Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Good morning, everyone. Let's go ahead and start, shall we? So, to ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today, because they all want it, this hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in Capitol Room 444.

Assemblymember Gallagher will be replacing Assemblymember Dahle today, and Assembly Member Bonta will be absent. With no replacement for each Bill, we're allowing up to two main witnesses in support, two main witnesses in opposition. Lead witnesses will have two minutes each. Following the primary witnesses.

Remaining witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to their name, organization and position on the Bill, and we thank you for your cooperation on that part of it. All right, we've got three bills on consent today. We don't have a quorum, so we won't be taking those up. So let's go ahead and start with.

We'll start with Mister Bennett, but I don't see Mister Bennett here. All right, Caballero's here. Senator Caballero, come on down. You got a couple today, right?

I do. Okay.

You didn't fill up the room for those, did you?

Madam Chair, I'm part of the on time caucus, so

You had to rub. It in, didn't you? She's on a roll, people.

Madam Chair, may I begin?

Yes, please.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to present SB 366, a bill to modernize the California water plan to reflect the state's new climate reality and establish long term water supply targets that, when met, will ensure sufficient high quality water for all beneficial uses.

First, let me start off by accepting the Committee amendments outlined in the bill analysis and to thank the Committee and the chair very much for your work on this bill.

In April of this year, Governor Newsom announced 81 new targets, themselves direct descendants of the 2045 carbon neutrality target, an effort to focus resources to ensure California's lands absorb more carbon emissions. Disappointingly, no similar targets to focus on and sustain our water supply have been established.

Despite the fact that nearly 40 million California residents depend on water to survive. SB 366 would set an interim target of 10 million, and now, with the amendment, 9 million acre feet of additional water by 2040. While the Department of Water Resources developed long term targets for 2050, research supports the establishment of water supply targets.

In June of this year, a new UC research study conducted by Jay Lund from UC Davis, Jose Mandelin, Aswada from UC Merced and Alvar Escriva Bu from UCLA provides great insight into the magnitude of California's water challenges. This research is critically important because it identifies and warns about quantifiable and sizable future of water scarcity.

This revolutionary study estimates a shortfall in California's future water supply between 4.6 and 9 million acre feet annually by 2050, with no state action. This equates to 50% to 90% of California's urban water use, or between 1.5 and 3 million acres of irrigated farmland.

And we know that a UC Berkeley study indicated that between 500,000 to a million acres of ag land will have to be put out of production because of the lack of water. And more importantly, I have multiple communities that are suffering right now because their wells either have contaminated water or have run dry.

And so there's no question that the future's now and we need to come up with solutions. The research further highlights the following consequences of continued inaction. Overall, water supply will lessen, increasing the severity of droughts. The need to purchase or import import water costs raises costs for residential and industrial uses, and agriculture shift towards permanent crops.

About a third of irrigated California land today increases the cost of fallowing farmland. The research also supports the notion that California must plan for tomorrow and rely on all of the tools in our toolbox to ensure adequate water supply for future generation, including investments in desalination, recycle and reuse, water storage, including groundwater recharge, and demand management.

The unfortunate truth is that currently thousands of California residents suffer from the lack of clean drinking water. They are forced to buy bottled water and unable to use the water that comes out of their tap. As our population continues to grow and amid climate change, it's critical to develop the plan for a reliable water supply.

A new approach, guided by state policy, must be be implemented to meet the challenge of navigating California's uncertain water future. I'd like to address some of the comments made in opposition letters submitted to this Committee. First and foremost, this bill is entitled California Water for All, which includes the environment.

We have made multiple changes to the bill that enhance the attention paid to the environment's water needs above and beyond what is in existing law, and the bill now includes a specific reference to the Delta Reform Act. The targets are meant to ensure water for the environment, communities, and businesses, especially as climate change continues to impact our water resources.

SB 366 does not replace the water plan. It maintains almost the entire statute, albeit restructured, and updates it for a 21st century climate. The bill does nothing to change the role of DWR or the Water Board in water resource management in California.

DWR's mission is to sustainably manage the water resources of California in cooperation with other agencies to benefit the state's people and protect, restore, and enhance the natural and human environment. DWR is currently and has been responsible for the water plan implementing the Sustainable Growth Management Act, and oversees the state water project, just to name a few.

And I know you all know that because this is the Committee that looks at that. It is factually inaccurate to say that the Water Board is a lead agency in planning and managing all water in California.

This bill has nothing to do with the State Water Board's water quality control plan, nor does it have anything to do with the beneficiary pays principal. It does not require any specific projects to be paid for by the state. It will take local, regional, and statewide planning efforts to reach the water supply targets.

And this bill does not limit DWR's ability to address the multiple objectives in the 2023 update of the water plan. In fact, the other objectives, like improving water quality and flood management, will help the state ensure there is enough water to meet the targets.

Further, I'd like to add that we are pleased to be working with the Department of Water Resources on the language of this bill with a shared interest of developing a plan and goals for the future of water in our state.

In closing, without clearly defined water supply targets and strategic planning to achieve targets, the state will continue to experience devastating water shortages in the future. SB 366 identifies targets for California to help us avoid water scarcity and to ensure a drought proof future as research identifies we must.

This is a logical first step in planning a statewide and long term water supply for our state, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify is Danielle Blacet-Hyden, deputy executive director with the California Municipal Utilities Association, and Craig Miller, the general manager with the Western Municipal Water District.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Danielle Blacet with the California Municipal Utilities Association and we are proud to co-sponsor and support SB 366. CMUA represents over 60 public agencies that provide water and wastewater to 75% of Californians.

The current iteration of the California Water Plan, which has always been developed through the leadership of the Department of Water Resources, has been an existence for over 65 years. It provides detailed information on the state's water resources and recommendations for sustainably managing those resources.

However, it is missing a key component, a north star for water supply planning. In a state where our changing climate and other factors are affecting every aspect of water management, we need to move from a mindset of managing for scarcity and instead plan for a future where there is enough water for all beneficial uses, including small communities, urban centers, business, agriculture, and the environment.

As one of the largest economies in the world, we should not have such a fragile water supply that two years of drought nearly cripple our communities, farms, and fisheries. We have been fortunate to have a wet winter, but we could be right back in severe drought conditions in a water supply crisis in just a few years.

As the Senator noted, research from the UC system found that there will be an annual shortfall of 4.6 to 9 million acre feet of water supply in the future, equal to all the urban water use in the state. This gap makes it clear that action must be taken to set up the state for a sustainable water future, and a water supply target is a critical part of getting us there.

SB 366 fulfills the generational responsibility to develop a water system that will adapt to changes in the environment and allow the state to thrive now and preserve the California way of life. We thank Senator Caballero for her leadership bringing this bill forward. We support SB 366 and urge an aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Craig Miller. I'm the general manager at Western Municipal Water District, located in Riverside County. My service area has about a million customers and a significant business and commercial sector that we support.

My role as a general manager is to make sure that I can provide water every single day under all conditions to those 1 million residents and their businesses. This is getting harder to meet all the time. Riverside County is still dependent on the state water project. About half of our water comes through the state water project.

And let me give you an example of our concerns as managers across the state. In 2021, the state water project had a zero allocation. So Southern California got no water from the state water project or Riverside County got no water. The worst thing about that is 2019 was a very wet year. All of our reservoirs were full.

The system was full. By 2021, the state system was out of water. That's two years of resilience for the lifeblood of the fifth largest economy in the world. And as general managers across this state, we've been in discussions. We've developed this legislation, we're promoting this legislation.

As I talk with Southern California, Northern California, urban ag water managers, we're all in agreement. We have to start with a planning process. And as you hear about climate change, we're looking at longer dry periods. We're looking at flashier wet periods.

We do not have the infrastructure in the state to capture those wet periods and the ability to move that water to storage so we can make it through those long dry periods. We have to change what we're doing. This is the time to do it. So you also heard the Senator talk about the research. We're behind now.

We're going to be 9 million up to 9 million acre feet further behind in the next decade. We really have to change our process. And that starts with a planning process. SB 366 provides that framework to change the plan. We need a target. SB 36 sets a target.

Could you imagine entering a planning process, developing the water supply for the state of California without a goal? We don't have a goal. This process gives us a goal, that north star, we need for our planning process. So we've done great locally in our water supply.

