Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning. If Members of the Committee could come to room 113 so we could establish quorum, that would be great. We have one Bill and one resolution on today's hearing agenda.

The Bill will be heard pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10D as Assembly amendments created a new Bill and upon return to the Senate for concurrence. The Senate Rules Committee referred the Bill to this Committee for hearing. We will hear because the author is not here, we will hear the resolution first.

And so we will begin as a Subcommitee at this point. So, Assemblymember Bennett, you are here to present your resolution. You can proceed whenever you are ready.

Thank you very much, Chairman Minh and Members of the Subcommitee. ACR 120 declares a legislator's support for new and existing marine protected areas and urges state agencies, councils, and commissions to prioritize these areas. The Legislature passed 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. Currently, California has 124 protected areas, which covers approximately 852 sq miles of state waters, and that equates to about 16% of all the coastal waters covered by an MPA.

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

With me today, I have Laura Deehan from Environment California and Tomas Valadez from Azul, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. For purposes of time, we'll limit each witness's testimony to two minutes.

Okay. Thank you so much, chair, and thank you so much, assemblymember Bennett, for your leadership on this. So, my name's Laura Deehan, I'm the Director for Environment California, and I we are really proud to join fellow co sponsors NRDC, Azul, and the Environmental Defense center in bringing forward this resolution.

California is an incredible biodiversity hotspot, with whales, sea otters, sea turtles, other wildlife that call it home. And more than 20 years ago, the California Legislature took an incredible step to protect that biodiversity by passing that law, the Marine Life Protection Act. And we've now had this marine protected area network in place for more than a decade.

And the first big report card came out, and it showed it's really working. There's more biodiversity, there's more fish within our marine protected areas, and they're really allowing wildlife to thrive where we have these state parks in the water. And the other good news is the science is showing that the marine protected areas are more resilient in the face of climate change and the stressors that we're seeing. However, our ocean is still threatened today.

We're seeing more pollution problems, we're seeing major impacts from climate change, and an increase in marine heat wave events, which are having cascading impacts on the ecosystem. For example, more than 90% of our state's kelp forest was decimated in just the last decade.

And as the state is taking the initiative to protect 30% of our ocean by 2030, leading the charge for more nature, we really need to build on the proven track record and the success of our state's marine protected area network as we move forward.

And I think the public agrees more than there was a recent Public Policy Institute of California poll this past July, and they found 81% of Californians support expanding California's marine protected area network. So we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

A few minutes, and you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Good morning, Chairman, Committee Members, and staff. My name is Tomas Valadez. I'm the California Policy Associate for Azul. Azul is an ocean justice organization working with the Latinx community to protect the ocean and coast. California is a global conservation leader.

As the first us state to commit to the 30 by 30 goal, how we get there matters. Our agencies have limited time and resources. With only a little over five years left before 2030, California must prioritize actions such as expanding our MPA network to maximize biodiversity and climate resilience benefits.

Expanding our MPA network is one of the best opportunities we have to protect our state's coast and ocean and increase resilience to climate change impacts.

Azul has long advocated that the pursuit of the 30 by 30 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. Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett and Chairman, for bringing attention to this administration priority. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? All others wishing to testify should limit their comments to their name, affiliation, and position on the measure. Seeing no one else in support will move on to any lead witnesses in opposition? Do we just have one? You have up to four minutes if you'd like to take it.

If I take four minutes, please feel free to throw me out. Mark Smith, on behalf of a coalition of recreational angling organizations, including the Coastal Conservation Association of, California, the American Sport Fishing Association, All waters, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, recognize that this is a resolution and recognize that the authorization is an esteemed gentleman who we've worked with productively on a number of issues, but do have a couple observations about this resolution.

The MPA debate is a rather acrimonious one. Some of the Members on this Committee undoubtedly are aware of that, were around when the MPA network was first established over a decade ago.

