recess. All right, we will resume in 30. Senate Natural Resources and Waters Water Committee will resume in 30 seconds. Okay, Senate Natural Resources and Water will come back to order. Assemblymember Grayson, you're here.

You can present file item number 10, AB 2091. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. I am grateful for the Committee's work on this Bill and accept the proposed amendments from the Committee and the Environmental Quality Committee. AB 2091 is a simple Bill, of course, that would help expedite public access to open space in California.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, local agencies must conduct significant environmental reviews for projects that impact the environment unless categorically exempted. Currently, a categorical exemption exists which allows a park district to acquire land for open space preservation without CEQA review.

But no exemption exists for changing the use of such land for public access, even if the acquired land already has existing roads and trails that existed prior to the acquisition. AB 2091 will exempt the opening of existing roads and trails for specified non motorized recreational uses to the public on open space properties owned and operated by a regional park district. This limited exemption applies only where roads and disturbed areas existed prior to public agency acquisition and where no significant capital improvements are required for public access.

It is also narrowed to specified independent regional park or open space districts. This Bill would have no impact on existing land covenants such as grant agreements, conservation easements, or long term management plans. Park districts will still be able - will still be responsible for enforcing management policies that protect species, habitat, and tribal cultural resources. And importantly, this Bill will also help save park district resources and expedite public access to acquired lands. And I do believe with us today is Jennifer Galehouse, representing East Bay Regional Parks through the Chair.

You have just one witness today.

Yes

Great. You have up to four minutes, if you like.

Thank you. My name is Jennifer Gailhouse. I'm here on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District, and I'd also like to thank the Committee for all the help in getting the amendments, especially with the tight timeframe we worked on. This Bill's narrowly drafted to address the applicability of CEQA when you have a change in use. In the situation with the park district, the locals passed a local bond for park acquisition.

And now there are sites that have existing roads and trails that the district would like to open up to the public, but they're not quite ready and they can't afford to fully develop the park, and so they would like to allow public access before they're ready to do full CEQA, which they plan to do when they plan to change the physical environment, meaning add benches, campgrounds, bathrooms as such. So what this Bill will do is allow non motorized recreation on existing trails and parks. When the park is fully developed and opened up to the public for other kinds of recreation.

A full CEQA will be performed at that time before it's opened up to the public for that kind of stuff. So I'd also like to address some of the opposition. There's been some confusion in whether we're sighting the trails. The trails are actually sited and existing. We're not changing anything. We're not moving the trails. We're not sighting any existing trails, expanding them. We're not changing any of the grading on the roads. So this simply is allowing the public to enjoy the resource before the district's fully ready to develop the park and allow other kinds of recreation. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other support witness in the witnesses in the room? 'Me Too' testimony. Name, affiliation and position on the measure.

Abigail Smet on behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Are you a lead witness, sir? Is it just the one of you today?

I believe so.

Okay. You have up to four minutes.

Good morning, Senators. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning and Conservation. We did with our - some of our partners initially submit a letter of opposition just out of concern that we do feel that even non motorized access could have significant impacts, potentially very significant. And we do feel that that warrants review. But we also promote, you know, better, more equitable access to public land as well. And talking to the sponsors, we realize they had genuine obstructions in this area.

And we really worked with them to try to dedicate a lot of thought to how you would shape this policy, to really limit it to the land managers that really have the planning and resource management resources in place to be able to effectively handle those potential impacts with this increased access. So we really appreciate the conversations we've had with the author, with the sponsors and with the committees, and we appreciate the amendments.

We think it's a huge improvement and this is headed in the right direction. We're not in a position to fully retract our opposition just yet because there are some things that we would still like to be able to discuss with the author. But if you do pass it today, you know, we are committed to continue to work with the author and we hope the author is committed to working with us. So thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in opposition to this Bill? 'Me Too' opposition. Seeing none.

I would just say I really aware of the original issue you were trying to address with this Bill, and I appreciate the amendments that narrow it. In the ideal world, it would be narrowed even more because I have a district that gets dragged into this and I would just assume not see them involved in this. I think it's in the right direction. You're addressing a serious problem, and I'll be prepared to move the Bill whenever we have a quorum.

Thank you. Anyone else on the dais? Seeing no one else. I just want to thank you for working with my staff on this Bill. And just want to clarify, you are accepting the proposed amendments?

That is correct.

Great. And I do support your effort to open up open space areas to the public and trying to fast track CEQA with that. And I appreciate your willingness to narrow the scope of this Bill to certain regional park districts and adding safeguards for listed species, tribal cultural resources, and providing opportunities for public input, which I think is important. Thank you for taking the amendments. And would you like to close?

Just want to thank you and Committee staff for the great work and willing to continue to work with opposition as we move forward. I respectfully ask for and aye vote at the appropriate.

Thank you very much. We'll take that up at the appropriate time. Once we have a quorum. We need one person. We need one author. Waiting on authors. Do we have anyone in the room ready to present? Going once, going twice. All right, I guess we'll take another recess until we find another author.

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. We have our next author in the room, Assemblyman Connolly, whenever you are ready to present, stage is yours. This is file item number one, AB 828.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their great work and input on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. There can be no doubt as to the incredible impact that the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is having on all water users in California's over drafted basins.

It also cannot be understated just how much small rural communities and natural conservation areas have suffered because of decades of unregulated over pumping. There has been significant work done by groundwater sustainability agencies, local water users, and the Department of Water Resources to design and implement SGMA.

However, groundwater sustainability plans in some cases did not do a thorough job identify and manage wetlands and small community water systems in their basins and exactly how GSP management will adversely impact them. Managed wetlands are a critical natural resource for our state.

They provide significant habitat for endangered species, migratory birds of the pacific flyway, and many other native wildlife and fish populations. Managed wetlands also improve local water quality, aid in flood protection, provide recreation, and offer opportunities for scientific research. Unfortunately, only 5% of California's historic wetlands remain.

These important public trust resources continue to face numerous threats, including water availability. Nearly 85% of Californians depend and whole are in part on ground water for their public water supply. That percentage increases even more for small water systems, which have fewer than 3,300 connections and service communities whose access to clean drinking water is most at risk.

These disadvantaged communities usually depend on a single source for their water supply, leaving them vulnerable to drought or over pumping by their neighbors. They also face affordability challenges and lack the local economy needed to address financial and technical issues that often come when running a public water system.

This Bill offers what we think is a modest and reasonable step toward protecting safe and clean water accessibility for our communities. This Bill now only exempts wetlands and small communities in basins where there is no approved GSP. The Bill also still only exempts the average groundwater usage annually from 2015 to 2020.

Any increase over that average is subject to regulation by GSPs. Going forward, AB 828 will require GSPs to include the plan's impacts on water supplies for wetlands and small communities to ensure their needs are met.

So with me to testify today is Ellen Weir, General Counsel at Grassland Water District, and Jennifer Clary, State Director at Clean Water Action.

Thank you. Due to time constraints, we'll limit your testimony to two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Ellen Weir, also with the East Grasslands Wetlands Association, so I work on water issues that affect wetlands in the valley.SB 828 addresses a few very narrow but unintended impacts of SGMA. Since the Bill was introduced, those impacts have come into sharper focus. So I wanted to give you a couple examples.

First, just last week, the Merced sub basin adopted SGMA fees that increased the tax rate for conservation easement lands by 160%. What was once a $4,000 a year tax Bill is now almost $10,000 a year on each parcel.

Those fees affect 2000 acres of managed wetlands in the San Luis Wildlife Management area, and the owners are unsure if they can continue to maintain those easements. The wetlands provide only 1% of the local SGMA budget, but their loss would represent a really significant impact that would be felt statewide.

Another quick example, in the Kern sub basin, over 2,000 acres of managed wetlands received a groundwater allocation from the local agency that is far less than what they need to support their easement habitat, and they didn't receive any credit for the recharge at the nearby Kern refuge.

Again, these wetlands are less than 1% of the irrigated acreage in the basin. But groundwater allocations are effectively putting a prohibition on their ability to be maintained. The protected lands that are subject to this Bill, all of the protected wetlands that are listed in the definition, have permanent restrictions that that require the land be maintained as habitat.

So they're not for profit. They can't participate in SGMA incentive programs like voluntary fallowing programs or the trading away of their water allocations. AB 828 seeks to protect significant public and private investments that have been made in these lands and perpetuate wildlife, carbon, water quality, and other benefits that the author mentioned briefly.

Legally, multiple attorneys have concluded that shifting a small portion of a local fee for this purpose does not violate Prop 8218 or Prop 26, requiring agencies to give considerations to wetlands preserves our public investment and habitat, and will have only a negligible.

You can start to wrap up.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Next witness.

I can do it in one and a half.

There you go.

Good morning, Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Jennifer Clary. I'm the California Director of Clean Water Action. Our organization has actively participated in the implementation of SGMA, and last year the work that we did in collaboration with the Nature Conservancy, Audubon and unit of concerned scientists was published in the Journal Nature.

What we found in reviewing every plan in the state is that disadvantaged communities are under or totally unrepresented in these plans. And that has a real impact. I mean, we see an impact economically if you're charged high fees or fines for water usage, but also just because of a lack of water.

I mean, we've seen thousands of wells go dry during the most recent drought. So trying to move forward, how do we even the playing field? What we'd suggested when we introduced this Bill was an exemption of just exempt these communities from these fees and fines.

The Legislature disagreed with us both in the Assembly and the Senate, so we can take a hint. So what we've done, and we really appreciate staff working with this, is we've tried to figure out how we can even the playing field and add a few more guard rails so that disadvantaged communities and their interests are considered.

I mean, that's actually at the law in SGMA is you're supposed to consider all beneficial uses in users. And how we make that happen is what we all need to figure out.

So we're adding a few more items to what GSAs have to do and their plans and what DWR has to do in its review of those plans. And we're hoping that that works. Thank you.

Mike Lynes, Audubon California in support. Thank you.

It was a minute and a half. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support? Me too. Testimony? Name, affiliation, position on the measure?

Good morning. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in strong support.

Mister Chair Members of the Committee, my name is Bill Gaines. Today representing the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association, The Black Brant Group, California Houndsman for Conservation, the San Diego County Wildlife Federation, Cal or Wetlands and Waterfowl Council, California Rifle and Pistol Association, and the California Hawking Club, all in strong support of AB 828.

Thank you.

Thank you

Good morning. Sara Noceto, on behalf of the California Waterfowl Association and strong support.

Thank you.

Tasha Newman, on behalf of Sustainable Conservation in support.

Thank you.

Celeste Wicks with Clean Air for Kids in strong support. Also in support, North County Equity Justice, Eco-Sustainability and CCCA Grandparents Acting Together, Facts and California Environmental Voters.

Kim Delfino, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in support.

Thank you.

MJ Kushner with Community Water Center and on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support. Thank you.

Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League in support.

Thank you so much. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Just one. oh, you get two. Okay, you each have up to two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you Mister Chair Members, Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition. While we very much appreciate the time and effort that Mister Jacobs, Committee Consultant, has provided in working with us, we remain in opposition to the Bill. The implementation of SGMA is a complex, expensive and time consuming undertaking.