We're great at recycling, we're great at conservation, but it has to be a program across the entire state, and we need the state water project to be healthy. We need a resilient water supply for the fifth largest economy in the world. So I want to thank the Senator for her great support, and I urge an aye vote.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Do I have a quorum? Okay, let's take a roll before we get to you, witnesses. Hang on one second. Is there anybody that's going to come up and testify? Okay, why don't you come on up and we'll take a roll while you're doing that. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

So we've got a quorum. When you're ready, please begin.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mona Lake Committee. Always nice to see you, Senator. She was on our Committee for quite a while.

Many years.

The California water plan that was just released has three intersecting themes in it. One is addressing climate urgency, one is strengthening watershed resilience, and the third is achieving equity. These are saying that the water plan does not have a goal or an objective. Those are the objectives.

To try and achieve that. To do that, DWR had seven major objectives. To achieve that, besides water increasing water supply, there was reduce water demand, improve operational efficiency and transfers, improve flood management, improve water quality, practice, research, stewardship, and people in water, which is really dealing with the social inequities of water.

To call out just water supply as an objective diminishes these other objectives. We think all seven of these should be high priorities. And so while we think that the water plan can be improved, the reorganization was wonderful, because that was harder than heck to try and follow when trying to explain people how the water plan law works.

But we still say that the focus on water supply as the principal objective really diminishes the other issues. Just as an aside, the Senator mentioned that we have a million people who don't have access to clean water. In many of those neighborhoods, the problem is not the supply of water. They have plenty of water. It's just toxic.

And so we need to think broader about how we look at our water supply, our water management. With the exception of ocean desalination, we actually can't make any water. We just have to manage what we have much better. Thank you.

Good morning. Ashley Overhaus on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and Golden State Salmon Association, I'm the water policy advisor for Defenders of Wildlife, our California program, and while I'm newer here at the table today than most of my esteemed colleagues, I would like to still respectfully oppose.

366 I also echo the comments that my colleague, Mister Dennis O'Connor, just gave on behalf of the Monolake Committee, and I appreciate the intent behind this Bill, which is to try to help align water management strategy. Context is important here.

As the Committee analysis rightfully noted, California's rivers and fisheries are in crisis primarily because of unsustainable water diversions, particularly in the Bay Delta, which covers 40% of the state. This crisis has resulted in complete closure of the state salmon fishery in 2023 and this year 2024.

Increased frequency of harmful algae blooms in the delta that threaten human health and safety, and many native fish species are heading towards extinction. So we greatly appreciate the proposed amendments in this Bill put forth by the Committee and appreciate the author taking these amendments. Thank you. We respectfully still oppose for just a couple reasons.

First, this legislation does seek to put into the California water plan at least one interim, arbitrary new water supply target that does not align with the Governor Newsom's water supply strategy document.

Even with these amendments, the Bill language specifies securing 9 million additional acre feet, whereas Governor Newsom's strategy only calls for 6.9 to 7.2 million acre feet at most. Second, the Bill still undermines the State Water Board's role in our opinion as lead agency in planning and managing all water in California.

The Bill inappropriately proposes that DWR be the lead agency. State Water Board is charged under existing law with balancing and managing all uses of water. So in our opinion, this Bill threatens to upend that balance. And then third, we believe this Bill inappropriately prioritizes changes to the wrong plan for California water management.

Under existing law, the State Water Board is charged with managing water rights and water quality to balance all competing uses of water, and the state and regional boards accomplish this goal through adoption and periodic update of water quality control plans, including the Bay Delta Water Quality control plan.

After almost 20 years of stakeholder engagement, an updated Bay Delta plan will help set new important standards for the delta and help streamline the approval of new water projects such as groundwater recharge and help water districts determine which projects will actually be cost effective while substantially strengthening environmental flows to protect the environment.

If any plan should be given such attention, it should be this one priority treatment by the Legislature and the baseline for such broad sweeping changes to water policy.

In summary, I believe the fundamental conflict for us here is a difference in opinion about who should be leading such action for water management and how for these reasons, we oppose 366 and urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay, so do we have folks from the audience that are, me too. And you can say yes or no. We'll do them all at the same time. Mister Gladfelt, he lead it off.

Good morning. Chair Members Ed Manning, on behalf of Mojave Water Agency, Western Municipal Water District and I think western growers, if they're not here, in support of the Bill. Thanks.

Good morning. Chair Members Dane Hutchings on behalf of the cities of Corona and Santa Rosa in support.

Good morning. Kathryn Freeman on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Good morning. Paul Heliker, General manager, San Juan Water District, strongly supporting the Bill.

Jamie Minor on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, Turlock Irrigation District, Santa Margarita Water District and West Basin Municipal Water District all in support. Thank you, Senator.

Nice to see you. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau former staffer of the Senator, a Bill I worked on when I was staffed with Danielle. Really happy to support.

Chair Members Ashley Walker with Nosimon on. Behalf of a leave in Hayne Municipal. Water district in support.

Good morning. Ryan Ojakian on behalf of RWA in support.

Good morning. Lou Bronstein on behalf of Irvine Ranch Water District and support.

Good morning. Cyrus Devers for the municipal water District of Orange County, the Coachella Valley Water District and Las Vegas Municipal Water District and support.

Good morning. Jared Moss on behalf of the City of Riverside, support.

Good morning. Zach Safflout the Leo California cities in support good morning.

Qr. Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank and Burbank water and power and support.

Dennis Albioni on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water Agency, San Gabriel Valley, MWD and Mesa Water, as well as several agricultural organizations, we support. Thank you.

Aaron Wooley on behalf of Sierra Club. California in opposition.

Chairing Members James Thorwachter with the California State Council of Laborers and strong support.

Good morning. Keeley Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robeson and Smith on behalf of Rancho California Water District in support.

Hello. Sarah Boudreau with the City of Roseville in support.

Abraham Mendoza on behalf of the Community Water center we currently have an opposed unless amended position, but we are reviewing the amendments and want to say thank you to the Senator and her amazing staff for working with us on this. And look forward to partner moving forward.

Good morning. Chair and Members Brenda bass with the California Chamber of Commerce and Support. Thank you. Madam Chair Members. Ivy Britton with the Northern California Water Association support.

Morning. Julia hall with the Association of. California. Water Agencies in support. Good morning. Beth Olasso, on behalf of water reuse, California Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cucamonga Valley Water District and the CNNA Watershed Project Authority in support. Thank you.

Natalie Brown with the Pliny and Conservation League in opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Tom Coleman with Rolling Water District and the public water agency's group support.

Good morning. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, pleased to be a co sponsor and strong support.

Michael Arnold on behalf of the three Valleys Municipal Water District in strong support of this much needed legislation. Jim Farrand, President, California alliance for Golf, in strong support.

Good morning. Mark Smith, on behalf of the El Dorado Water Agency and the Grassland Water District in support. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation district and support.

Morgan Snyder on behalf of Restore the Delta, in opposition.

Hi. Good morning. Madam Chair Members Glenn Farrell with GF advocacy, on behalf of the state water contractors and on behalf of Cal Desal, both in support.

Glenn. Madam Chair Members Kendra Dajogo with the Gualco group, on behalf of the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Modesto Irrigation District, Kings river interest and Kern County Water agency in support. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, great. So let me bring it back to the Committee for questions. Senator Bennett.

Thank you very much. First, I'd like to move the Bill, and second, I would like to compliment the author for a Bill that focuses us on additional planning. And I have respect for those in opposition that are concerned, and it's healthy that there is that concern out there.

But I don't believe that a plan with these amendments in it now weakens our other commitments to the environment, et cetera, that is out there.

The point that I think is most important from my perspective to analyze this is that of all the first world countries in the world, California has the flashiest water supply of all of them. Just like our budget revenue is radic of any in the state, our water supply is.

And when you have the flashiest water supply, you need the most resilient, which is different than focusing just on supply, but resiliency built into that system.

And the one thing that I have seen lacking is that we don't have sufficient planning for the resiliency that we need in the process by setting a target and saying we have to get somewhere, whether it's 6.7 million or 9 million or 10 million setting a target and then saying, we need the resiliency that every year be able to have.

That is something that is really good for California.

And so that's why I make the motion in support of the Bill and appreciate that both the author is sensitive and was willing to accept these amendments and that there are still people out there that will be monitoring and trying to make sure this plan does encompass all of the issues we need resiliency for, including making sure the ecosystems of the rivers are protected, that we don't take so much out of the rivers that we destroy, that these amendments, I think, really help protect that.