The public process for that should be at the Fish and Game Commission, in the committees, and in the spaces where public dialogue is brought forward in a meaningful manner.

We object to this resolution because we believe that the sponsors of the resolution, who are also the petitioners in the current MPA decadal review process, are seeking a massive expansion of the MPA network and using a resolution like this to influence the outcome of what should be a discussion in a public body, in a public forum.

Beyond that, we do believe that there are other alternatives to protecting California's biodiversity and achieving our 30 by 30 goals. Beyond a massive expansion of the MPA network, there are those who suggest that in order to meet 30 by 30 protection standards, we need to double the existing MPA network.

All of the stressors that were mentioned by the witnesses and support have nothing to do with the impacts of recreational angling. They have to do with much larger global impacts that are affecting our oceans and our fisheries. The last thing I'd like to point out is that there's a little bit of an irony here.

One of the tenants of 30 by 30 is access for all, opportunity for all, particularly to communities of color and folks who don't often recreate out in the ocean space. The MPA networks and previous versions of this resolution called for what are known as highly protected MPAs, which prohibit all access, including recreational access.

We actually think that that runs contrary to the principles of 30 by 30, and therefore, we respectfully urge your opposition to the resolution today. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses here? Seeing none, we will allow the author to, I guess we'll bring it back to the dais. Do any of our Members have any questions or comments? Senator Laird?

Yes, I have a comment and then a question, and he'll need to hear this to be able to close, so I'm glad you didn't go to his close.

The comment is that there's sort of a clash in some ways of goals here, as was intimated I was really involved in the marine protected areas and negotiating with the tribes to bring them on board and doing lots of things. And the thing is, is a marine protected area system is really based on science.

And that, and then adaptively managed against the science. And the conflict here is the Governor set a numerical goal, and the numerical goal isn't necessarily based on the science.

And so, and we were talking briefly because I gave you a heads up and Laura walked up and Laura and Azul proposed an additional marine protected area off of Santa Cruz that led to, let's just say, a lively discussion.

And I facilitated a 15 stakeholder meeting for the conversation that maybe should have been held before it was proposed. And I think in Laura's defense, she really thought Fish and Game Commission is the science process, and we will launch it into that process. But there were various people that didn't have bases touched that came out against it.

Very concerned at the beginning. And interestingly, given Mark's testimony, it was local surfers and spear fishermen whose activities really don't affect the outcome of the take in marine protected areas that were most in opposition.

And I think in the meeting, it became clear that there was a way to do the MPA and allow certain types of recreational fishing that would have addressed the issue.

And with Mark's testimony, I would say to him that that would be addressed in the process in a way that I think there are advocates that are very environmental that would support the recreational fishing. But the problem is, as the Governor has said, we have to have 30% of our waters.

And the chair facilitated a hearing in front of this very Committee on how we were going to get there. And one of the hardest things was understanding what the percent that's been protected already and what you could get from doing the marine protected areas in General at the Chumash sanctuary. And then where does that leave us?

And it leaves us setting a numerical goal where it isn't necessarily based on the science, that is where the integrity of the program is. And so I think I'm going to support the resolution because we have to force the conversation, and that's what this resolution does. But it is a conversation.

And it really, and for the record, the thing that drove me crazy when I had a position that it drives Senator Grove crazy that I mentioned is that it took ages for the science to come. And so the first protected area wasn't even state. It was off of the Channel Islands. It may well be in your district.

And there's this interesting thing that all of a sudden people were fishing a half a mile or a quarter mile outside the boundary, and they were getting big lobsters. And so it was a statement that it was working, but the science hadn't caught up with the empirical evidence that it was happening.

And yet it is the science that allows us to adaptively manage and to go to people in the fishing industry and other places and say, this is what is actually happening. And I really worked hard, particularly with the guy that passed away who was head of the fishing thing. Pardon?

Zeke Grader.