Prior efforts to manage groundwater failed in California due to lack of local agency authority to impose fees and charges to pay for implementation of those plans. SGMA corrected this failure by authorizing groundwater sustainability agencies to impose regulatory fees pursuant to Proposition 26 and property related fees and charges based on acreage and groundwater extraction pursuant to Proposition 218.

Currently, all landowners and groundwater extractors, save for those who pump less than two acre feet per year, contribute to the cost of both preparing and implementing groundwater sustainability plans.

SGMA codified the intent of the Legislature to provide GSAs with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater and to manage groundwater basins through actions of GSAs to the greatest extent feasible, while minimizing state intervention.

Contrary to that intent, AB 828 will impede the work of GSAs by exempting small water systems and managed wetlands from groundwater regulation and paying groundwater pumping fees. This will make it more difficult to manage groundwater in a sustainable manner.

This will create litigation risk for gsas who must comply with constitutional amendments relating to regulatory and property related fees and charges, and this will slow implementation of SGMA by reducing locally generated revenues. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you so much. We have a second witness in opposition. I guess not. All right. Do we have any other witnesses wishing to express their opposition to this Bill? Me too. Testimony, name, affiliation and position on the measure?

Dennis Albioni with California Grain and Feed Association, California Seed Association, several other agricultural interests opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Kris Anderson on behalf of Association of California Water Agencies. Apologies for the late letter. We are in opposition. Will review the Committee amendments. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Brenda Bass on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Western Growers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Kings River Conservation District, Modesto Irrigation District in opposition and then also in opposition, could not be here. CMUA thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the South San Joaquin irrigation district, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in the room in opposition, I will bring it back to the dais. Any Members have any questions or comments? Senator Dahle?

Well, first I just want to say, somebody who's in a. So I have wetlands just in the valley where I farm. We have a Ash Creek Wildlife area, 14,000 acres of preserve. And we also have a GSA, we have a groundwater, we have SGMA.

So, and I looked at this Bill and looked at my district, and I think it was supplied some information from some of the waterfowl folks who are supporting the Bill on how it would affect my district. And apparently the areas where we have actually groundwater pumping for these wildlife areas, they're participating in our GSA stuff.

So it's good. But I want to say, the question is, for me is, if you exempt somebody, it's in the basin or in the groundwater area, somebody else has to pay for it. At the end of the day, you still have to do the work that needs to get done.

And so it, just as we narrow it down to exempting all these folks, somebody has to still get the work done and pay for the regulations. So that means that it's cost shifting to the people who aren't exempted. So can you address that issue for me?

And then the other question is, what is the State Water Board's role in this as well?

And maybe on the latter, I'll call on our legal expert, but no, great question. I think really the goal here is it's not like a wholesale attempt to exempt. It's really recognizing a few unique circumstances, namely in disadvantaged communities, small agencies, effectively maintaining the status quo. You're looking at average usage, you're not allowing for additional pumping.

And the goal is to move folks toward actually having plans. I think we can all agree with that. And I really appreciate the amendments that I think even do, I would say, a better job of effectuating that goal.

While I have the floor, I also just wanted to mention, somewhat off hot off the press, a recent opinion by the Office of Legislation Legislative Council, which directly addresses the legality of the issue of the exemption from groundwater extraction fees being proposed by 828, that those would be legal.

Just to quickly address the fee shifting, we've done an analysis of basins such as those in your district and others, and there is no example where these fees are anywhere over 1% of the budget. So it is a slight cost shift. It's 1% or less. In the Kern Basin, it's 0.3%. Of the irrigated acreage.

In Merced, it's 1.3. Whether these GSAs can negotiate with their well paid consultants to reduce their budgets by 1.3% so as not to shift that cost onto growers. You know, that's always a possibility, but we think it's negligible and we think it's important to. It's a trade off, right.

1% of a local agency's budget in order to preserve the only remaining wetlands we have left, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. On your question about the State Water Board, each plan is in a different position. And so the state board will be reviewing those plans that have been rejected by DWR.

And under this Bill, they would have to consider impacts to manage wetlands in small communities as part of their review.

So the reason I asked the second question was because ours was rejected. And I'm just going to speak from personal experience. We did a plan, we paid for it, of course, we have to. And then we got rejected and we believed that we weren't in a priority at all, that we were managing our ground water.

We've been doing it for many years, even before SGMA and the state board came in and said no. And so basically forced it on us. So we had to up the rate again and comply with their. We have a, the battle is the legal battle between who's right or wrong. And it's over a long time.

It's very hard to, you can't look in the ground and see what's going on down there. It's very difficult. So my worry that is, look, I know you're talking about a small amount, but if you exempt people out, they're not part of the process anymore. They're out.

And then the people that are still left have to figure out how to, if that, if you have an overdrafted groundwater basin, which you do, typically in most places, they have to solve the problem. And that means that somebody's going to lose water.

Not, not the people that are exempted are not going to lose their water because they're out now. They're not at the table anymore. And now everybody else that's left has to pay for it. So that's the reason that I have some very big challenges.

And it's the farmer that's left that you go after usually, and we always have to give. We're the last one. We're the last ones that left. And then, and they don't care about us. We got to pay. We're in business. Apparently when we're wealthy, apparently I'm not and my neighbors aren't.

We're getting hammered by so much regulation, and then we're the ones that have to pay and everybody else gets a free ride that. So I'm not going to be supporting the Bill today. I want to bring out these things. These are long term issues that need to be addressed.

And the family farmer, in my case, it's the family farmers. We're not corporations, giant corporations. It's a whole bunch of family farmers that are having to pay a lot of money when we believe that we've been managing it well for a long time. And so this is going to impact those communities.

And we're all poor at the end of the day, we can't stay in California. So thank you for trying to get it right, but everybody has to be at the table. If you're using water and you're in your overdrafted groundwater, you got to be at the table. I don't care if you're poor.

I don't care what everybody's got to be in because you're overdrafting.

We're going to establish a quorum after this. Okay.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Senator Laird,

I have a comment. After you establish a quorum.

If somebody leaves, I'm going to chase you.

I like my odds in that race.

All I can say is there's a lot of Min bills we haven't voted on yet. I started out on this Bill in a similar place as Senator Dahle because I thought, why are we making any exemptions from SGMA when we are still 15 years from the time that it goes into effect?

Let this process play out because it's difficult and it needs to be established over time. I came to another point of view, which is that when I have a job that I cannot name, because Senator Grove, it drives her crazy.

When we had a four year drought, one of the hardest things we had to do in allocating the water was allocating the water for wet ones, because there was a different level of stakeholders that did not advocate in a way that it structurally was hard to get it done and get that protection done.

And then when you look at this, it is really 1% or less of the entire amount that we're talking about. So it is a De minimis impact on what would happen anywhere.

So as much as I wish we weren't doing any exemptions of any kind until this was playing out and getting closer, there is an uneven balance here, and it is so small that it's De minimis compared to the payments and what happens. So at the appropriate time, I will be supporting the.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Anyone else on the dais? Okay, I just want to say thank you. This is obviously a concern that is an important one with particular communities and managed wetlands. But I appreciate the fact that you, rather than pursue exemptions for these users, were able to work with our staff to find a fix within SGMA.

And so appreciate your willingness to take the amendments and just want to confirm you are taking the amendments. Fantastic. And with that, would you like to close?

Yeah. And really just to channel Senator Laird, we're really talking about a narrow issue here around managed wetlands, small, disadvantaged communities. And we feel that this Bill will help ensure that the groundwater needs of these vulnerable users are better accounted for in gsps. So with that, we all look forward to robust implementation of SGMA.

And that it's further improved along the way as well. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblyman. Before we move on to vote, we'll establish a quorum assistant. Please call the roll.

Roll Call

Okay, and with that, do we have a motion on AB 828? All right, a motion from Senator Laird. A silent motion. Let's. I didn't attack your motion. Assistant, please call the roll.

Roll Call

Okay, that bill is vote. The vote count is at 4-2. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on. Next to the consent calendar, we have seven bills on proposed consent. File item number two, AB 2968 by Assemblyman Connolly. File item number five, AB 1828, by Assembly Member Waldron. File item number eight, AB 1937, by Assembly Member Berman.

File item number 11, AB 2538 by Assembly Member Grayson. File item number 13, AB 2469 from the Assembly Emergency Management Committee. File item number 19, AB 2939 by Assembly Member Rendon. And file item number 20, AB 2983 by Assembly Member Rodriguez.

Since quorum has been established, we will vote on this item or this calendar. Assistant, please call the roll. I'm sorry. Do we need? Do you need? Do we need a motion? Yeah. Motion. Thank you, Senator Laird.

[Roll call]

That vote count is 6-0. We'll leave it on call. I was about to move to. You're chasing me. We'll move to file item number 10, AB 2091 by Assembly Member Grayson. We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

Excuse me, Mister chair. Just for clarification, you are arguing with the former Secretary of Natural Resources.

I am not arguing.

Okay, I thought I'd point that out since he didn't say it earlier.

Assistant, please call the roll. Wow.

[Roll call]

Yeah, he did. He took the amendments

[Roll call]

Did they remove opposition, was the question. I think the answer is no. That vote count is 4-0. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on to our next file item. File item number 18, AB 2827. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

That vote count is six/zero. We'll leave it on call, and with that, we'll return to our presentations. We have Assembly Member Holden in the room to present File Item Number 12: AB 2330. Proceed whenever you're ready, Assemblyman.

Thank you, Chair and Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you this morning Assembly Bill 2330. I want to start by thanking the Chair and staff for working with my office, our sponsor, and other stakeholders to this bill. It is through those conversations that I believe the bill as proposed to be amended will clarify the intent of the bill and move the opposition to a neutral position. Members, as it's been acknowledged in the committee analysis, seven of the 20 most destructive wildfires in California recorded history have occurred in 2020 and 2021.

This legislative body has deliberated, supported, and voted on measures that try to strike the right balance between public safety and environmental protection. As voting members, in many instances, we look to the expertise of our local governments, who are often the front lines of wildfire preparedness.

Unfortunately, many of our local entities have expressed concerns that long delays and lack of guidance are preventing local jurisdictions from being able to conduct wildfire preparedness activities on lands located in fire hazard severity zones that are adjacent to urban areas.

AB 2330 seeks to provide a clear process to accelerate wildfire preparedness activities in local responsibility areas to ensure environmental protections are met and public safety is upheld by one: allowing local agencies to submit a wildfire preparedness plan to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for review within 90 days to inquire if an incidental take permit or other permits are needed.

Once completed, ITP application is submitted, Fish and Wildlife must process them within 45 days. Two: having approved applications receive a five-year permit for wildfire preparedness activities to occur within the fire hazard safe severity zones, and three and finally: requiring the Department of Fish and Wildlife to post a summary of these efforts on their webpage on an annual basis.

With me to testify this morning is Chris Nigg, the Fire Chief for the City of La Verne, and Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Two witnesses. You each have up to two minutes to present. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, and we're pleased to work with Assembly Member Holden as the sponsors of AB 2330. The size and severity of wildfires in California is increasing due to climate extremes. In California's recorded history, the top eight largest wildfires, the top two most destructive wildfires, occurred in the last seven years, and the most deadliest wildfire occurred just six years ago.