So I compliment the Committee staff and the Committee chair for making sure we had those amendments. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Bennett, Senator Gallagher.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also am proud to support this Bill and agree with the comments of my colleague that we need better infrastructure, bottom line, and building in that resiliency, because we do have, the history of California, is flood and famine, essentially drought and flood.

And so when we have lots of water, trying to make sure that we find ways to increase that supply and so that we have it when we go into drought season. Right. And the reality is we are still operating off of a, like a 1950s infrastructure in California.

Haven't done a whole lot to really increase that overall infrastructure. I think that's what this Bill is trying to address. And, look, the other sad reality that we're facing, and another reason why I think this Bill is needed is we passed a water bond over 10 years ago now.

10 years ago, and we still have yet to build any new water store. I'm not aware of any project right now that has actually increased our water storage. Not one that's a problem when you have a flashy water system. Right. And so we need to keep.

We need, I think, this Bill to help really focus that and say, look, we've got to meet these targets, and that can be done in a variety of different ways through a variety of different projects. Right.

But, you know, we've got to start building some new water supply and water storage facilities to make sure that we are resilient when we go into those drought years that we know will come, because that's the reality of California. So appreciate the author and her work on this, and I'll be supporting today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? So we've got a motion. Do we have a second? Okay, great. I just wanted to make a couple comments.

First of all, I want to thank you, Senator Caballero, for your leadership on this I will tell all of you that the first person in my office in January when I became chair of this Committee was Senator Caballero. And I very much wanted to serve on this Committee because, as Assemblymember Gallagher mentioned, the infrastructure is really lacking.

Climate change is here now, and you put it so eloquently, Assembly Member Bennett. It is here now. And we need resilience, like yesterday, especially for what I consider to be the fundamental element that we all need.

And I appreciate this is but one aspect, but it's a very important aspect, and it really is why we're here as legislators. I think government, one of its essential functions is to make sure that infrastructure is there. And when we are talking about infrastructure for water, we have been remiss, and climate swings are getting even more egregious.

And it's heartbreaking when we have these deluges of water and we're not capturing it. We've got to get on the ball. So I thank you for your leadership. I'm proud to support the Bill as well. It enjoys a do pass, as amended. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for the comments of the Committee and for the opposition. Quite frankly, water is the one.

Well, one of the issues that everybody has a different opinion on, quite frankly, and it really depends on where you live in the state, because the water situation is entirely different depending on where you live. And at the risk of losing half the people in the room.

I'd like to see no further water diversions because we've come up with a plan for how each region can meet its water needs without having to transfer water out of habitats that are at risk. The delta is at risk, and it's been that way forever.

But as mentioned by Assemblymember Gallagher, we need to have the infrastructure in place to actually be able to save this water when it falls.

And that's the biggest issue in my district is people say hundreds of thousands of gallons of water went out to the ocean when we had a wet rainy season, and we're releasing from dams at the wrong time. In the event, just to protect ourselves, the dams are there for flood control, not for use when we need it.

And so giving us the ability to look at our system and to figure out what some of the changes might be that would help us to meet our demands. It may look like there's plenty of water in some region, but it's because they're taking it from somewhere else.

And that's okay as long as we have a plan for how we're going to allocate water as we grow, and the water needs of our communities grow. Conservation can get us part of the way.

But I think one of the things we learned during the drought was that there were some communities that had built reservoirs during a period of time when it was allowed to build them. And so they have water resiliency, and they don't want to conserve because the ratepayers are paying for that infrastructure.

And so you have this inequality all over the state that we need to take a look at, and we need to understand better. And the more that we can protect everything, the environment, businesses, farms, people, the better off we're going to be. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Let's go ahead and take a vote. Papin, I'm sorry. Item number two, SB 366. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.[Roll Call]

Great. We'll leave it open for additional votes, but I think you got enough. You don't have enough.

Great. Thank you so much. I'm sure you'll get there. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. You got a couple more?

I've got a couple more. Can I. Yes.

You want to go to 632?

Yes.

Okay, great.

This one, I think, is a little easier. So, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 632, an important bill to create connectivity for off highway, vehicle, or OHV, riding areas around Red Rock Canyon State Park and adjacent state and federal lands that will also allow OHV recreation.

So, first, let me thank the chair and the Committee for their work on this bill. Red Rock Canyon State Park is situated between Bakersfield and the Mojave Desert, and the park is sandwiched between state and federal lands, both of which allow OH vehicle recreation.

Red Rock Canyon State Park, however, does not allow for OHV use within the park and would like a designated route through the park to retain connectivity between the two regions that do allow it. This bill will legally restore OHV use on the Sierra View Road and Red Rock State Park, maintaining historic connectivity for OHV users.

The lack of a direct route through the state park to access nearby federal lands will result in riders creating, if they're prohibited, they'll create illegal routes, which could create resource protection concerns. Providing a designated route will preserve traffic safety, improve natural and cultural resource protection, and reduce OHV trespass on private lands.

This is a pilot project to allow access through the park that would normally not be allowed. With me today to testify in support of the bill and help address any questions is Amy Granat, the Managing Director for the California Off Road Vehicle Association.

Madam Chair, Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to address you on this important issue to us. Amy Granat, I am Managing Director of the California Off Road Vehicle Association and also President of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Off Road Vehicle Legislative Coalition, and we are asking you to the pilot program, which is similar to the legislatively approved pilot program in the City of Needles and the Connected Communities Project in Northern California. These programs have successfully, excuse me, integrated OHV travel with street-legal vehicles.

This integration enhances protection of public land by keeping travel to safely monitored and signed roads. Red Rock Canyon State Park is a beautiful area with protected natural and cultural preserves in the interior of the park. But outside of the park, designated OHV areas surrounding the park can see visitations of over 100,000 people on busy weekends.

Supporting SB 632 would not only protect the important resources in Red Rock, but also allow for connectivity between OHV areas with every important safeguard in place to protect the land and resources and enhance recreation opportunities for all Californians. The Off-Road Vehicle Legislative Coalition requests your support and your aye vote.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition that are going to come testify? No seeing none. Any public comment where people would like to come give a yay or nay? Not seeing any. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? We've got a motion and a second. If there are no questions, let me ask you to close, Senator Caballero.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

Item number three, SB 632 motion is do pass to Transportation. [Roll call]

We'll go ahead and leave that open. Thank you so much. And you third and final bill, Senator Caballero: SB 1390.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to present SB 1390, which builds upon the progress made in the past year to enable California to divert flood flows for groundwater recharge.

First, let me accept the committee amendments and thank the committee and the Chair for their work and flexibility to ensure alternative pathways are kept in the bill. I just, as a footnote, the reason for the 30 day--yeah. It was basically to give us five years of a winter to be able to look at it. This.

I'm taking the amendment. This may need to be extended later, but we have seen such irregular weather that it's possible that the next five years--knock on wood that this doesn't happen--are drought years, and so we don't really get to see the full impact of this bill. So I'll just leave that there.

In 2023, California experienced a dramatic end to extreme drought conditions through a series of atmospheric rivers that brought record snowpack and rainfall, causing extensive flooding and excess flows that allowed record-breaking water storage opportunities. I had two of the worst flood, flooded areas, unincorporated communities, both in terms of Pajaro and then also Planada.

And people looked at that and said, why couldn't we have done something with that water that would have been productive rather than flooding out people and leaving them with incredible damage? We basically put 40 million dollars, 20 million to each community to start helping them to dig themselves out and rebuild.

Decades of drought, population growth, and over-extraction of groundwater have left basins dangerously depleted, resulting in dry water wells, loss of wildlife habitat, land subsidence, farm fallowing. The year before, over 400,000 acres were fallowed and seawater intrusion, contaminated water wells in rural communities, and a host of other threats to sustainable water.

Recognizing the need for additional tools to manage destructive flood flows and the need to utilize excess water for the long-term health of groundwater basin, Governor Newsom issued an executive order which authorized water agencies to divert excess flood flows for groundwater recharge without the need to obtain a costly and time-consuming permit that would have basically negated the possibility of taking those flood flows.

The process established by the executive order was later codified in SB 122 with additional requirements in order to better protect groundwater quality and downstream water users. The initial water diversions and subsequent groundwater recharge that took place in the wake of SB 122 helped to replenish severely overdrafted groundwater basins.

However, more work must be done to fully realize the potential benefit of these opportunities. It became very clear that the process needed cleaning up. SB 1390 builds on the progress of the executive order by allowing additional recharge projects to be completed in a safe and responsible manner to move us towards a more sustainable water future.