Yeah, Zeke Grader. He and I worked against offshore oil closely in the eighties, and he was like, but we need other things, too. And I said, this isn't mutually exclusive to the other things. This is an important piece of the puzzle, and worked really hard with him to get him to do it.

So that's a long winded question of would you comment on the relationship of trying to be clear with the science and what you're trying to do with a numerical goal in your resolution?

Before we have you answer that question, since we have quorum here, let's establish that assistant, please call the roll. You have a few moments to think about your answer to that question.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Assistant notes. The quorum has been established. Assemblymember, if you'd like to respond to Senator Laird's question.

Thank you very much. And I really appreciate the question and the deep background you have in this area with all of your experiences and relating the particular concern.

First, I think you all recognize you have great staff, and I'd like to just point out the first sentence of your staff summary of the Bill of the Language, and that is that the resolution calls upon specified state agencies to prioritize as supported by science and public process and the adaptive management process, the expansion of marine protected area networks following, and it continues.

So the very first sentence of the, of your staff's summary of the resolution emphasizes both the commitment to a scientific process and a public process and the adaptive management process that is out there, number one.

Number two, yes, there is a 30 by 30 goal out there, but whether there was a 30 by 30 goal or not, where we are with climate change and its impacts would cause me to be supportive and come forward with this resolution, because the resolution, I think, is simply one way for us as the Legislature to send the message that we are increasingly concerned about the impacts of climate change and what is going on.

We are, we are recognizing that marine protected areas is just one of many tools that are out there, and we're highlighting that there is great value in moving forward. I have, as mentioned by the opposition speaker, I feel like I've been working closely with the fishing industry. We've pulled a Bill to spend more time working with them.

I think they've been appreciative of that. This does by no means says prioritize 30 by 30 over science, over process, over anything else. This simply is acknowledging the tremendous crisis that we have.

The final thing I would offer to you, Senator, and the other Members of the Committee is I went to school on the East Coast and I spent a fair amount of time monitoring as an economics major the whole issue of trying to deal with the fishing stocks and the steady collapse of fishing stocks on the East Coast.

And there is always going to be a debate over the science, and we want our best regulatory agencies using the best possible science, but consistently over and over again, when the scientists came in and said, you need to cut your take by 30% and that will stabilize the fisheries, the fishermen fought like crazy and they only were willing and they weren't willing to accept any cut.

And then when the science came back three years later and said, now you have to cut by 60% to save this fishery, the fishermen would only agree to a 30% cut. And they chased it literally all the way down over and over again.

Now, this is different when we're talking about recreation, but my point is that there has been resistance and it's valuable for the Legislature to identify that this climate crisis justifies simply making a statement that this is one of the valuable tools that are out there. So again, I really appreciate the question.

Thank you very much assemblymember, Senator Grove.

I do agree halfway with my colleague that used to be the former chair of natural resources, former secretary, apologize. Secretary. I know. Exactly. Secretary of natural resources. So I do. But I have a comment and I have a question.

As he did, the intent of the MPA's is to ensure healthy habitats by providing a variety of species, which represent significant food resources in major segments of the population.

Expanding existing areas will not do that much to protect this other species, and it creates a significant economic impact on those individuals, like Mark said, that are either commercial or sports fishermen.

And the reason why I say that is because, and you look at, I guess I'll use farming as an example because I don't operate, I don't have a coastal area. Right. So I don't deal with fishermen a lot. I eat fish. I like fish.

I like it to be caught, brought to the stores, commercial fishing, that kind of stuff.

But it drives me nuts and I'm sure, and I'm going to speak for my colleague from Stockton and she's probably going to object and do a point of order as well, that, you know, it's hard for us to sit in committees and listen to people talk to us about how farmers need to adjust to reduced water, you know, usage and how we need to regulate water for sustainable.

We both have farmers in our district that are 5,6,7 generation farmers. They know how to be sustainable. They know how to grow a sustainable crop.