Already this year, CAL FIRE has reported that over 95,000 acres have burned in fires from the Sites Fire in Colusa, the Post Fire in Los Angeles, all the way down to the Border 58 Fire in San Diego. Cities, counties, and special districts are responsible for fire management in local responsibility areas within their jurisdictions and have identified fire hazard consistent with the state.

Local agencies have faced a difficulty discerning if environmental take permits are needed for planned wildfire preparedness activities and then navigating the permitting process in a timely manner to ensure vegetative management activities can occur as quickly as possible.

To improve this communication and to expedite the permitting while maintaining the standards of the Endangered Species Act, the bill would authorize local agencies to submit their projects to the Department of Fish and Wildlife through a pre-consultation process that's defined in the bill to--intended to avoid, minimize, and fully mitigate the impacts to wildlife and to streamline the ability for local agencies to receive a permit if necessary and to conduct the wildfire preparedness activities as quickly as possible.

Again, the intent of the bill is to provide sufficient information to the Department of Fish and Wildlife while providing flexibility to local agencies to maximize this streamlined pathway. We believe the bill will protect life and property from the threat of wildfire without compromising wildlife benefits and upholding the environmental permitting process at the Department. We appreciate the committee's amendments and the work on this bill and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chairman Min and Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Nigg. I'm the Fire Chief of the City of La Verne, which is located in the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County. I am both a member of the League of California Cities and currently the Vice President of the League of California Cities Fire Chief Section.

I also serve on the Executive Board of the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association, I'm the President of the LA Area Foothill Fire Chiefs Association, President of the LA Area Fire Chiefs Regional Training Group GPA, and prior to my fire chief appointment, served as the President of the Orange County Fire Marshals.

As noted, it is critically important for our municipal jurisdictions to reduce the public's vulnerability to the destructive forces of California's wildfires, more specifically, those communities who make up the state's wildland urban interface. Accordingly, we are required to either enforce or conduct fuel management activities in the name of defensible space.

As professional firefighters, we are trained in predicting how a wildfire will turn and travel based on topography and diurnal weather patterns. However, as wildfire impacts have exacerbated in the recent years, it has become increasingly clear that these fires are not as easily extinguished as they once were.

Large scale conflagrations have become almost impossible to keep up with when conditions align. Firefighting resources are finite and although these resources are extraordinary at what they do, they can't be everywhere all at once. Research and data continue to highlight the benefits of providing a minimum of 100 feet of defensible space between structure and fuel bed continuity.

In fact, it is for those reasons that the California Fire Code now requires it. That said, professional fire departments throughout our state are charged with ensuring wildfire vulnerable lands adjacent to our communities are proactively cleared in order to reduce the impact of wildfire to life and property. AB 2330 would help our jurisdictions by better defining the process of obtaining the necessary permits that we may need to move our fuel management projects forward.

We believe the bill balances improving our ability to communicate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife while providing the defined timeline, publicly accessible transparency, and with the recently added amendments, still be considerate of CEQA and CESA requirements. I can assure you--

Could you please wrap up?

The fire service remains both highly respectful and eager to ensure sustainability of the environment. Ultimately, both missions can be achieved simultaneously, collaboratively, and that is what we aim to achieve. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of this bill? MeToo testimony, name, affiliation, position on the measure.

Good morning. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of--the City of Pasadena, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Abigail Smith, on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District, in support.

Thank you.

Kris Anderson, Association of California Water Agencies, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric O'Donnell, on behalf of the Cities of Santa Barbara, Chino Hills, and Pleasanton, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Richard Filgas, on behalf of the California Farm Bureau Federation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition to this bill? All right, seeing no other--seeing any witnesses in opposition to this bill? All right. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the members. Any questions or comments? We have a motion. We have a question or comment from Senator Grove. Go ahead.

Just a personal situation, dealing with Fish and Wildlife and somebody wanting to build affordable housing, they waited two and a half years for a permit. So if you can get this bill out and get them a permit so they can build affordable housing, which we desperately need in this state, I'm all in and I would like to be a co-author.

Thank you. Senator Holden, just wanted to confirm that you will be taking the proposed amendments?

Correct.

Fantastic. And I appreciate the goal of this bill. There is an existing programmatic approach and streamlined permitting available for vegetation management in state responsibility areas, but there's no such approach for local responsibility areas, so I think this is important bill, and I appreciate your work and working with stakeholders and my staff to try to reach agreement to resolve concerns about the bill, and I believe that with the proposed amendments, there is no opposition or no stated opposition. So I will be an aye on this bill as amended. Would you like to close?

Again, I thank you for your committee support and yourself weighing in on this, as well as bringing all the stakeholders together. I think it's a, a smart outcome and we look forward to moving on to the next stage. I appreciate the committee and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We have a motion on the bill from Senator Limon. On File Item 12: AB 2330, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

The vote count on that bill is five/zero. We'll put it on call, and seeing no authors in the room right now, we're going to take another short recess.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members, I'd like to start by accepting the amendments outlined in the Committee's analysis and thanking the Chair and their staff for the work on this bill.

AB 2060 seeks to streamline the permitting process in support of the Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge, or known as Flood-MAR activities, when diverting local flood water into regional groundwater basins.

Flood-MAR is an integrated and voluntary resource management strategy that uses floodwater resulting from or in anticipation of rainfall and snowmelt for managed aquifer recharge on agricultural lands and working landscapes, including, but not limited to, refuge, floodplains and flood bypasses.

In response to excessive rains and flooding last year, the Legislature did pass SB 122, which contained provisions streamlining permitting procedures for Flood-MAR projects in case of emergency flooding.

This bill sought to balance the need for swift action in response to sudden flood events with a need to ensure the mitigation of the potential negative environmental impacts of such a diversion.

Of the steps that was exempted to ensure timely completion of projects was engaging with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to create a lake and stream bed alteration agreement. However, last minute single use permits issued shortly before a flood event are not the only kinds of permits that can benefit from this streamlining.

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

However, they are still subject to the negotiations with Department of Fish and Wildlife to create lake and stream bed alteration agreements which can delay them long enough that they may fail to actually serve the purpose intended by AB 2060.

Updates a temporary urgency permit process to allow for bypassing of the LSAA process when projects in question meet the same level of environmental protection required under SB 122, the emergency permit process. This will improve the tools available to our water agencies to help manage floodwaters while simultaneously recharging our aquifers.

And I just want to say this is a very important issue as last year I had to deal with the flooding that happened in Planada where we had to evacuate 4.000 individuals from that community, and I think that by changing some of the policies that we have in place, we could prevent future flooding such as the impacts that we saw in this particular community similar to what was experienced also in Pajaro Valley.

So today, with me here to testify and support is AB 26 for 2060 is Brad Samuelson on behalf of Merced Irrigation District.

Hi, good evening, or good morning. Just wanted to let you know that I think this would very much streamline the process to divert waters and flood times in the Merced area. We've experienced flooding the last two years, many times, before that.

In order to get ready, we've had to go through the LSA process, which by design is a one-off permit that takes time and surveys and such. This streamlines that process, lets us divert water and flood times and put it to use in the underground.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Please just come forward and state your name, position and affiliation.

Tyler Munzing, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies in sport.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good morning. Chris Anderson, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Municipal Utilities Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition, also in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau in support.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen on behalf of the California Cotton Growers, Western Ag Processors, and California Strawberry Commission and others in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California in support.

George Kavint, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, in support.

Great. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we're going to bring it back to the members. Members, any com. Move the bill. We have a motion by Senator Dahle. Assembly Member Soria, would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. So, with that, we will go ahead and call the roll.

File item number nine, AB 2060. The measure the motion is do pass is amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right. The bill has three votes, and we will put it on call. Thank you. All right, so we are still looking for authors in the Assembly. Please feel free to come to Senate Natural Resources. Thank you. Members, we are going to come back from recess. We have Assembly Member Ash Kalra here. Assembly Member Ash Kalra has two file items.

AB 1581, file item three and AB 2509, file item four. Assembly Member Kalra. Would you like to begin with file item three, which is AB 1581?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the Chair and Committee staff for their work on this bill, and I'll be accepting Committee's amendments. AB 1581 codifies and expands the Department of Fish and Wildlife Restoration Management Permit, also known as the RMP.

As of 2015, we have lost 90% of our state's critical wetland habitat and placed nearly 300 native species on the threatened and endangered list. Our effort to save our state's biodiversity hinges on protecting, restoring, and maintaining the sensitive natural habitats that hold our ecosystems together.

Unfortunately, long duplicative permitting processes often hinder the efficient approval of important habitat restoration projects. In response, some state entities have begun streamlining certain aspects of the project approval process. For example, the Department of Fish and Wildlife created the RMP to consolidate certain species take authorizations for voluntary restoration projects.

Without the RMP, these projects would have to go through arduous and duplicative process of obtaining each authorization separately. However, the RMP is not codified and does not consolidate all the species take authorizations needed by many restoration projects. It also does not include the additional authorizations that are needed by projects that restore river, lake, or stream bed habitats.

This means that these projects must also require a lake and stream bed alteration agreement, which can duplicate or conflict with the RNP. Working with DFW, we have amended AB 15 a 81 to codify and expand the RMP so that it consolidates all the species and lake and stream bed authorization agreement authorizations that qualified restoration projects may need.

These new provisions would constitute a pilot program that was sunset in 2035. I'm committed to continue to work with the Committee and stakeholders on language that would explicitly address mitigation projects eligibility for the RMP.

AB 1581 will expedite critical habitat restoration projects while preserving DFW's ability to evaluate proposed projects based on their potential environmental impacts. With me to provide supporting testimony is Charles Delgado, policy director of Sustainable Conservation.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Charles Delgado, policy director for Sustainable Conservation. We're an environmental nonprofit organization dedicated to collaborative solutions to California's natural resource challenges. I'm here today as sponsor of AB 1581, a bill codifying the apartment efficient wildlife's restoration management permit and incorporating lake and stream bed alteration agreements into the RMP.

Thanks to human development, mammal, bird, and amphibian species have lost 18% of their natural habitat. On average, over the last 300 years, 16% of these species have lost more than half of their natural range. We can and must reverse these trends. California is leading the way through our pioneering 30 by 30 movement.

In order to meet the goals of 30 by 30, we must move quickly to restore degraded habitat back to a healthy state. One barrier to achieving timely habitat restoration is a regulatory process which can be slow, redundant, and have conflicting requirements issued by the multiple state and federal agencies that oversee permitting.

This dynamic can lead to an excess of severe delays, stalled projects, and wasted state agency resources. Fortunately, California has recognized this issue and is committed to cutting green tape to create efficient permitting processes for habitat restoration applications. This bill, AB 1581, adds to the states cutting green tape efforts to accelerate habitat restoration by codifying the RMP.

DFW established the RNP under existing authority in the Fish and Game Code, which combines some of the existing restoration permits, but not all. AB 1581 would expand DFW's important work in overseeing the RMP by consolidating the remaining restoration permits, including lake and streambed alteration agreements, into one efficient process.