I would like to acknowledge the work and thank the stakeholder group for their input on the bill. They are the ones that had the practical research on the ground, and so language is always an issue and they were tremendously important, and I'd like to address recent amendments, which are in print as of June 18th.

Following the April 23rd State Senate Natural Resources Committee Hearing, we immediately got to work to identify amendments that address the committee and stakeholders' main concerns regarding the delta provision that provides assurances that downstream water rights will not be impacted.

We also worked with a large stakeholder group to address several outstanding issues that make the bill stronger and provide additional protections and transparency. Specifically, the amendments in print today add an additional pathway to planning eligibility, such as a local hazard mitigation plan providing greater flexibility for water managers, adjust the definition of imminent to mean the atmospheric, river, or flood event will begin or is projected to begin within the next 72 hours, adds delta language with key changes that provide enhanced environmental protections, and adds timelines to website reporting to enhance planning and transparency.

I'd like to also address the opposition letter submitted to committee, which unfortunately does not acknowledge the numerous amendments we have accepted over the various iterations of the bill to address concerns. I take amendments that make the bill better, even if it doesn't remove the opposition.

Water is complicated, and while I understand that there will never be a perfect solution, we remain committed to working with the opposition on changes that keep the intent of the bill intact and allow the intent of the bill to be successful. We need to replenish our aquifers and we need to prevent flooding, and this bill can do both.

As California faces more extreme weather events and builds on its strategy for a sustainable water future, it's incumbent to maximize the tools we have available and to ensure we're putting water, putting the water we have to the best and highest use. And for that reason, I ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify is Charles Delgado, Policy Director for Sustainable Conservation, and Catherine Freeman, Legislative Advocate with the California State Association of Counties.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Chair Papan and 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 SB 1390, a common sense follow-up measure to last year's codification of Executive Order N-4-23, which established the authority for diversion of flood flows for groundwater recharge without a water right permit.

Last year's atmospheric rivers brought historic amounts of precipitation to the State of California, filling reservoirs, resulting in a record snowpack in the Sierras. This sudden influx of water stood in stark contrast to the extreme drought conditions of 2020 to 2022 and highlighted the more extreme, unpredictable weather events that we can expect in the post climate change world.

The ensuing floods forced evacuations, caused power outages, damaged homes and businesses, and ultimately resulted in 22 fatalities. The risks posed by future extreme storm events require the state to maintain as many flood control options as possible in order to move water off vulnerable rivers and streams and away from places where these flows pose a risk to the public.

And while these flood flows present great risk, they also represent an opportunity to bolster depleted groundwater supplies throughout the state and help local governments to meet the state's requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

Since last year's codification, however, our partners have encountered hurdles to using this authority as it was intended, which is to be a flexible tool for local agencies to pursue recharge projects in a manner protective of public safety, the environment, and downstream water users.

Ambiguities around planning requirements for utilization of this authority and what constitutes flood conditions have prevented agencies from capturing flood flows where they otherwise should have been able to do so. To solve this, SB 1390 will add an additional option for local agencies to satisfy planning requirements and clarify when agencies may use their sophisticated flow modeling tools to begin diverting excess flows.

These changes are fully in keeping with the original intent of the executive order in SB 122 to pursue recharge in a transparent manner that minimizes unintended consequences for all water users in affected communities and the environment. We've worked with many different partners to ensure this bill meets the needs of all communities.

Sustainable conservation values a collaborative approach, and we feel this bill is emblematic of that. I'd like to thank Senator Caballero for her leadership in introducing this bill and her dedication to promoting water sustainability in the Central Valley and beyond. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Good morning. Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties, which represents all 58 California counties and your communities. We're pleased to support SB 1390, which builds on the progress made in the past year to enable California to divert flood flows for groundwater recharge by clarifying when these flows may be captured for the benefit of aquifers and what planning requirements are necessary for local agencies to pursue recharge.

Facing whiplash from drought, our counties are experiencing historic flooding, coastal erosion, and record snowpack, and counties are on the frontline of support when water emergencies happen, whether they are flood or drought. While recent years have been marked by flood and historic snowpack levels, these types of wet years are unreliable and California will need to adapt to extremes in future flood and drought cycles. Counties need all of the tools available to protect our communities during these extreme flood events. This bill does that with appropriate guardrails.

We want to thank the committee staff for working with us on the inclusion of the local hazard mitigation plans, which are comprehensive plans for disaster planning. As many may know, these plans do a couple of things, but one is they put the right people in the room making the right decision. The second is they have--they're comprehensive.

So they have maps, they have inundation maps, they have a lot of different tools built into them, but they also have the expert there. So a couple of things that give us some comfort when we make these big decisions. So we're here to protect your communities. We're grateful to our water leader, Senator Caballero, for carrying this legislation, and on behalf of California Counties, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses that will be testifying in opposition? Come on forward. We'll have two minutes per witness.

Good morning.

Are you gonna--are you the two-minuter? Let me let the two-minuters go before we do the--there'll be two witnesses with two minutes each, and then we'll have the MeToos.

Go ahead when you're ready.

Good morning again, Chair Papan, Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me. Ashley Overhouse, I'm the Water Policy Advisor for Defenders of Wildlife and I'm giving my comments today on behalf of Defenders as well as again, the Golden State Salmon Association. We respectfully oppose this bill unless it's amended further to address our concerns.

But first and foremost, we are grateful to the Senator, her staff and Sustainable Conservation for the time and effort they have taken with us and other stakeholders to work on this bill.

We have given our proposed amendments to the author's office, and we appreciate our collective commitment to continue to work together. And for the sake of time, I'm going to summarize our top line concerns. First, this bill would allow a local or regional agency with flood management responsibility to make a flood declaration.

These declarations should be limited to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board or the primary local regional flood management agency, so the proposed amendments would expand that determination to allow agencies with potentially little flood management expertise or responsibility to make those decisions.

Basically, this language would allow multiple agencies to make flood declarations for a specific river reach, creating the potential for multiple conflicting declarations. Second, the newly amended language to allow a local or regional agency to cite a general plan or county emergency operations plan undermines our state's existing flood management regime.

General plans and other local plans often do not include sufficient information regarding flood issues such as like channel conveyance capacity. We support this Committee's proposed amendment to strike an emergency operations plan from the bill, but believe this bill should be amended further to remove general plans and hazard mitigation plans.

Third, this bill could potentially authorize water diversions in Tulare Lake Basin if any ongoing agricultural activities are inundated. This could be read as authorizing new diversions if a single agricultural field is inundated, even if there is no significant damage or threat to roadways, residential, commercial or industrial development, for example.

In the absence of any other flood risk, the inundation of agricultural fields alone should not be used to trigger a flood declaration under the section. And finally, we also respectfully oppose extending the current sunset and state law from 2029 to 2032.

We are grateful for this Committee's proposed amendment supporting reversion of the sunset date back to 2029 and also support the Senator taking that sunset and also hope we do not have five years of dry drought for yeah, so, or five. Both are terrible. So if these concerns are not addressed, we urge a no vote.

But thank you for your time and consideration of our views.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Good morning. My name is Morgan Snyder, and I am a Delta resident interning with Restore the Delta and a current Environmental Policy Master's student at UC Davis. Today, I am here in opposition to SB 1390. SB 1390 would allow local agencies to freely pump water from California's already fragile river systems in a misguided effort to reclaim floodwaters for groundwater recharge.

This bill supports the continued over-drafting of California's aquifers. As the organization situated at the intersection of drought and flood impacts, we are concerned SB 1390 would exacerbate California's unsustainable dependence on Delta water. During wet years, our community fears their homes will flood and fear exposure to toxic algal blooms during low flow years.

To protect the community, you must strike a balance between saving people's homes from flooding and maintaining adequate flow to prevent toxic algal blooms forming. SB 1390 addresses neither. Instead, it exacerbates impacts to the community by removing flows that are vital for reducing the formation of toxic algal blooms and restoring our native fisheries.

For these reasons and more, we urge you to vote no on SB 1390. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. Okay. From the audience, do we have any me-toos?

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Glenn Farrel with GF Advocacy on behalf of the State Water Contractors. We just want to express our appreciation to Senator Caballero, her staff, and the sponsors for working with stakeholders to navigate a very highly complex set of intersectional policy issues. We're strongly in support of the bill today.

Chair and Members. Jay Jefferson with the Metropolitan Water District. Again, grateful to the author for working with us on recent amendments and urge your aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

If you could just limit your remarks to yes or no.