But when you come in and say that you're going to take these steps with this resolution, and fishermen already know they're probably the first ones in the process to take steps to make sure that they have a sustainable food supply because it's their job, generations of a job.

There's probably 200 fishing vessels in just San Diego alone that will be likely adversely affected by policies that will be created by this resolution. Each of those vessels are family owned. You might have four or five on the ship and maybe six or eight on the shore. So very small family businesses.

And they also support, like I said, inland jobs as well. If you go to the market and sell the product and the people that transport it and all that, they already have challenging situations going on to be able to be sustainable with new, not having new technology available.

You look at sports fishermen, they might have a 10 or 12 person crew that take a group of people out to do sports fishing. All these small businesses are impacted by legislation that this resolution would provide, I'm sure. It leads to loss of business activity, loss of jobs, loss of revenues.

And like I said, I talked to a maritime lady in San Diego, Diego who's like, they call her captain Anne and she is, I don't know, 6th generation maritime professional.

She's on a maritime board and she sees the negative impacts that policies coming out of this building are going to affect their entire way of life that they've had for generations. So I guess do you have any data or have you looked at the other side of this?

You've looked at the environmental side clearly, but have you looked at the impact on the economic situation that a resolution and policies coming forward because of this resolution would have on the business climate and the business community and the access that these individuals have to legacy small businesses for decades?

Sure, I'd be happy to respond. I feel proud of the fact that I had a long line driftnet ban, a Bill that would do that, but phase it out very slowly over a long period of time so that a current operator would be able to stay in business as long as the current operator lived.

It said that the current operator couldn't keep transferring the permit for long line, which science is showing us lots of evidence, evidence of negative impacts, but it was, they would be able to continue to do that. We will not be able to address climate change.

We will not be able to address resource depletion if there aren't going to be some economic impacts. It's just there's no way that we can do that. We have to change some things. That change requires some economic dislocation. The key is to make the dislocations be as moderate and as planned and as appropriate as possible.

And I think that a Bill that identified that you continue your business, as long as you are operating. So you're asking me, do I have any personal experience with data and looking at the business side of it?

And I just want to just mention for purposes of time, we have 20 minutes left, we have another Bill. This is a resolution. This is not a.

So, yes, so my point is, and.

If you could let him answer the question, then we'll return back to you.

And my point is, and I pulled that. And I actually pulled that Bill because of those conversations. So, yes, as a Legislature, I've paid attention to the economic side of the argument.

Also, would you have any follow up, keeping in mind that this is a resolution and not a Bill?

Absolutely, I have a follow up. Okay. So my follow up again is, like I said, this resolution, have you done any at all investigation or opposite investigation as a Legislator, on the economic impacts? You just mentioned a Bill that you pulled because it had significant economic impacts.

And the reason I say that is because fishermen have been fishing since the beginning of time. Right. Whether it's indigenous peoples back in Jesus Day here on the tribal land, whatever it's been since the beginning of time, and fish have always been there.

And so I think the impacts that you have with these commercial or anglers, sports fishermen, is going to be drastic.

I have two quick answers to that question. And one, the answer is yes. And two, the answer is it is difficult to do the economic impact analysis of a resolution because you'd have to do an economic impact at anticipating what the scientific evidence is going to be that the agencies are going to find.

I don't want to get ahead. All's we're saying is it's like saying climate is a serious problem. This is a potential solution when applied properly. And so.

Thank you. Senator Daly and then, Senator Eggman,

I just have. A comment real quick. So, you know, I've been here 12 years and a resolution is not a law, but it basically says the intent of where you want to go. So I'm just going to say this for the record. You know, I've been looking for some real environmentalists around here.

We're going to do this. We're talking about a resolution here, but we are marching forward to put offshore wind, and we're not doing the holistic science we need to do to really look at the full picture of what we're doing. But we, so we're just piecemeal. We're doing this, we do that.