This expanded RMP will enable DFW to more quickly and efficiently evaluate the potential environmental impacts of restoration projects while preserving necessary state oversight. Importantly, DFW will retain the right to deny applications that it does not deem eligible or adequate.

We have met with stakeholders in the Administration, the restoration community, as well as environmental groups, and we appreciate the opportunity to work with Committee staff to ensure that this bill is protective as well as efficient.

With measures such as AB 1581 as well as other cutting green tape initiatives, we will meet the state's goal and quickly responding to the threats posed to habitats by climate change while making the most efficient use possible of public funding and agency resources. I thank the Assembly Member for his leadership in carrying this bill, and I respectfully request your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Please come forward. State your name, position, and affiliation.

Thank you very much. Mark Fenstermaker for the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, and the California Council of Land Trusts, all in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning. Abigail Smith, on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Richard Filgas, on behalf of the California Farm Bureau, in support. Thank you.

Doug Johnson, California Invasive Plant Council, in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning. Kim Delfino, representing Defenders of Wildlife. We are not in opposition. We did file a letter of concern and really want to thank the Assemblymember, his staff, and the Committee for working with us on some of the issues we've raised. We think that the habitat restoration permit is actually an excellent idea. Long in coming however, the way it's currently written is very, very general.

And because we're decoupling from underlying regulator statutes that we've used before, like the Endangered Species Act and the Lake and Bed Alteration Act and the Native Plant Protection Act and the Fully Protected Species Act. When we talk about what a qualifying restoration project is, we would like to see some additional clarifications about what level of benefit is being created, how impacts are going to be analyzed, and how we're going to ensure that the restoration work that we're doing will remain in perpetuity or at least for at least some period of time.

We don't just do it and walk away and then invasive space take it over. So we believe that if this is moving in the right direction, we look forward to continuing to work with all the parties and are looking forward to getting up and supporting the bill wholeheartedly once we get to agreement. So thank you very much.

Good morning again, Senators. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. Similar to the concerns expressed by Kim, we do not oppose the bill. We support the intent and want to be able to accelerate good restoration projects. We do have concerns about making sure that the right safeguards and oversight are in place.

And we have been talking to the stakeholders and the author's office, and we are committed to continuing to do so as we figure out what the right policy is here. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Members, any comments or questions? Senator Stern.

Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for bringing this forward. Maybe you could just, would you mind, Assemblymember, just commenting on the comments raised there, not the opposition, but the concerns and sort of where the bill stands right now, how you see it evolving with these amendments.

Yeah, I think there's a legitimate concern that some of these mitigation projects may misuse the process and not actually have long term restoration. And so I think there's, I think that we have a path forward to try to continue to hone the language to ensure that there's meaningful restoration projects that move forward.

And it's not just some temporary action that on the surface implies restoration just in order to expedite a permitting process, but in actuality is just being done to get that expedited permit. So I think there's ways we can get there.

I appreciate the concerned parties who I work with quite often, and I think we'll be able to find a path to continue to, we've been honing the language. I think we have an opportunity to continue to do that.

Do you mind if I, Madam Chair, if I ask just what kinds of restoration projects those are that you're concerned about? Just so we kind of have a little sense of where this may head, if you don't mind.

Oh, no problem. So there are examples, particularly in the wetlands setting, where wetlands restoration, where they're creating wetlands. And the State Water Board several years ago did a review of restoration projects that were required under Clean Water Act and found that more than half actually didn't produce the benefit that was anticipated.

It is the problem we have with assuming we can recreate, we can engineer nature, which is why the Beaver Bill is such a great idea. Right? Because we've got beavers that can actually do it. Humans, we're not so good at it. So I think what we're not, we're not. We're not saying we shouldn't try to do restoration.

What we're saying is we want to make sure that there are appropriate protections in place, so that we're monitoring what we've built and that we're ensuring that the benefits that we're trying to achieve are actually being produced. It's complicated, but we really appreciate what the author is trying to achieve with this and the sponsors with this bill.

Yeah, thank you. I'm definitely gonna be supporting, and I'm excited about this because we have plenty of these projects we wanna get done. I just wanted to get a sense of what those, just concretely what those projects were. What are the outlier examples that we're worried about here? A restoration project that hasn't delivered. What kind of project is that? Is that like a berm that didn't, you know, end up having habitat benefits? Or like, can you just be specific?

Yeah. So an example would be where we've had issues is there's a restoration project that has gone in, in, say, the Bay lands, and it wasn't adequately monitored, and Spartina came in and completely overran it, and they had to literally restart the restoration project all over again, or where they've gone in and taken one type of wetland and converted it to another.

And because the hydrology doesn't work, like, where the hard pan is there and it's not draining the way it was supposed to, the hydrology is difficult. It's not producing the kind of wetland benefits that we're looking for. Those are generally where engineering or invasive species in particular have been the issues that have made restoration and.

The management, the maintenance, ends up being really important, too.

And then CalTrout actually also gave some examples of where something was called a restoration project, where they took out a culvert, but then they put something else in and it actually wasn't producing the result for fish. I'm not the trout. I don't remember exactly, but so there are examples. And I think what we're just trying to do is draft language to try to keep the good stuff in and put sideboard so we don't have the bad things happening.

Understood. Thank you for that. Thanks for indulging and very supportive of however that effort transpires. I know trust you completely as an author here, so I'll move the bill when it's appropriate.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Senator Laird.

Yeah, just one comment. And I think the colloquy and testimony explained the difficult balancing that's going on here. And this bill's designed to streamline, and yet there's always the possibility that we unstreamline it by some of the things that are coming in.

My one concern was the amendment with regard to the Administrative Procedures Act, and that could well add an additional barrier. And I'm aware that with the advanced mitigation and regional conservation investment strategies, they had an exemption.

And so there was, as long as there was a commitment to a public process in a way that everybody thought was transparent, then that might be something to do. And I think this just is another thing in the balancing. And the last thing we want is to ask for an amendment and then appear to have a jailbreak.

But if there is balancing going on for the streamlining and the public process that ties down some of the issues that came up, I would hope we would be flexible on that if that turns out to be something that might help expedite it. But I too will support the bill and give the author the chance to continue to work on these.

Great. Thank you. So we do have a motion by Senator Stern. Would you like to close, Assemblymember Kalra?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the conversation. And we'll absolutely continue to work with all stakeholders to make sure we find that right balance, and I would appreciate your support.

Great. Thank you. With that, we will go ahead and call the roll for that.

This is for file item number three, AB 1581. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that Bill has 50. It'll be on call and, Assemblymember Kalra, you have another bill. File item four, AB 2509.

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

It accomplishes this by moving away from traditional chemical only treatments in favor of nuanced solutions that utilize various pest management methods, including non chemical, biological, physical, and cultural techniques. IPM status as an effective, environmentally friendly approach to pest management has caused it to become an increasingly popular subject of legislation.

Unfortunately, there is no codified definition of IPM, leaving each piece of legislation to create its own. This can lead to confusion, delays in Bill implementation, and conflicting enforcement action. AB 2509 addresses this issue by codifying the University of California IPM program's definition of IPM. Numerous stakeholders came together to ensure that this definition balances important human health, environmental protection, and pest management needs.

I look forward to working with CDFA to ensure that this Bill is compatible with existing invasive species early detection practices, and the greater food and agricultural code. With me to provide supporting testimony are Doug Johnson, Executive Director of the California Invasive Plant Council, and Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Good morning, Committee Members. I'm Doug Johnson, Executive Director of the California Invasive Plant Council. We're a nonprofit organization serving the state's community of ecologists, land stewards, and volunteers who work in our parks and land trust conservancies, open spaces and other natural areas and working lands.

This Bill defines two terms that are key in our community's work, invasive species and integrated pest management. Invasive species are a major threat globally and here in California we've highlighted the importance of controlling them in the roadmap to 30 x 30, the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy and the State Wildlife Action Plan. The definition of invasive feces in the Bill is based on an existing description already in statute, and it aligns with the federal definition.

The second term is integrated pest management, or IPM. The definition of IPM proposed is one that has been accepted by a range of stakeholders over decades. It was developed by the University of California, which provides a lot of resources on IPM. And it's the same definition that was agreed to by all the stakeholder representatives who participated in the State Sustainable Pest Management Workgroup. First priority is always prevention and what can be done to stop the establishment of a new invasive species.

However, when an invasive species is already established, an action needs to be taken to reduce its impacts, an integrated approach combining various methods is needed. IPM emphasizes the use of non chemical methods wherever possible. And for invasive plants, plants, this means cutting them down, digging them up, mowing, grazing, burning, mulching, tarping, those kind of activities.

And in situations where these approaches don't work on their own, an herbicide may also be used as part of the integrated approach. The groups we work with across the state are charged with protecting biodiversity, including threatened and endangered species, as well as providing safe public access and reducing the risk of wildfire and flooding. They're devoted to finding the safest, most effective way to control invasive species, and the definitions in this Bill provide a solid foundation for this work. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. And now we will take other witnesses in support. Are you just here for.

I'm Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist.

Two minutes.

Excuse me. I am Coty Sifuentes-Winter. I am the Senior Resource Management Specialist, also a supervisory vegetation ecologist. Midpen owns and manages 70,000 acres of land in San Francisco Bay Area for recreation, protection of natural resources, and agricultural lands. By 1900, at least 34 non native plants were introduced into California, largely as ornamentals, but also as erosion control, and just inadvertently. Those 34 species are now listed by the California Invasive Species Council as being moderate to high impacts to wildland areas.

Nearly 85% of all recovery plans for threatened or endangered butterfly species cite control invasive species as priority. These include for the mission blue butterflies and even monarchs. Non native species largely do not provide the same resources or connectivity to the ecosystem as their native counterparts. The small number of invasive species can have a huge impact on the ecosystem. An essential part of stewarding lands is working to control invasive species such as French brome, slender false brome, and yellow starthistle. These species and others are known to cause great ecological and economical damage.

In 2014, Midpenn's Board of directors adopted an IPM program with the goals of managing pests through consistent implementation of IPM principles, protecting and restoring the natural environment, and providing for human safety and enjoyment while visiting and working midpen lands. Our IPM program focuses on the management of invasive plants and protection of native biodiversity through the preferential use of non chemical methods whenever possible, reserving the ability to use chemical methods only when absolutely necessary. Shared language is a shared vision.

AB 2509 establishes a firm foundation for ongoing work to protect the state's environment and economy from invasive species by providing clear definitions of invasive species and integrated pest management and statute. California initiatives around protecting biodiversity and climate resiliency, including 30 x 30, the Natural and Working Lands Climate Smart Strategy and a State Wildlife Action Plan all stress the critical need for addressing invasive species, and this legislation will help to create a firm statutory foundation for future guidelines. This is an important step in further establishing the importance of addressing invasive species in California, and we strongly support the clarity commitment of IPM.

Thank you. All right. Please just state your name, position and affiliation. Thank you.

Kim Delfino, representing California Native Plant Society, in support.

Mark Fenstermaker for the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority and the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support.

Abigail Smet for East Bay Regional Park District and the California State Park Foundation in support.

Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition in the room, we're going to bring it back to Members for questions and comments. Senator Stern.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I really applaud you for being able to pull this together. A lot of years coming. And I think at the high level here, we're going to see better ecology based practices, better nature based solutions to our problems than if this Bill weren't moving. And it's hard because you've got to step in and this isn't a ban Bill. But, you know, what I've seen, at least in practice, and I really appreciate the UC's expertise here as well, is a willingness to start to innovate in California and that new practices are coming up daily.

So I'm really excited about it, especially in light of the fact that we may have more dollars coming for ecosystem restoration should the Legislature move a water, fire, nature bond here. This could be a very exciting new era for integrated pest management. I did want to ask, I don't know who the sponsors are, the UC or the Invasive Plant Council, just a specific kind of instance that I'm particularly interested in when it comes to certain pests, mosquitoes in particular.

I don't know who might be able to comment amongst you, but if it's all right, Madam Chair, with the author, just in terms of how IPM would look in certain vector control areas. So the obvious ones we know about are certain invasive species, you know, rats, whatever, like, those are the big mainstream ones.

But also we have vector control districts that deal with mosquito management, and often the answer has been spraying or water management as the sort of main solutions. But what we've also seen is the loss of these biological controls. Bats and dragonflies eat mosquito larvae, and they eat a lot of them, but the crayfish have been coming in and eating up all the dragonfly larva, and we don't have under, you know, in our urban landscapes where we're seeing now Dengue and West Nile Virus popping up. The bat population has also been diminished.

So just at a high level are those kinds of biological controls to, say, remove crayfish so the dragonfly species can come back and go at the mosquitoes or bat boxes and things like that, starting to bring them back. So we can start, especially in these areas where there's sort of high risk of vector control, but limited ability and very highly densified urban landscapes to go spray. And is that the kind of thing that IPM could address potentially?

Yeah. So I'm really glad you mentioned nature based solutions because I think that is the area of innovation. Our organization works on invasive plants primarily. So I'm not very familiar with mosquito vector control, but the idea of biological controls is definitely an important one. It can be very expensive for the USDA.

We actually have one of the few quarantine labs in Albany, California, west of the Mississippi, to research biocontrols and, for instance, for invasive plants, they're researching biocontrols that can control aquatic plants in the delta. So I think those kind of solutions, the Beaver Bill was mentioned. Using nature based solutions is really an area of innovation for sure.

Great. Well, look out for. We got a bats Bill and a dragonflies Bill, too, so. But it'll all work under this framework. That's what I'm excited about is that you built an umbrella here that we can all hopefully nest under. And anyway, appreciate it. Happy to move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments from Members? All right, seeing none. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm just happy that someone else is as excited about integrated pest management as I am. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion on the Bill. A motion from Senator Stern. File item number four, the motion AB 2509. The motion is due passed to appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. This is AB 2509. Due passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

The vote count on that is 6 to 0. We'll leave it on call. Do we have any authors in the room? We had a few authors I know coming in and out. Apparently this is not the party. I guess not the place to be. Okay, well.

I think we got texts from Addis and Friedman, and Bryan was just here.

Yep. That's right. And I saw Alvarez on the way out. If we're recording authors, but we'll take a brief recess then while we wait for our next author.

All right, we are back. Assembly Member Friedman, thank you for being here. Here to present two bills, file items 6 and 7. We'll start with file admin number six. AB 1889. Assemblywoman, you are free to proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. AB 1889 requires local governments to consider and minimize impacts to wildlife movement and habitat connectivity as part of the conservation element of their general plan, in consultation with state and local agencies, starting with the next general plan update after January 1st, 2028.

You all know that California is one of our richest biodiversity hotspots in the nation and how important that preservation of that wildlife is. We also know that having wildlife encounter humans is often dangerous for both the humans and the wildlife. I represent part of the, part of Los Angeles where we've had bears airlifted out of our neighborhoods.

We certainly have wildlife like coyotes constantly interacting with people. It's a real concern for a lot of our residents and their pets. And in addition, we see multiple collisions with wildlife on our highways. Just, I think, a week and a half ago, another big cat was killed on the 101 Freeway.

This leads to a really dangerous situation for human drivers, and it's also devastating for migrating animals. What this bill does fundamentally is it tells communities if you have migrating animals in your area and you're going to be planning for new development, plan for a way for that wildlife to maybe get through the neighborhood without encountering people.

This is something that should be productive and helpful to developers, because the last thing you want as a developer is to think you can develop this big piece of land the way that you want, and to have someone hit you with an EIR about migrating animals and have to redesign this does not stop development.

It just may say in a certain case, hey, why don't you put a fence here or put a canal? It makes those suggestions going in, or even plans for a corridor through an existing community so that you can now have unhindered development around that. So, nothing in this bill is meant to stop development.

It's actually meant to do that legwork upfront to make it easier for builders later on. It also gives local jurisdictions the help to do this planning because they do now have state agencies available to them. Testifying in support of AB 1889 is former Ventura County supervisor Linda Parks and Mari Galloway, California Program Director with Wild Lands Network.

This bill has received bipartisan support, I am proud to say, and I would request your aye vote today.

Thank you. You each have two minutes. You can proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chairman, Committee Members. It's delightful to be here today. And thank you to the Assembly of Member Friedman for this bill. I'm Linda Parks, former Ventura County Supervisor, and during the time I was on the Board of Supervisors, we did adopt and implement Ventura County's Wildlife Corridor Ordinance.

And I'm here to tell you that AB 1889 is needed and very feasible. Like Ventura County's ordinance, AB 1889 doesn't stop development. Rather, it calls for wildlife-friendly fencing, lighting, landscaping, don't plant invasive plants, and, where feasible, cluster development.

Planners can use existing resources like California Department of Fish and Wildlife's habitat connectivity data, and developers will know early in the process what's expected of them. This will minimize the need for costly project changes later in the process, and it saves local government and developers time and money.

Having foundational scientific information all together in one place in the conservation element of the general plan is both effective and efficient. Importantly, the Room to Roam Act will avoid the unnecessary extinction of some of our most iconic wildlife species, including mountain lions.

And I just want to thank the Committee also and the Legislature and the Governor for passing funds for wildlife crossings.

And because of Ventura County's wildlife corridor ordinance, wildlife using those crossings will be able to have open space on the other side when they reach the other side, like with the Wallace Annenberg Bridge that's currently being built in Agora. Wildlife corridors are critical for survival of wildlife and something AB 1889 can economically accomplish throughout the State of California.

I urge your support to give wildlife room to roam. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. You can proceed whenever you're ready. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for providing the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1889, the Room to Roam Act my name is Mari Galloway, and I direct Wildlands Networks California Program, where I collaborate with various stakeholders across the state to promote wildlife connectivity.

AB 1889 is critical to promote local planning to preserve California's biodiversity. Though California has many protected areas, we're learning that wildlife still need room to roam between these areas to find food, shelter unrelated mates, and adapt to climate change.

Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as state and federal 30 by 30 initiatives recognize that preserving and reconnecting fragmented habitats is a foundational strategy to combat the climate and biodiversity crisis. In addition, AB 1889 facilitates long-term planning for development in areas that minimize conflicts with wildlife.

Current policy defers consideration of wildlife movement until the end of the process, unnecessarily setting up conflicts and even litigation between cities, developers, and communities. AB 1889 also gives cities tools to make development safer for wildlife when they are near corridors such as the wildlife-friendly fencing, lighting, and clustering development that Linda mentioned.

By considering wildlife connectivity early developers can make informed decisions leading to safer environments for both humans and wildlife. AB 1889 is feasible with recent amendments extending the implementation date from 2026 to 2028 and removing requirements for local governments to adopt a new element, their general plan, to ease implementation. Finally, AB 1889 advances existing state policies.

The Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection Act requires Caltrans to include wildlife crossings, where appropriate, on new or expanded roads and highways. This policy will help local governments coordinate with Caltrans and other entities to ensure that planning crossings don't become unusable.

I want to extend my gratitude to the Legislature and Governor Newsom for their invaluable investments and policies to connect California's landscapes through protecting wildlife corridors and building crossings. Please protect and enhance the values of these successes, and please vote aye.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support of AB 1889? Me too testimony? Name, affiliation, position on the measure.

Julie Andersen, Wildlife Program Lead at Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space, in support.

Thank you.

Hello, Nickolaus Sackett, on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation and courtesy for Animal Legal Defense Fund in support.

Thank you.

Doug Johnson, California Invasive Plant Council, in support.

Thank you.

Kim Delfino, on behalf of California Native Plant Society, California Trout, Defenders of Wildlife, Sonoma Land Trust, and Mojave Desert Lands Trust in support.

Thank you.

Laura Deehan, State Director for Environment California, in support.

Thank you.

Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation and San Diego Humane Society in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League in support.

Thank you.

Mister Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for the Wildlands Conservancy in support.

Thank you.

Josh Gauger, on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

Thank you.

Gabriela Facio with Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you.

Celeste Wicks with Clean Air for Kids in support. Also in support, North County Equity and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps, NCCA, Grandparents Acting Together, Facts, and Environmental Action Voters.

Thank you.

Lisa Owens Viani, Raptors are the Solution, in support.

Thank you.

Doctor Rebecca Gooley, Conservation Scientist at UC Davis in strong support.

Thank you.

Janet Carbosa, resident of Davis, California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Is it just you?

Yeah. Good morning. I'll be super brief.

You have up to four minutes.

Audrey Ratajczak from Cruz Strategies on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, but I just want to thank the author and her staff for working with us. We worked through the last committee, and then we have two final amendments that we're requesting on adding the word feasible or feasibility in the bill. And we've been working collaboratively.

So, we just want to continue those discussions to make sure it mirrors the general plan elements from the other parts of that code section. So.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in the room in opposition, or in maybe a tweener position? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the members. Do we have any questions or comments? Senator Grove.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. I appreciate what you're trying to do. We obviously need to build housing, and we are running into the situation where we do encounter wildlife. In my district, a little bit different.

We're not heliporting bears out of our community, but we do have wolves that migrate down through our ranching community, and during calving season, they stay for long periods of time because food is plentiful.

As soon as a calf drops on the ground, they'll eat it, which destroys the livelihood of our ranching families, but also the life of the baby calf that was just born. Cows don't usually have a mechanism to be able to fight off. You know, they can charge and things like that, but the wolves are pretty aggressive.

We also put up fencing that was required by the State of California across our Mojave Desert to, quote-unquote, protect the tortoise. And the tortoises can't navigate this fencing. They tend to, you know, animals migrate for breeding, for food, for water, but they can't navigate the fencing.

So, they'll, like, pace back and forth on a hot pavement and then they'll just die because the heat has escalated.

There's several articles, USGS, nature conservancies, many environmental groups that are highlighting the enormous amount of death happening to California's iconic tortoise because they can't navigate the fencing and they don't know how to get around it to the water source that they've been accessing for 30 plus years. So, I appreciate what you're trying to do.

I think that, you know, when somebody says, just put up a fence, that's not always easy for, you know, animals to navigate. Some of them can, but some of them can't.