Ashley Walker with Nossaman, on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good morning. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau, in support.

Paul Helliker, San Juan Water District, in support.

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

Great. Anyone else? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions? Assemblymember Bennett.

Again, I would like to move the bill. At the same time, I would like to point out that groundwater recharge is a lot trickier than sort of a simple, oh, all that water was wasted going out to the ocean. The environment, the ecosystem was based on that water going out to the ocean.

And so we have to be careful in terms of the diversions. And I applaud the opposition again for pointing out some things, and I would encourage the author to continue to work with them and see if you can work some of those points out in terms of moving forward.

But at the same time, it is just too critical when you have the flashiest water system in the world for a first world country to not have a robust diversion during high flood flows. And so this bill is overall a significant improvement in terms of our ability to do that.

And we will lose the support of the public if we don't have a well-identified plan for what to do with these flows, because the public can have a more simple version of, why did you let all that water go out to the ocean? Well, there's sometimes good reasons, but we need to not have it be so obtuse that agencies can't figure out when can they divert, when can they not divert.

The one point that the opposition brought up that I think is most legitimate from my mind is the issue of who can declare the declaration of an emergency, because you can get that broken down so small. In our county, in Ventura County, we could have lots of different agencies that could end up declaring emergencies in different parts of the river, and that could really complicate-- you could have people pulling off water and other people not being pulling off water.

So to the extent that that could be worked out, I think it would make sense. But overall, I'm strongly supportive of the bill and appreciate the author and the stakeholders working with the author to try to pull that forward.

Thank you so much. Any other comments? Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Thank you so much. With that, thank you for bringing the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much again for the comments. I continue to work with the opposition as we have in the past. The Scripps Institute is the entity that coined the phrase "atmospheric rivers."

They'd been studying ocean currents for decades, and they noticed that the ocean was getting warmer and that the currents were moving in a different way up the coast. And so they are designing a program that they believe will predict when atmospheric rivers will hit, where they hit, and how much water they'll drop.

That's not in the bill because it costs lot of money to ask them to model it for us. I foresee the day that we will have the money to be able to make that kind of investment, because then we'll have exactly what we need in terms of which rivers, when is it likely to hit and how much water is it predicted to drop, and that'll make it a lot easier to be able to manage this.

But right now, what we're trying to do is to create the flexibility in the system so that we can actually take advantage of these excess water flows. And I believe there's enough-- The infrastructure that we've set for deciding when and where is strict enough so that we shouldn't run into a problem. So, respectfully, ask for your aye vote.

And I would add, and the length of time that the diversion is allowed for is another infrastructure. Stopgap, if you will. Okay, with that. I think the recommendation is due pass as amended. So let's go ahead and take a vote.

Item number 10, SB 1390 motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

We'll leave that on call. Thank you, Senator Caballero. Senator Ashby, come on down.

Hello. We have a quick one for you. So you want me to get started there, Chairwoman? Yes? All right.

I just want to start off by thanking your committee staff. Wonderful to work with. Thanks for helping our team. And we will accept the Committee's amendments. We're here to present SB 1110, which will provide clarity in the Water Board's enforcement and reporting policies.

1110 will enhance the clarity and efficiency of water management policies by confirming the Water Board's ability to adopt an enforcement policy at its discretion, the bill eliminates any legal ambiguities and reinforces the board's capability to implement and enforce water regulations effectively.

1110 will clarify confusion regarding reporting timeframes, allowing reporting to occur during either calendar or a fiscal year. That flexibility will streamline reporting efforts across different agencies, leading to more coherent data collection. Bill also adds a two-year extension to when the board may issue informational orders related to water production, use, and conservation.

1110 will provide clear guidance, enhance operational efficiency, and generate cost saving, contributing to the sustainability and of the management of all of our state water resources. With me, I have a true water expert, Mister Ryan Ojakian, on behalf of the Regional Water Authority.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning. Chair Papan and Members of the Committee. I think the Senator covered all of the details in the bill, I should probably say Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority. RWA is comprised of 22 drinking water suppliers that serve 2.2 million people in the greater Sacramento area.

Our mission is to help those members achieve the human right to water for those people, people that they serve. RWA has been heavily involved in the water efficiency process since it started seven years ago, at least this iteration, both from the legislative side and the regulatory side. And we're very proud of our work on water use efficiency.

We have nationally recognized award-winning program here, and we have achieved a 23% reduction in water use over the last decade with a 15% population increase. The Senator described the changes in statute. I will describe them in great detail.

I'll just say they're modest, but meaningful, and they will help us make sure that everybody understands exactly what is expected and what is permitted in some very important ways that will help us reduce costs and improve compliance with the regulation. So, with that, I'll close, other than to say thank you and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, great. Is there any witnesses that will be testifying in opposition? Not seeing any. Will anybody? Me, too.

Danielle Blacet-Hyden with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Sorry, our letter was late.

Paul Hilliker, San Juan Water District, in strong support.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee. We're not sure. The bill was amended after the letter deadline, and then we just saw the Committee. So, we're going to wait until we see the bill in print to decide where we are on this.

Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association in support.

Lou Bronstein, Irvine Ranch Water District, in support.

Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Excellent. Okay. With that, we'll bring back to the Committee any questions. Second. Great. Would you like to close?

Thanks for your time. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you so much. With that, we'll go ahead and take a vote. I think the recommendation is do pass as amend to Approps.

Item number four, SB 1110? Motion do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll leave that on call. We'll get more members in. Thank you, Senator Ashby.

Thanks, colleague.

Let's see, we don't- and Bennett just left, so we will call all authors at this point. I have Assemblymember Bennett and Archuleta, Senator Allen and Senator Min. Maybe we'll. Yeah, we'll do consent while we wait. We have three items on consent.

Senator Dahle: 1163 / SB 1163, Senator Newman: SB 1218, and Senator Limon: Senate Bill 1324. We'll take a consent calendar and then we'll get to Assemblymember Bennett. Do we have a motion? And a second. Thank you.

The consent calendar, item number five, SB 1163, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations, item number six, SB 1218, motion is do pass to Appropriations and item number seven, SB 1324, motion is do pass to Natural Resources. [Roll Call].

Okay, we'll leave the consent calendar open. Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and the Members. I would like to begin by accepting the amendments. On page five of the analysis, ACR 120 declares the Legislature's support for new and existing marine protected areas and urges state agencies, councils, and commissions to prioritize these areas.

The legislation passed by the Marine Life Protection Act in 1999, which set up a process to establish MPA's using scientific data. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife manages the program and every 10 years solicits input from stakeholders to update the act. The most recent decadal review was completed in 2022.

According to the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, marine protected sanctuary areas are one of the most useful tools to protect significant natural and cultural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

Highly migratory species like whales and sharks are regular visitors to MPA habitats, and MPA may serve a variety of functions for these animals, including providing breeding and foraging habitat, as well as transiting corridors.

As the climate continues to change, we must do all we can to protect the sensitive areas and ecosystems, both on land and in water. Marine protected areas have been shown to bolster ocean ecosystem health, improve the resilience of fisheries, and store carbon, all of which creates and helps combat climate change.

I want to emphasize that this is simply a resolution that we're asking, and it recognizes the valuable role off the coast of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, areas that I've been representing. Marine sanctuaries have had a dramatic impact in terms of improving fish populations and ecosystem health. Thank you very much. I have with me two witnesses, and.

We're going to read our names.

And. What's that?

We can read our names.

And I don't have their names.

Good intro. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Papan, Committee Members and staff. My name is Marcela Gutierrez Graudinch. I'm the founder and Executive Director of Azul, an ocean justice organization working with Latinx communities to protect our coasts and oceans. I will say also that I was a stakeholder in the South Coast working group in the Marine Life Protection Act process.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bennett, for introducing the resolution, which highlights the need to strengthen our marine protections to meet the 3030 goal. As highlighted in the resolution, decades of science show that fully protected areas like our state marine reserves result in oceans with more and bigger fish and higher levels of biodiversity.

This is why our MPA network was designed with state marine reserves as its backbone. Members, as Ocean Environmental Champions, you know that protecting the ocean is critical to the well-being of our communities.

A recent poll of ours found that 89% of Latinos believe in protecting the environment as a means of protecting their own communities, and that 85% of Latinos agree that governments should implement the strongest protection available for ocean areas.