But at the end of the day, we need to look at the coast of California and we need to holistically look at it. When we're doing offshore wind, you talk about lines in the ocean, you're going to have thousands of lines out there coming to these ports. So for those reasons, I can't support it.

We needed to look at the coastal of California in a holistic way with the impacts to the things you've brought up, the things we've talked about with offshore wind, and we're not doing that.

And I think that is an injustice to the residents of California that rely on the coast for many things, for fishing, for recreation, for habitat and the natural. This is the wrong way to do it. If you pass this, you're saying this is intent where we want to go by the Legislature.

So for those reasons, I won't be supporting the Bill.

Senator. Senator Eggman.

thank you very much. And I don't have a question either. Some Member of a lot of respect for you, but A, I don't know why we're doing a resolution at the last minute, rushing it through like this, and B, I agree that we already have a plan and now we're going to say we're going to do this plan.

I just came from another Committee where we're going to prioritize this kind of training. So it's the patchwork that I object to. We already have a focus. Let us stay the course. So I cannot support this today and hope, like, I'm a big believer, like we should each just have 10 bills. We have 10 bills.

We get them done through the year. And we don't just keep adding and layering and adding and layering without a real focus and direction. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Eggman. Seeing, no other questions or comments from today. Assemblymember, I just want to associate my comments with those of the former secretary. Appreciate this, Bill. It is important that we get this right. And I would encourage you to keep talking with the stakeholders, including the representatives of the fishermen, as you move forward.

Thank you. With that, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Assistant, please call the. Do we have a motion? A motion from Senator Laird? The motion is that the resolution be adopted, but first be referred re referred to the Committee on appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the vote is 4-4 We'll leave that on call. Thank you very much, Assemblyman.

Thank you for your time this morning.

And now we'll move on to SB 632. Senator Caballero, thank you for your patience. You may begin presenting whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair, for the opportunity to present SB 632, which would create connectivity for an off highway vehicle, or OHV, riding area around Red Rock Canyon State park and the adjacent state and federal lands that also allow OHV recreation. This is basically to allow the access between the two areas that allow the OHV.

It's a pilot program to allow them to use the public road so they don't go off road and create damage with a report back to the Legislature. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do you have just one witness here today? Alright, we'll hear from Mister Smith, is it? Whenever you're ready. Give up to four minutes.

Mister chair, members of the Committee, Mark Smith on behalf of the Off Road Vehicle Legislative Coalition, we are in support of SB 632, which will preserve important connectivity for recreation enthusiasts while protecting natural and cultural resources in Red Rock Canyon State park. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in support? Okay, seeing none. Do we have any witnesses? Lead witnesses in opposition? Any other witnesses in opposition? Alright, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the members.

Alright.

I have one quick comment.

We have one quick comment from Senator Laird.

One of the supporting coalitions is the Jawbone coalition. And I assume they've been on the floor the last couple. Couple of days.

I think that's true.

Okay.

Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments from members? Okay, Senator Caballero, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Fantastic. We have a motion from Senator Grove. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred. Oh, wow. Okay. Alright. Senator Eggman, that's so big of you. Yes, that's big hearted. Very respectful. We have a motion from Senator Eggman. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in.

Assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that vote count is 9-0. We'll leave it on call. Right. We will now move back to ACR 210. Assistant the motion is that the resolution be adopted but first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that vote is 5-4. We'll leave it on call. Assistant we have a motion on SB 632. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. Assistant please call the roll.

The current vote is 9...

SB 632

Sb 632 The current vote is 9-0. Senator Limon? Limon. Aye.

Okay. And, well, I guess the Bill is out 10-0. Okay, we have a motion on ACR 210. Motion is that the resolution be adopted but first be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Assistant please call the roll.

The current vote is five to four. Senator Limon Senator Limon aye. Measure passes.

Okay, that measure passes. 64. And with that, thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation. We've concluded the agenda. Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.