And we're dealing with realities in my district that bills like this are hurting, you know, like I said, our calving industry and then also killing the iconic tortoise. So, I can't support the bill today, but I see where you're going, where you live. I wouldn't want bears, you know, coming in contact with kids on the street, either.

It is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I don't think that this is the solution. So, I apologize, but I can't support your bill.

Thank you for your comment. Any other questions or comments? Senator Stern.

Just want to applaud. I feel a little melancholy with this Bill because I just, I'm so grateful to this author and your persistence on these and so many other issues. And so, like, who else is going to be this champion when you are gone?

But for now, let's just get as much done as we possibly can. And I so appreciate my former supervisor for showing up here, too. You know, there's, it was, it was hard fought to figure that wildlife quarter out through Ventura County, but proof's in the pudding.

We've been making it work, and we're still a major ag producing region. You know, the lemons and the avocados and tangerines are still moving. The flowers are growing. We're doing the work, but we're trying to find that coexistence. So, anyway, I'd love to sign on, co-author, and move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Now is the appropriate time, I think, unless we have any other comments or questions. Okay. Would you like to close?

Of course. We'd love to have you as a co-author. And just to respond to Senator Grove, I totally understand where you're coming from, not trying to convince you one way or the other. I just do want to point out, for anyone listening, the bill does not require any new programs. It has no enforcement.

It doesn't require anyone to put a fence up, especially not a bad fence. Especially not a fence hat's, you know, doing the opposite of what it was entitled, expected to do. But if that fence is a result of somebody suing, let's say, over a road or a development, that's what this bill is actually trying to stop.

What the bill is saying is community, if you have migrating animals and you're updating your general plan, and let's say you're planning some new development, that's the time to study whether or not you think you need wildlife corridor, whatever you might need to make sure those animals later on don't end up in a neighborhood or to make sure that the neighbors, for instance, don't sue that new developer saying, hey, you're not protecting the animals.

Do your planning, when you do the general plan, to say, hey, we're about to have some new development in this area. We know we have deer coming through. Let's figure out a path for those deer so that we can develop around it. That's all the bill is trying to do.

It's not prescriptive in terms of what they should do, but what it's making available to the communities now is saying we're going to have Fish and Wildlife now consult with you. So, small town, you don't have the resources, we're making Fish and Wildlife available.

They're going to give you some options, and you guys just incorporate whatever you decide into your general plan. So, no enforcement, nothing prescriptive, no force fencing, just let's in advance of building, let's plan for the animals that might be there. So, with that, I would request an ayevote, and thanks again for bringing up the concerns.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. We have a motion on the bill. The motion is do pass to Appropriations from Senator Stern. File item AB six, AB 1889. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

That vote count is 5-0. We'll leave it on call and we're going on to our next vote, which is also Assemblywoman Friedman. File item seven, AB 2552.

Thank you. With your permission, I'd like to bring some photos up to just be passed down the dais.

You can proceed whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I want to point out that this bill is taking some pretty substantial amendments in this Committee, which hopefully will remove address the concerns that we've heard from the agricultural community. Exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, which is rat poison, a certain type of rat poison can result in both lethal and sublethal effects on non target wildlife, including severe skin disease and decreased immune system response.

The photos that I'm passing around are dead animals that have been poisoned by anticoagulant rodenticides unintentionally, which, by the way, is very common in a lot of our communities, particularly in mine, where people all the time are sharing photos on Nextdoor and other apps of coyotes that look like they have maned, but are actually have been poisoned by this anticoagulant rodenticide.

These anticoagulants also continue to result in unreasonable number of public health incidents with over 3,000 human poisonings in 2021 alone, at least 2,300 of these involving children under six years, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

AB 2552 adds the two remaining first generation anticoagulant rodenticides known as FGARs, chloroacetophenone, and Warfarin to the existing rhodenicide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisonings while maintaining exemptions for its use to protect public health, water supplies, and I know important for many of you, agriculture.

It also requires that DPR, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, enact stronger, permanent restrictions on FGARs to limit unintended wildlife poisonings while making chloroacetophenone and warfare restricted material, so that your average Joe can't just buy this at Home Depot and unintentionally poison the neighbor's cats. And yes, the US EPA is undergoing its periodic review of rodenticides, but unfortunately, we all know how slow and behind that process is.

This is about action now and not later, because these rodenticides are unfortunately proving to be counterproductive to rodent control by poisoning and killing our natural predators, the hawks, the owls, the bobcats, that would normally help to regulate rodent populations throughout the state. And as the LA Times recently highlighted in their very supportive op ed about this bill, a new mountain lion was just found in Griffith Park.

We welcome him or her, and we have the opportunity to give them a better life than their predecessor, P-22, who was very famously photographed suffering from rodenticide poisoning, much to the dismay of most of Los Angeles.

There are wider and there's a wide range of safer and more sustainable and cost effective alternatives to these most dangerous rodenticides available for use today that don't threaten California's wildlife and families.

I would like to close by confirming that should this bill move forward today, we will be moving the 2,500 square foot buffer zone as laid out in the Committee analysis. So all agriculture will now be exempt from the bill.

Although we do believe with the Committee, we do agree with the Committee analysis that points out that the buffer zone should be seen as an integral component to the protection, conservation, and management of a protected wildlife habitat.

We have designated areas in the state as state wildlife habitat zones, and yet we are allowing this very toxic and deadly material to be used right up to the border of that zone, knowing that the poisoned rodents are going to stumble out into the forest and poison the non target wildlife when there are over 100 non anticoagulant rodenticides available. And so that's something for a future Legislature I hope to take on. But for now, we will not be including those buffers in the bill.

Testifying in support this morning is Lisa Owens Viani, director of Raptors are the Resolution and Dr. Rebecca Gooley, a Smith fellow and postdoc at UC Davis, and I would respectfully request an aye vote with this very heavily amended legislation.

Thank you, Assemblywoman and two witnesses. You each have up to two minutes. You can start whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman and Committee Members. My name is Lisa Owens Viani, and I'm here on behalf of Raptors are the Solution, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2552. I founded this nonprofit in 2011 with a raptor biologist after a family of Cooper's hawks bled to death on the street in my Bay Area neighborhood, much to the chagrin of little kids and families and other people who are watching the hawks raise their babies. It was very traumatic.

Since that time, my organization has been educating the public about the dangers of anticoagulants and on better ways to more sustainably control rodents. The poisoning of this family of hawks in my neighborhood was hardly an anomaly. Birds of prey and numerous other wildlife have been poisoned in almost every other county in the state.

Anticoagulants have a unique mode of toxicity that makes them particularly dangerous. They build up in an animal's body. They bioaccumulate in upper level predators like hawks, owls, mountain lions, bobcats, and foxes, and they infiltrate the entire food web, from earthworms to eagles.

When added on one on top of the other, they have even a more deadly impact, much like DDT did in the 1950s. Let's not let this become our new DDT. More humane and strategic pest control can work in concert with our wildlife predators, not against them.

A pilot study my organization did in Seattle in 2022 using fertility control reduced rat numbers by over 90% in just three months. Cities in California, as well as New York, Boston, and others are now using fertility control, where it is proving highly effective in reducing rat numbers. Today, we have many pest control companies in California.

I have used them myself, whose business model involves controlling rodents with exclusion and sanitation, finding out where rodents are getting into buildings and why they are coming to a property, sealing up holes, and preventing reentry, and making recommendations on what homes and business owners can do to clean up their properties to avoid attracting rats.

Rather than just putting out poison bait boxes, which actually lure rats into a property, you're increasing the rat population by using these anticoagulant poisons. These companies are proving they can do a thriving business without harming non target wildlife. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes, and you can start whenever you like.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Rebecca Gooley. I'm a conservation scientist investigating the impacts of rodenticides in California wildlife. Necropsies performed by CDFW in 2023 showed ongoing, widespread wildlife poisoning to all anticoagulant rodenticides.

Over 73% of wildlife tested positive for second generation anticoagulants, and over 57% tested positive for first generation anticoagulants, including chloroacetophenone and warfarin, the poisons addressed in this bill.

These two anticoagulants alone have been found in numerous California wildlife, including bald eagles, barn owls, bobcats, coyotes, golden eagles, grey foxes, great horned owls, mountain lions, red shouldered hawks, red tailed hawks, and San Joaquin kit foxes. Rodenticides are non selective chemicals that have the potential to harm all wildlife.

When these poisons don't directly kill individuals, they make them sick and weak. Sublethal doses of anticoagulants have been associated with lower immune function, increased parasite and pathogen load, lowered egg hatching, lowered fledgling success, reduced coordination, can lead to chronic anemia, increased stress hormone production, and we now even have evidence of neonatal transfer to young.

The use of anticoagulants also posed a public health concern. In a 2021 study by Murray and Sanchez, it was found that poisoned rats were significantly more likely to be infected with leptospira than non poisoned rats, and this is when it spills over to humans.

Rodent fertility control successfully reduces rodent populations, but it does not disrupt their immune system like poisons do. Fertility products such as Contrapest and Evolve are readily available in California and are categorized as minimum risk pesticides that pose little risk to to people, pets, and predators. There are alternatives, and our wildlife neighbors need our protection now. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of AB 2552? Me too testimony? Name, affiliation, position on the measure.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council as well as the Humane Society, United States, both in support. Thank you.

Abby Osmot, on behalf of Midpoint Regional Open Space District, in support.

Thank you.

Nickolaus Sackett, on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation and, today, Animal Legal Defense Fund, in support.

Thank you.

Mark Fenstermaker for the Wildlands Conservancy, in support.

Good morning. Karen Amagon, on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, in support.

Good morning. Kyle Ferrar, representing Frac Tracker Alliance, in support.

Hello. Laura Deehan, state director for Environment California, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Celeste Wicks, with Clean Earth for Kids, in support. Also in support are North County Equity and Justice, Eco-sustainability Peeps, NCCA, Grandparents Acting Together, Facts Beyond Pesticides, NOMA, Safe Ag Safe Schools, Non Toxic Communities, Yard Smart, Marin Moms Advocating Sustainability, Activist San Diego, and California Environmental Voters.

Thank you.

Janet Carvoza, resident of Davis, in support.

Thank you.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and Audubon California, in support.

Thank you.

Jennifer Fearing for San Diego Humane Society, in support.

Thank you.

Doug Johnson. California Invasive Plant Council, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses in the room, we'll move to opposition. Do we have any lead opposition? Just you?

No, there's another.

There's two of you. Two minutes each, and you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Taylor Roshan, on behalf of the Rodenticide Task Force and a series of agricultural associations, in opposition to 2552.

We believe because we have robust administrative penalties for illegal sale, use, and possession of pesticides, we believe imposing an additional civil penalty and allowing city attorneys rather than state and local officials to enforce the law is unnecessary.

While we appreciate the reinstatement of the agricultural exemption, we object to the bill as an abdication of the process in place to regulate pesticides. All pesticides are automatically banned for use in California until they're registered by us CPA and then again by DPR. DPR annually reviews and re-registers these products based on their safety.

And at any time in this process, a person can bring data to DPR, after which they are obligated to act. And rather than present a bill that requires DPR to review the signs themselves and make a determination, AB 2552 bans the products outright.