More than half of all Californians visit the coast at least once a year to spend time in community, community, swim, sightsee, walk, surf, kayak, and so much more. Strong marine protections are truly a prerequisite of equitable coastal axis.

By making the ocean healthier and more resilient to climate change, strong marine protections preserve everybody's ability to enjoy the ocean through a variety of recreational, cultural, and educational activities far into the future. California is a global conservation leader. As the first U.S. state to commit to the 3030 goal, how we get there matters.

Our agencies have limited time and resources, and with only a little over five and a half years left before the year 2030, California must prioritize actions such as strengthening our MPA network with fully and highly protected areas to maximize biodiversity and climate resilience benefits to our communities.

Strengthening our MPA network is one of the best opportunities we have to protect our state's coast and ocean and increased resiliency to climate change impacts.

Azul has long advocated that the pursuit of a 3030 goal must address the disproportionate burden placed on low-income neighborhoods and communities of color to ensure that everyone has access to the ocean and its benefits.

In strengthening MPA's networks, California will continue setting a global standard for equitable coastal access and effective marine conservation measures to soundly realize the goals of a 3030 initiative. With this resolution, California is once again setting a high bar. Thank you, Assembly Member Bennett, Chair Papan, for bringing attention to this Administration priority. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Papan, Committee Members and staff, and everyone else. My name is Doctor Nour Arafeh Dalmau. I'm a researcher at Hopkins Marine Station at Stanford. I'm also the co-chair for the IUCN Seaweed Specialist Group, which we mainly focus on kelp forests.

Thank you to the Assembly Member Bennett for authorizing ACR 210, which provides important guidance in the implementation of government Newsom 30 by 30 Executive Order and SB 337.

This is a time, and everyone has been saying that of profound environmental change, where we must work for healthy ocean ecosystems, not because they are beautiful, which we all know they are, but because our very existence and wellbeing depend on them.

The combined impacts of ocean industrialization, overfishing, and climate change pose pressing threats to California's coastal and ocean biodiversity. California's kelp forests, which are the primary coastal ecosystem in California, provide shelter and food for thousands of species of fish, invertebrate, and algae. They have been degraded and depleted by human activities and overfishing in the past decades.

In recent years, they have suffered declines in dramatic ecological shifts as a result of marine heat whiffs and sea star wasting disease. This led to the loss in some parts of California of over 95% of their kelp forests in this past decade.

In the ocean, creating marine protected areas that limit human pressure, such as fishing and habitat destruction, effectively protects biodiversity and restores resilience of ecosystems and their capacity to recover from these climate impacts.

10 years of monitoring data on California's MPA network shows enhanced ecological resilience, recovery of fish populations, and greater biodiversity for some of its ecosystems, such as rocky intertidals and the surf populations inside MPAs.

My own research conducted at Stanford has found clear benefits of fully protected MPAs we found that marine protected areas enhance climate resilience for kelp forest ecosystems by recovering fish and invertebrates that are key for the correct functioning of this ecosystem.

The fact that MPAs can promote resilience for kelp forests is very important because other research that we're conducting is showing that, based on climate projections, California is expected to be one of the most threatened by future marine heat waves, particularly kelp forest.

So, we are in a really critical moment to act, and expanding the network of MPAs is the right choice. With the resolution, California is once again setting the high bar and inspiring the world as it has been for the past decades in terms of MPAs and conservation.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bennett and Chair Papan, for bringing the attention to this Administration priority. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any witnesses that will testify in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Mark Smith on behalf of a coalition of recreational angling organizations, including the Coastal Conservation Association of California, All Waters, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and others listed in opposition. I was actually reflecting, I don't think I've ever testified in opposition to a resolution before. And I do also want to acknowledge this is a resolution, not a bill. And it pains me to be here because we have a good working relationship with the author. But we have a couple comments we'd like to make about the resolution.

The Fish and Game Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Ocean Protection Council, to a certain extent, have all been engaged in a multiyear dialogue around the implementation of 30 by 30, our goal of protecting 30% of the state's lands and waters by 2030, and the Decadal Review, which is supposed to be this 10 year review of the MPA system system, and that is a scientific and regulatory process which is currently underway.

It involves numerous workshops, opportunities for public engagement, discussion, opportunity to go back and forth on items. We believe that this resolution is unnecessary and is really designed and put forward by the sponsors as an attempt to put a thumb on the scales to politically influence the regulatory process, which is currently underway, again, in a format which all stakeholders are invited to the table and have had an open dialogue for a vast number of years.

Our organizations want to take the time to thank the staff for the committee who listened to our concerns and have proposed amendments to the resolution that deal with what we consider to be the most challenging problem in the language of the resolution, which is a statement and a call for fully protected and highly protected MPAs.

And to clarify what that means, those are MPAs that would be nearly restricted or virtually restricted from all access for both recreational and commercial fishing, among other activities. Now, California's MPA network today has some of those highly protected areas, but they also have a lot of MPA locations where recreational angling and other outdoor access opportunities are allowed to take place.

And we'd like to point out that hook and line fishing is not the problem here. Right. It happens to be one of the only things that the state can actually impact. Right. Because the problems are things like ocean acidification and rising temperatures and microplastics in waters and pollution coming from the Tijuana River spills and off our own coastal shores and communities, and countless other things that are not the result of recreational angling pressure.

I think we as a state have done more than any other country globally to control and to impact and prevent the challenges that happen from overfishing. The last thing I'd like to say is that this conversation, and it was brought up by the sponsors of the measure, deals directly with access.

They talked about MPAs as a protection of access for folks to the water. But access to the water to fish and recreate is also an important consideration. When we talk about 30 by 30, it is not just conservation. I'm sorry. It's not just preservation, it's conservation with access. That is a fundamental tenet of 30 by 30. It is providing people the opportunity to go out into those spaces and to have access to them. And so for these reasons, we object to the resolution and are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the audience who wish to come express support or opposition?

Hello there. My name is Laura Deehan. I'm the State Director for Environment California. We are really pleased to be co-sponsors of the resolution. So thank you.

Hi, Karla Garibay Garcia on behalf of Environmental Center of San Diego and Environmental Defense Center in support.

Hi, Amina Khribeche with the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin in strong support.

Hi, my name is Aissatou Diallo, I'm a student at UC Merced in public health, and I strongly support.

Good morning. Sandy Aylesworth, Director of the Pacific Initiative with NRDC Oceans. We are proud to be co-sponsors of the resolution.

Good morning. My name is Pablo, I'm from San Carlos. I'm a student studying environmental science at UC Davis, and I'm in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Liev Verosky. I study natural science at Minerva University in San Francisco. In support.

Hello, my name is Anna Macdonald. I study philosophy, politics, and economics at Pomona College, and I'm in strong support.

Good morning, my name is Alina Susu. I'm a political science student at UCLA, and I'm in support.

Good morning. Nicolas Riani from Oakland, California, in strong support.

Good morning. I'm a post-doc at Hopkins Marine Station from Stanford University, and I strong support.

Okay. With that, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Assembly Member Davies.

Thank you very much. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I do have a question, a point that Mr. Smith had brought up. With my district, I have Dana Point, I have San Clemente, I have Oceanside. We have a large commercial fishing as well as recreational fishing. Enough that these are tourist towns. And so we count on the revenue quite a bit, as a matter of fact, to come to the cities that will cover infrastructure, will cover public safety. And we do have quite a bit of area. I understand, you know, with the ocean, that we could take the 30 by 30.

I think in your resolution, what I'd like to see is basically something put in their amendment of saying, you know what, we promise to protect those areas that are economically using fishing boats and so forth, tourism, so that it's not going to be affecting, and we don't have an economic repercussion coming from this because we're all about, we're all about our coast. We deal with coastal erosion quite a bit. And again, we're dealing with loss of beach, and that also has been affecting tourism.

And again, you know, even though it's down in our area, anytime any of our areas in California have concerns, especially when it comes to the economy, if we're not doing well, that means that we need to start looking at the state sometimes to be able to help, you know, when it comes to finances, which means then we're taking money away from everybody else and their areas.

So I really would love to see some part of amendment in there just saying that, you know, what, that, you know, we will be protecting as well the economic areas that have, you know, commercial and fishing and so forth, where it's coming in there. I would love to see your comment on that. Thank you.

Madam Chair? Great. I don't know whether there'll be other comments, so I'll wrap up my, I'll respond to the opposition and to you at the same time, if, if that works for you. But number one, I have a lot of respect for the state agencies that are involved in creating the plan that the opposition has referred to.