The Legislature has just now brokered a deal with the Administration, with farmers, with environmental justice advocates, with environmental groups and commercial users to impose an additional $40 million tax annually to fund the Department of Pesticide Regulation to do this kind of work. And in that negotiation, there was no critique of DPR's scientific process.

And while we believe our agencies that are now full of scientists 40% budget richer, are better suited to review the science, and the Legislature can hold them accountable to do the work that they're required to do. I'd also like to touch on the argument that alternatives exist.

The non chemical approaches suggested by the sponsor, like rat fertility in New York City, has actually been stopped because it's not effective. Other alternatives, like the deployment of raptors, exclusion, sanitation standards, are all great tools, but they're a tool in the toolbox and is not the panacea of solutions.

IPM dictates we look at the tools we have, the conditions that we have, and then we select the right tool at the right time. Removing tools is not IPM. While the sponsors have suggested that there are hundreds of alternatives, we did the research and we don't agree.

There are four active rodenticide ingredients registered for use in California and 69 products. While they're registered, that doesn't mean they're actually available for use and sale in California.

Among those 69, 52 aren't eligible for use in agriculture, 57 of the 69 aren't eligible to control for gophers, and none of the 69 products work to protect residents and businesses from all forms of.

Wrap up.

Yes, of course. We believe that we should stop removing active ingredients one at a time, and for that reason, we request a no vote.

Thank you. Next witness. You have up to two minutes and you can proceed whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Members and Chair. My name is Blair Smith. I'm the technical director with Clark Pest Control and proudly representing the pest control operators of California today. I'd like to say thank you and we really appreciate the Chair's willingness to make amendments to the original bill over the past few months.

However, I'd like to address how this bill still poses a risk to the food supply of Californians. Now, previous anticoagulant rodenticide bills, AB 1788 and 1322 allowed for exemptions in the name of food safety with an emphasis on production agriculture. These exemptions cover the farm end of the food supply, but do not reach down to the fork.

Many of our customers play a crucial role in the health and safety of Californians involved in food handling, preparation, and storage. Distribution facilities, grocery stores, and restaurants are all not exempt under previous bills, would not be exempt in this case, which continues to leave our food supply at risk.

Now, non chemical methods via physical exclusion as mentioned by the support, are of course the superior means of control. It can be unattainable for our customers due to the higher cost. And I'll also mention that our company in particular has an escalation process to justify the use of a rodent active rodenticide in the bait station.

Now, losing additional materials for rodent management disproportionately impacts those who cannot invest in structural solutions, leaving your constituents at risk in the places where they live, work, and play.

One last note is that though the majority of this discussion often focuses on both rats and mice, we provide services to our customers for burrowing rodents such as gophers and squirrels. An unintended consequence of this bill will be the increased use of materials that are left which are actually California restricted materials. Strychnine and zinc phosphide. So with that, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

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

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the California Grain and Feed, California Seed Association, we appreciate the buffer language. Excuse me. We're having calls with our clients right now trying to figure that out. Still, there is a significant precedence issue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California. We currently oppose, but contingent upon the amendment proposed by the Committee going into print, we would hope to remove our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Marjorie Lee, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, just echo the comments of Tricia. Thank you.

Thank you.

George Coventa, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition witnesses, we'll bring it back to the dais. Do we have any questions or comments from Members? Senator Eggman, thank you.

Thank you for your work on this, Assemblymember. I'm glad you took the amendment. My district is a lot of AG, so I will support it today. If the opposition doesn't come off, then I mean, change my vote on the floor. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from Members? I want to thank you for this bill and for your leadership in this space of protecting animals. As your bill makes clear, I think your pictures made clear.

Rodenticides, particularly the kinds that your bill is trying to address, can have horrific impacts on non targeted species such as our beloved mountain lions. And I support your effort to try to protect California's wildlife from the harms presented by rodenticides.

At the same time, I have did have concerns about the scope of the bill in the 2,500 foot buffer zones and what that might mean for California writ large and wanted to make sure we're moving with the right balance towards protecting public health.

And so, as our analysis points out, the particular issue of determining the scope of buffer zones around wildlife habitat areas is not something the state has done yet. And I think it's something that needs to be informed by science based research and analysis.

So I appreciate your willingness to take the amendments here and move the bill forward with that. I will be voting aye today and I would like to see if you'd like to close.

Sure. Thank you. Well, I do want to point out, because I don't believe that I said it in my opening, that this is a moratorium until the review can be done by our state and federal agencies. It's adding two pesticides to the list of anticoagulants that are currently restricted.

It is a little disappointing to me when we have removed all agriculture from this bill so that there's no more buffer zones, even though these were buffer zones next to the small amount of wildlife habitats that we had where agriculture butted up to wildlife habitats. We've removed those buffer zones.

And to still have two minutes of opposition from groups that are no longer affected by the bill is disappointing to me. I do hope that they'll review the amendments and remove their opposition formally, given the amount of the huge care cut that this bill has received in this Committee. And with that, I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on the bill? The motion from Senator Limon, is do pass as amended to Appropriations. I'm sorry. To. Is that right? To Appropriations? I'm sorry. Senator Dahle, do you have? Okay. Do we have a motion? Do pass as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Assemblymember. The vote count is 6-0. We'll leave that on call. We have Assemblymember Addis in the room to present her bill, and that is file item number 14 and 15. I'm sorry, 14, AB 2537. You can present whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Chair and Members. I also want to thank the staff and supporters of this bill. We have all support on this bill, so it's good news as I stand here. I'm here to present AB 2537, the Community Engagement and Offshore Wind Energy Act, and I want to thank the numerous people who have been working on this bill for months in an effort to get it right. And I do accept the committee amendments.

As you know, California has established critical clean energy goals, and our progress towards these goals benefits not only human communities, but fragile ecosystems and vital biodiversity on the land, in the air, and in the ocean. Among these goals is the requirement to transition to 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon energy resources by 2045, with 25 gigawatts, or enough power for about 25 million homes, coming from offshore wind energy.

Planning for offshore wind energy is well underway in California starting as far back as 2016, and leaseholders are currently moving into the surveying, planning, and permitting stages of development. As offshore wind energy moves forward in waters along the north and central coasts and in my district specifically, extensive input from and interaction with local tribes and communities is needed.

We know that historically, communities that have hosted large infrastructure projects were burdened with harmful impacts, and today, we all look to do better. I have heard loud and clear from local communities such as small tribes and cities that there is a gap in resources preventing them from adequately participating in offshore wind energy planning as well as community benefits conversations. And as we all know, true engagement in new topics often necessitates possessing in-depth knowledge, information, and technical expertise.

So AB 2537 the Community Engagement and Offshore Wind Energy Act creates a solution by establishing an Offshore Wind Energy Community Capacity Funding Grant account that will provide grants to local tribes and communities. These grants will enhance the ability to actively participate in the planning processes so that local tribes and communities are more secure in their ability to have their voices heard and to come to fair agreements. With me today in support is Alexis Sutterman from Brightline Defense.

Thank you to the Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Sutterman with Brightline Defense.

We're an environmental justice organization that has been deeply engaged in Offshore Wind development, and we see Offshore Wind as an important tool to support a cleaner, healthier, and more reliable grid and importantly, to lift the pollution burden off of low income and environmental justice communities.

In our work, we have heard directly from community and tribal leaders living near proposed offshore wind projects that they are curious, excited, and interested in supporting and shaping development, but also that they lack the resources and the technical expertise to meaningfully engage. This is a huge problem.

The Energy Commission's 525 Offshore Wind strategic plan has highlighted that community engagement will be critical for the success of Offshore Wind development. Absent having resources for meaningful engagement, California runs the risk of encountering issues, delays, or otherwise irresponsible development with Offshore Wind projects.

To address this, AB 2537 would unlock much needed resources for local communities and tribes to meaningfully engage in Offshore Wind project planning and development. For example, a community member could use these resources to attend a workshop or a meeting, respond to a technical comment opportunity, and participate in key decision making processes and venues.

This funding would come from a financial contribution from California Offshore Wind leaseholders for three years after the leases are signed. Its worth noting that leaseholders themselves are supportive of this required contribution, which reflects how important it is to have a community led and community resourced process for the success of Offshore Wind.

In sum AB 2537 would put California a major step ahead on equitable and just clean energy development. Therefore, we encourage your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we're now going to welcome any opposition in, I'm sorry, any, any folks in support, please just state your name and position.

Yes, thank you Victoria Rome with NRDC in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric O'Donnell, on behalf of the City of Morro Bay, in support. Thank you.

Jennifer Fearing from Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Laura Dehen, State Director for Environment California, in support.

Thank you.

Michelle Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Thank you.

Kim Delfino for Audubon California in support.

Thank you.

Jordan Curley, on behalf of American Clean Power California in support.

Thank you.

Dan Cha, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Thank you.

Brian White for Offshore Wind California, also in support.

Thank you.

Susan Jordan, California Coastal Protection Network, in support.

Thank you,

Gabriela Facio at Sierra Club California, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing no lead witnesses. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no other witnesses. We'll bring it back to the Members.

I would move the bill.

We have a motion from Senator Laird. No comments or questions. All right. Senator Dahle.

I just want to go on record. I met with the author in the elevator this morning, and I saw the bill yesterday in Energy. But I just want to make a comment that I think we're really going down the wrong path on just marching forward with Offshore Wind in California saying, hey, we're going to do this.

This has not been led by private industry. It's been led by the Federal Government and the State of California. I think it's going to drive up rates. I think you're going to see major impacts at the Humboldt Bay and in San Diego and the infrastructure requirements.

You're going to look at over 2500 windmills on our ocean, and it's got the continental shelf. It's deep. It's not like the East Coast where we have, we can tether them real easy. So I think there's a lot of problems.

This bill basically says we're going to pay to get the community involved so that they're involved, which is not how we normally do it. Normally it would be somebody would come forward with the project, people would oppose it. If you can't mitigate you, then that's why we have CEQA. So this is just an awkward process.

I understand what the Member's trying to do, trying to get, make sure that these conflicts are dealt with, and especially from her community. She told me this morning she has 20% of California shoreline, and I would be worried, too, if I was on the shoreline.

You're going to be looking at windmills out there, and there's going to be lots of lines going through the water. And I think it's really a wrong approach. So I'm philosophically opposed to just marching forward with Offshore Wind. And who's going to pay for it at the end of the day will be ratepayers.

The California ratepayers will pay at the end of the day. And so for those reasons, I can't support the bill or Offshore Wind until we have a better plan.

Thank you, Senator Dahle. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I somewhat agree with my colleague and his comments that he's made. And I understand that you representing this portion of the state, you would definitely want, you know, low socioeconomic, disadvantaged communities, tribal communities, poorer people to be able to have access to, to the process in which it is.

I wish this bill was in place when we had high speed rail, where they just ran over our small farmers.

And this major, huge multi ton project being built on a sinking valley where we have CEQA now, and we can't withdraw water from the basin because the valley's sinking, but yet we're going to build this monstrosity on it at the expense of taxpayers. And it's built on a, this infrastructure project is built on a sinking valley.

I know that this is a federal and a state project, and everybody's going over and after Offshore Wind, but this is another huge mega project that the State of California is going to be taking on.