And this is the mildest form of our involvement by coming up with just simply a resolution that recognizes the importance of these. So I have no doubt that the economic value of the commercial fishing in your district, in my district, Santa Barbara, and other places, will be very clearly represented in those agencies discussions and consideration.

I don't think that it's appropriate to add that to this resolution because this resolution is focused on the value of these marine protected sanctuaries. And I would offer to you that they have a tourism benefit that's pretty substantial also. Marine protected areas, you can, the implication is that you can't recreate in them. You can recreate in them.

You just can't do recreational fishing in the most extreme ones that are out there. But actually, the amount of scuba diving off the islands of Ventura, the Channel Islands, is, the scuba diving is so great because it's a marine protected area and the ecosystem is so robust that it is out there.

So I have certainly respect for the agency's ability to be able to do that. And when it comes to the assertion that there are other things that are causing the problems for fish populations and the ecosystems, there certainly are, and they were very well articulated.

Acidification, warmer climate in general, the warmer water, all of the things, the plastics that are there. That, I would offer to you, speaks to even a greater need for some marine protected areas. Imagine if you have a very stressed population, and it's on edge, this stressed population, because of plastics and all of these other things. And then you add to it. We've had too many situations of overfishing, and we've seen collapse after collapse around the world of various fish stocks. Certainly the East Coast saw this tremendously with the overfishing that happened there.

So if you have a stressed population, at least having some places where they don't have the additional pressure of the fishing just makes common sense. And that's why these... I don't know of a marine protected area yet that, after it was created, anybody's been able to make a logical argument why that one shouldn't have been created.

It's always been just the opposite. Look what's happened. Look how much it's helped the fish population outside of the marine protected area because there is some place where you have this undisturbed ability for this species to be able to thrive and reproduce, etcetera. So I just...

The fish populations in the world are on a diet, but it's a starvation diet and a few places where we can really help them. The final thing I would just like to offer, I spent a lot of time when I was on the East Coast studying and watching what happened with fish populations. And this was the normal pattern. The science would all come together and say, if we don't decrease fishing by 40%, decrease our takes by 40%, this population of this species is going to collapse.

And all the opposition from the people that wanted to continue to commercially fish those areas was, no, no, no, it's not that. It's pollution that's causing the population problems. It's acidification, plastic. There was always some other reason. The science couldn't put 100% allocation of that.

Then what would happen is they would be able to block that, and they would turn around and come back a couple of years later and the population had done exactly what the scientists said it was going to do. It plunged even more. And now the science came and said, we have to cut back the catch by 80% if we want to save the species. And the opposition would say, you know what, we'll take a 40% cut.

And acknowledging now that it was a problem and what would happen is they would get the 40% cut and then the population would continue to drop until the species would collapse and you would have a real problem. So that's, the marine protected sanctuaries is the opposite of that.

It is erring on the side of making sure we have some areas. And I have, again, great respect for the agencies, and I don't think this is going to overly cause agencies to adopt areas that should not be adopted in terms of marine protected areas. But it does put us on record as recognizing the great value. So with that, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote, unless there are more questions.

I just wanted to follow up and say thank you. I think, you know, it was important to know that that was out there. You made it very clear that, you know, the economic balance, especially for cities that count on that, is in consideration. So when it is picking time and where you're going to be doing the 30 by 30, that making sure that we don't lose jobs out of this state and revenue, especially when we're in a budget deficit, is really important. So I appreciate you clarifying that.

And in the long run, I believe there'll be more jobs, there'll be more recreation jobs, there'll be more recreational fishing opportunities if we do a good job of having a good balance in terms of the ecosystem in the ocean. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Gallagher.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think for me, I get the intent. It's important that we're protecting the biodiversity of our coastal waters. I just feel like, you know, that there is a little bit of, like, putting our thumb on the scale here when there's already a pretty robust process going on right now in the 30 by 30 and with several agencies and many stakeholders involved. I guess for me, why don't we see how that comes out and see what they're kind of determining in terms of maybe MPAs are part of that in certain areas, but maybe it's, you know, that's not the only way.

And I think that's what a lot of the folks are pointing out. It's not the only way to provide for conservation and that many areas globally have found ways to combine and meet conservation goals while still allowing for recreational fishing. And these are, it's important. These are livelihoods that need to be protected as well.

And so to me, I just feel like, let's let that process kind of work itself out. Let's see how that comes out when we have some more information, rather than saying, hey, we want you to prioritize MPAs. So that's where I'm at. That's why I can't support today. But I do get the intent.

Anyone else? Okay, and you've already closed, or would you like the opportunity to close? Thank you. And do we have a second?

Yes. Since we did have another, if I could just respond to that. Again, this is a resolution. I don't think it unduly places our thumb on the scale, but what it does do is it gives us an opportunity to recognize the tremendous value of these marine protected areas. And the science just keeps coming in more and more positive in terms of that. So, recognizing that is all that we and the sponsors are asking for with this resolution. And it certainly does not ban recreational fishing. It doesn't do anything. It just says, hey, we, as a Legislature, want you to know these things are really working.

And to the extent that you can prioritize them, we hope that you do. And I also want to thank Azul. And if I could just read this, they are a grassroots environmental justice organization working with Latino communities in particular to conserve the ocean and the coast. And my apologies for not knowing you guys are going to be here today as the sponsors to speak, but I really appreciate the support that they've had in terms of doing that. Thank you very much, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Bennett. With that, we'll go ahead and take a vote.

Item number one, ACR 210. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that open. And with that, I believe I saw Senator Archuleta.

Whenever you're ready, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, today I'm presenting Senate Bill 1330, which would enact changes to the 2018 law, also known as making water conservation way of life.

Based on recommendations from the Legislative Analyst Office, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, the State Water Resources Control Board staff, and the Association of California Water Agencies.

Let me begin by accepting the committee's amendments and expressing my appreciation for your time and your committee, the time that they've spent with my staff and the co-sponsors on this bill. I appreciate all your efforts.

The 2018 law establishes a framework for long term improvements in urban water use efficiency and drought planning as California adapts to the climate change impacts. The legislation requires long term urban water use efficiency standards that require urban retail water suppliers to exceed the statewide 2020 water conservation targets required by the 2007 legislation.

The state board, in accordance with the Department of Water Resources, was required to adapt long term standards, variances, guidelines and methodologies for calculating urban water use objective by June 30, 2022. Members, let me be clear: local and state actions have led to water use efficiency gains to extend that are to the extent that our water areas use roughly the same total amount of water today as they did in 1990. Despite significant population growth, achieving greater water use efficiency will be costly.

Some estimate that the costs for water suppliers to comply with the 2018 laws will exceed $10 billion statewide to conserve about 400,000-acre feet of water, or about 1% of our water usage. This effort will result in higher monthly water bills for our constituents, and yours is light.

Increasing water urban use efficiency will not only be a simple task and will rely heavily on our constituents making changes inside and outside of their homes of their usage.

This bill, Senate Bill 1330 extends deadlines in the 2018 laws to match current scheduled in the State Water Board final regulation requires that the Department of Water Resources to update landscape data in the future and require the Department to conduct additional studies over time and the water suppliers comply with the regulation beginning next year and beyond 2040.

Senate Bill 1330 will not alter the pending final state board regulation, which is scheduled for adoption next week.

Both Senate Bill 1330 and the final regulation will provide water suppliers the time needed to collaborate with their customers to achieve meaningful water savings while considering cost affordability and suppliers good faith efforts on their part to meet water use objectives.

And it is amazing what we're doing here in California, and I think all of us are trying to conserve, and this is a big step forward. For these reasons, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today, I have Tom Coleman, General Manager of Rowland Water District, and Bob Reeb, the Reeb Governmental Relations, to testify in support of Senate Bill 1330 and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much. Which witness would like to go first? Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Tom Coleman. I'm representing the co-sponsors of SB 1330, which are Rowland Water District, Walnut Valley Water District and Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company. We acknowledge the importance of conserving water resources and remain committed to the goal of making conservation a way of life.

Our three agencies have long been at the forefront of urban water conservation efforts. My district alone has reduced 27% of our water demand over the past decade. The proposed state board regulations will require us to reduce water use by an additional 29% for a 50% reduction in water use from 2013.

That will require significant changes in our rate structure and the recovery of fixed costs. We appreciate the efforts of the state board to incorporate feedback from water agencies and adjust conservation mandates in their regulatory proceedings. Through SB 1330, we seek future review of efficiency standards and reporting to the legislator to ensure effective implementation of the regulation.

SB 1330 will help reduce the cost impacts of the current timeline established by the 2018 laws and enable regulators, retail water suppliers and consultants to develop cost effective approaches to achieving greater reductions in water use.

Our goal is to improve data collection and analytics and refine methodologies and approaches to implement a conservation program over time that costs less for all water ratepayers, especially those that reside in disadvantaged communities where water affordability is already a concern.

SB 1330 aims to strike a balance between achieving conservation goals through rigid mandates and financial costs and lifestyle changes that will be required to do so. For this reason, we support SB 1330 and urge and aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, members: first want to start off by thanking Committee staff for the amount of time and energy that they poured into the amendments that were accepted and always enjoy working with the consultant. I know it's going to turn a little red right now, but that's the only way I can really get to them.

So let me just make it clear that the state board is scheduled to adopt the final regulation next on July 3. This bill is not going to be on the Governor's desk next Thursday, although we would prefer that, but we've still got some work to do.

The second point is that nothing in this bill conflicts with anything in the state board regulation. This bill truly is forward looking. The 2018 laws were enacted eight years ago, and a lot of the standards and compliance will happen as far as eight to 15 years in the future.

A lot changes in that time, climate changes, technology changes, the habits of people with their homes and what they have in terms of landscape and, and irrigation.

And, I mean, people are turning off the water when they brush their teeth and when they shave and all this stuff that was like, you know, a big thing, you know, 30 or 40 years ago.

So as things change, as we implement this very complex regulation, this bill asked the Department of Water Resources and State board to take a look at how landscape, for example, is working in terms of the efficiency standards for outdoor landscape.

If there needs to be changes, then the legislature will hear from the Legislative Analyst Office because of this bill from the Department of Water Resources and from the Director and the chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. Again, forward looking, not in conflict with the regulation.

There's been some concern by the opposition about the emergency regulation provision in this bill that was put in at the request of state board staff. Again, the bill doesn't do anything to change the regulation at this point in time.

But should it, before we get it hopefully downstairs, or I guess - I'm showing my age - upstairs, to the Governor, we want to make sure that if there are changes, they're not going to force the state board into another very lengthy regulatory process.

So, emergency regulations for this bill only will provide a quicker and a cheaper path to getting this reflected in regulations going forward. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair, members: Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee. This bill we originally opposed, and then natural resources and water amended it to change it to just delaying the dates, and then it was amended again, and we went opposed. And now the committee amendments largely take care of our issues. But we still are concerned that it is perhaps premature.

And given the contentious nature of the regulatory process as we've gone through this multiple times, it suggests that any future change through regulation would likely be similarly contentious and would need to go through and have a thorough vetting to make sure that all the issues are balanced.

So, understand why the state board staff would like to have emergency regs. But you know, the statutes have been in place since 2018. I have the scars from working on those bills, and they're the ones who are adopting the regulations now. They should be able to manage a future regulatory process in a similar sort of a way.

So for those reasons, we remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any members of the audience wish to tell us yay or nay, please?

Paul Helliker, San Juan, and strong support.

Ashley Walker with the Olivenhain Municipal Water District in support.

Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support.

Okay with that. I'll bring it to the committee. Any questions? Do we have a motion? We did have a motion and a second. Great. So the recommendation is do pass as amended to Approps. With that, let's take a vote. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator.

Item number eight, SB 1330, motion do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, we'll leave that open for additional votes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Madam Chair, council, and committee members. Thank you.

Senator Min.

Morning.

Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. I wanted to start by noting that we are accepting the Committee's proposed amendments, and I want to thank the staff for their incredible work on the language here. SB 1402 would require all state agencies to consider the 30 by 30 goal when adopting, revisiting, or establishing their plans, policies, or regulations. In 2020, Governor Newsom issued an executive order to adopt a goal to conserve at least 30% of California's land and coastal waters by the year 2030.

To ensure that this goal remained a commitment for future administrations, the Legislature passed my bill, SB 337, to codify the 30 by 30 goal. California is home to one of 25 global biodiversity hotspots, but this biodiversity is under threat from climate change, habit loss, and pollution.

We know that conservation and 30 by 30 are the best tools we have to prevent future extinctions, protect our biodiversity and ecosystems. And while California has made some investments in conservation to further this 30 by 30 goal, it is critical that this goal also be something that's reflected in the plans, policies, and regulations of our state agencies. I have no witnesses today, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Do we have a second? We have a second. Great. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Not seeing any. Do we have any me-toos?

Good morning. Tasha Newman on behalf of several organizations, including: Bolsa Chica Land Trust, Big Sur Land Trust, the California Council of Land Trusts, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the Wildlands Conservancy, all in support. Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Members. Kai Cooper on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, California State Parks Foundation, Sempervirens Fund, East Bay Regional Park District, and Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in support. Thank you.

Erin Woolley on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee in support. We wanted to be on the plus side on one of these bills.

Michael Jarred on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity in support. Thank you.

Excellent. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Item number 11, SB 1402. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Papan. Aye. Addis. Aye. Alanis. Alvarez. Bennett. Gallagher. Davies. Aye. Garcia. Aye. Hart. Aye. Luz Rivas. Aye. Schiavo. Aye. Villapudua. Aye. Weber. Aye.

Weber aye.

Okay, we'll leave that open. Thank you, Senator. I want to get some additional votes that folks have missed. We'll start with the consent calendar while we wait for Senator Allen.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll go through some of the other bills.

Okay. Item number one, ACR 210. [Roll call] And item number two, SB 366. [Roll call] Item number three, SB 632. [Roll call] Item number four, SB 1110. [Roll call] Okay, consent. Consent. Okay. Item number eight, SB 1330. [Roll call] Item number nine, SB 13. Oh, sorry, we haven't done that one. Item number 10, SB 1390. [Roll call]

Okay, and that's it for now.

Caught up. But Senator Allen, I'm hopeful, is on his way. I have to go present a bill, so I'll turn it over to Assembly Member Alanis. Good timing. Take it away, Senator Alle.

Appreciate the support. This is all about providing a voluntary fund to help our state parks that are in desperate need. Happy to answer more questions, but respectfully ask for any vote.

Thank you. You have a witness?

Yes, Liz Forsberg from the Nature Conservancy.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Liz Forsberg and I'm the Director of External Affairs and Policy for the Nature Conservancy. And we're here today in strong support of SB 1332.

California's more than 280 state parks are rich in biodiversity, support healthy and resilient ecosystems, and offer many important benefits to all Californians, such as providing outstanding outdoor recreation opportunities and protecting critical wildlife habitat. California has made significant investments to protect and conserve these lands.

However, dedicated resources for stewardship and management are necessary to ensure that they remain healthy landscapes and continue to benefit all Californians. And while we are excited about the possibility of a climate bond, thanks to Senator Allen and Assembly Member Garcia's leadership, general obligation bond funding can only be used to acquire and protect lands.

Stewardship and management activities are not eligible for bond funding. The lack of funding for stewardship has resulted in a deferred maintenance backlog totaling more than 1 billion for the Department of Parks and Recreation alone. As the impacts of climate change intensify, management and stewardship of California State Parks and conservation lands will become increasingly important.

SB 1332 would establish the Conservation Stewardship Endowment Fund to provide dedicated resources for the management of California State parklands. The creation of Endowment Fund would allow California to protect its investments in state parks by essentially creating an investment account to pool together public and private dollars that can pay for stewardship over time.

As such, a SB 1332 will ensure that our state parks continue to provide important benefits to all Californians for generations to come. And we respectfully request your aye vote.

And let me just clarify. I am accepting the committee amendments, and I appreciate the work of the Committee and the Chair.

We're just getting to that. Thank you, Senator. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Members of the audience, in favor or opposed?

Tasha Newman, on behalf of Bolsa Chica Land Trust in support.

Michael Jarred, on behalf of the California Institute for Biodiversity in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the Committee? Comments? We had a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Appreciate your, your interest in this important issue. Our parks are really in deep need of some TLC for a lot of reasons. I'd love to talk more with folks about it, but this is a step in that helping to address that issue, and I respectfully as for an aye vote.

Thank you very much for the bill, Senator. We really appreciate it. This will be do pass as amended to Approps. So, we'll go and take a vote.

Okay. Item number 10, SB 1332. [Roll call]

Thank you, Members. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Luz.

Sure. Of course.

[Roll Call]

With that, we'll adjourn. Thank you.