And we haven't even finished one project in the Central Valley yet that has gone well past what was promised on the ballot measure. So I agree what you're saying. I agree with my colleague that it's kind of backwards because, you know, normally a project we brought forth and people would have the opportunity to participate.

But I agree with the concept of your bill.

So I'm kind of struggling because I agree, I disagree with the project and I disagree with what's going on, and I disagree that we continually bite off more that we can chew when we have economically sound energy we could get right here instead of importing it and building these horrific projects.

But I agree with your bill that everybody should have a seat at the table. Everybody, not just labor, not just wealthy people, but everybody should have a seat at the table. But I fundamentally agree with the entire project, and I hope that we come to our senses before then.

So I'm going to lay off your bill and, you know, but I agree with what you're trying to do.

Thank you, Senator Grove. Senator Laird, did you have a comment?

Yes. Now that we're actually having a discussion on the bill, I thought I would join it. And since Assemblymember Addis said that she represents 20% of the coast, she is fully nested in my senate district. So I clearly represent 20% plus of the coast in some way. And all the communities that she was representing.

And it was said that it's too bad private industry isn't leading, but private industry can't lead under our system by itself, it is a federal lease. There are public ports, and we have to intervene to stitch them all together to make this work.

And I would remind everyone that we adopted AB 525 in 2021 that prioritized Offshore Wind, and that if, in fact, we are going to phase out some other things, in fact, we're going to meet our climate goals. This is integral to it, and this has to happen.

And it is unique because some of the communities and the community that the author is from, I did a town hall meeting with 150 people in her community and Offshore Wind, and it reminded me of being mayor of Santa Cruz and having tumultuous hearings.

And so there is not the infrastructure in place for the communities to, in fact, engage in a way, because the leases have been done, the lessees have been decided, the port decisions are being made, and they're so complex that the communities need to be involved in this in a way that is meaningful.

And what is really happening here is taking- and I had a moment in that hearing where, where I was interrupted by a Member of the audience because I was pointing out climate change and the need for doing what we need to do.

And somebody shouts that the fire that was to the north in Big Sur was started by arson. This was irrelevant. And I had to argue for why fire conditions are different in climate change now. We are still arguing those things at the grassroots level.

So this bill is a good direction in trying to stitch together some of the things that we have to do to be ready and to move ahead in offshore wind. And so I will be pleased to support it. And Mister Chair, do we have a motion? Yes, I made it already.

You did make the motion.

So I look forward to supporting the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Any other questions or comments? Would just add that I also would like to co author this bill and appreciate the intent of this bill. Look, the elephant in the room is that climate change is happening faster and much more aggressively than we had anticipated. And if you've got kids who will be someone in your life. I'm sorry, Senator Seyarto, did you have a comment?

Yeah, I said in your opinion.

No, in the opinion of scientists, I think it's well proven climate change is a real phenomenon. And I hope that's not a matter of dispute in the California Legislature.

I would just say that if you have someone that you love who's going to be alive in 2050-2075 we owe it, based on the science, based on the unanimous consensus view of scientists, to act with urgency. And that means decarbonizing our economy. Now, we have a long history in this country of providing subsidies for energy.

We have provided probably billions, maybe trillions, in incentives for oil and gas development over this country's history. I think a small thumb on the scale here in favor of Offshore Wind, which is going to be an important part of our mix of renewable energies, is important. We know there's challenges with transmission and things like that.

So I will be supporting this bill. I think it's a great bill and would respectfully asked to be added as co author at the appropriate time. With that, would you like to close?

Well, I just want to thank each of the Committee Members. I want to appreciate how much each of you cares for your communities. It's apparent to me every time I come to this Committee and appreciate your robust discussion. Happy to add you as a co author, Mister Chair, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That vote count is 5-2. We'll leave it on call. What we're going to do right now is we're going to open up the call and then we'll take a recess because we have three more bills to be presented, maybe four. Four bills to be-three bills to be presented, but we have to adjourn right now.

We'll pick up around 01:30 p.m. and it will be in this room. Yeah. All right. Assistant let's go over the consent calendar. So we'll open the consent calendar back up. The motion is do pass. Assistant please call the roll.

[roll call]

That vote is 8-0 We'll leave it on call. We'll go to file item number one, AB 828 by Assemblyman Connolly. Do pass. The motion is do pass is amended. Appropriations assistant, please call the roll.

Current vote is 42. [roll call]

Okay, so now it's 43.

That vote count is 43. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on to file item number three, AB 1581 by Assemblyman Kalra. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

Current vote is 5-0. [roll call]

Now vote count is 7-0. We'll leave it on call. We'll move to file item four, AB 2509 by Simi Minkara. The motion is do pass the appropriations. Please call the roll.

Current vote is 6-0. [roll call]

That vote count is 8-0. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on next to file item six, AB 1889, by Assemblymember Friedman. The motion is do passed to appropriations assistant. Please call the vote.

Current vote is 5-0. [Roll Call]

That vote count is 5-2. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on next to file item seven, AB 2552 by Assemblymember Friedman. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

Current vote is 6-0. [roll call]

That vote count is 7-1. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on. Next to file item number nine, AB 262060 by assemblymember Soria. The motion is do pass as amended appropriations.

Current vote is 3-0. [Roll Call]

Vote count is 8-0. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on next to file item number 10, AB 2091, by Assemblymember Grayson. The motion is do pass as amended. Appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

Current vote is 4-0. [Roll Call]

That vote count is 6-0. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on. Next to file item 12, AB 2330. By Assemblymember Holden. The motion is do pass. Is amended to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

Current vote is 5-0. [Roll Call]

That vote count is 8-0. We'll leave it on call. We'll move on next to file item number 14. I'm sorry. We don't need to do that. We just did that. We'll move on to file item number 18, AB 2827 by Assemblymember Reyes. The motion is do pass to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

The current vote is 6-0. [Roll Call]

That vote count is 8-0. We'll leave it on call. And with that we will take a recess and we will resume here in this same room at 1:30 p.m.

Okay. We are resuming. I guess I just note at this point that this is the last Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee bill hearing of this session. It's possible we may have a concurrence hearing or two in August, but this will be my last particular committee hearing for bills as Chair, so a little tear from me.

But I want to thank my colleagues, the ones that are here, for being here, for their robust debate and contributions, as well as to our consultants, Sander Sanders, Catherine Baxter, Paul Jacobs, who stepped in for Genevieve Moore while she's on maternity leave doing yeoman's work here. Catherine Moore, as you all know, these people, they've been doing amazing work on our behalf, on behalf of the state, for the many competing interests that come before this committee. And I want to thank Sandra for making sure I always kind of usually say the right things and get the motions correct.

Want to thank the sergeants for their work on the committee. Want to thank the Republican, the Minority Consultant, Todd Moffitt, for his work here. It's been amazing, and I'm blessed to have like so many great staffers and colleagues here on this committee. But with that, let's move to our next bills.

We have Assembly Member Alvarez in the audience, so he has two bills, I believe, to present, and we will start with, I think, the slightly more controversial one, AB 2560: File Item 15. Assembly Member Alvarez, you can present whenever you're ready.

I almost said good morning. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 2560 today, and I genuinely say thank you for the opportunity to present as I expect this to be a good dialogue on this, on this issue today.

So I'd like to start by acknowledging the reality that uncertain of what the outcome of my bill will be here today, and I'm okay with that. I think it's important to have this conversation. It's important to hear from members of this committee as to what concerns they might have about what our bill may unintentionally do.

Our bill is very simple. We are hoping that California's coast participates in solving our housing crisis and that laws that make sense, that have worked in places like my home in San Diego, where we adopted similar policies when I was still on the City Council, and to this day have provided and proven to have been effective in providing affordable housing on the coast, which for the most part, California is quite exclusive to those who can afford very, very expensive homes and usually single family homes.

So that is my intent, and so I hope that through your questions, that I expect, and I hope to hear from you, we can have more of a dialogue about how we can ensure that we achieve that goal of creating affordable housing in our coast, while certainly prioritizing coastal resources and access.

And that is important to me. I think that's one of the things that gets lost in this conversation, and unfortunately, in what some folks say is I'm a San Diegan, born and raised--obviously a Californian--and I'll just tell you, access to the coast has not been something I had been able to enjoy growing up in a very poor part of San Diego, in the community of Barrio Logan, where our coast access is supposed to be the bay, but it's been completely taken over by maritime industrial uses.

So access to the bay is very limited. It took a lawsuit in order to get access to the bay through a one acre park known as Cesar Chavez Park today, in the 1980s. I actually never went--I'm a San Diegan. I don't know how to swim. I actually didn't go to the beach for the first time until I was in high school because access to the bay, even for poor families in San Diego, can be a challenge. And I think that's the same throughout California.

And so I just wanted to establish that access to the bay is significantly important to me, and it is important to the people that I represent who have unequitable access to the bay, including in Imperial Beach--I have to mention them--over a thousand days of closures of their beach now in the State of California, the only beach in California who suffers from this in my district.

So I wanted to point out a few things. Since the beginning and in all bills that I present, I aim and I strive to achieve a point of having a recommendation of supporting my bill with amendments that would further my goals and my bill. In this case, again, the goal is to build more affordable housing on the coast and to prioritize coastal resources and always protect access. The amendments that are before you today are--there's two sets of amendments or two different amendments, the first one of which I believe is appropriate.

I'm happy to accept amendment one, as noted in the analysis on page 11, because I think, although it's not ideal, it really is intending to move the ball forward when it comes to access, resources, protection, and housing. Unfortunately, I cannot say with that same certainty that amendment two does the same thing.

Even with that, I will be accepting both amendments, and this is where I'd like to discuss with you and share with you why I'm not certain that amendment number two actually furthers the goal of what I am hoping to reach. And I'll just say at the beginning here now that if under further analysis, we identify that these amendments, in fact, do not further affordable housing development on the coast and continue to protect coastal access and resources, then it's a bill I don't want to continue to pursue.

I don't want to jeopardize the opportunity to build housing if what is in the bill, in its amendments, does not allow that to happen, and these are the specific concerns that I have with that amendment, which I hope we get into some back and forth and get your thoughts.

On its face, requiring that local coastal plans to update the changes that we are making seems reasonable to ensure it is implemented properly. However, the amendment also deletes a provision that prohibits the requirement that the local coastal program include housing policies and programs. This is on page 12. It's the very top of page 12. As you can see, it is stricken. Section 30500.1 is stricken from--

I'm sorry, Assembly Member. So I just want to be clear. We're not here to--and we have a policy in the Senate this year that I think was also the policy in previous years. We don't negotiate amendments from the dais, so I would just point out the history of this particular bill, on Friday, your Legislative Director told my staff you were accepting the amendments.

I know that we have been in discussions with you and your staff for weeks now, maybe even a month plus, and it was this morning that you told me you were rejecting the amendments and then later this morning you told me you were accepting them.

And so we are happy to continue discussing this offline, but I just don't think it's appropriate nor is it in the interest of our time to be negotiating and discussing particular provisions from the dais, and so I'm just going to ask you to present your bill and let me know if you're accepting the amendments or not.

That's correct.