Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Hopefully you can hear me when I call it to order. Okay. Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for being here. We're going to get started. I want to welcome our new Members. Let's. Gonzales, are you ready? Okay. Please.

I just want to say that to ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today, this hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website. And Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 444. All right. For each Bill, we're going to allow two main witnesses in support, two in opposition.

Given the short agenda, we want to pose time limits, but you don't have to use that much time. But we do ask that you be concise. Following the primary witnesses. Remaining witness are asked just to limit their testimony to name organization and position on the Bill. At this hearing.

We'll be adopting the Committee rules once we get a quorum for the 25-26 legislative session. And we got two bills on the consent calendar, AB14, which is Hart and AB581. And then agenda item number four, AB514 by Petrie Norris has been pulled by the author.

So once we get a quorum, we'll go ahead and do some of that business. Both the consent and the Committee rules. Let's see. Assemblymember Gonzalez, we're delighted to have you this morning to present your Bill. Thank you for being on time and if I may ask you to take it away.

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members for today. So the list of exotic non game birds that can be legally managed, allowing us to better control their population in California. California is home to some of the most diverse ecosystems in the country.

And protecting this biodiversity is essential not just for our environment, but for our economy, public health and quality of life. AB764 addresses an urgent need to safeguard these valuable ecosystems and and the wildlife that depend on them. Mute swans are an invasive species in California and they pose a significant. They pose significant threats to our native wildlife.

These birds are highly territorial and aggressive, often displacing native waterfowl species like ducks and Geese. By passing AB764, we will be able to implement more effective management strategies, ensuring better protection for our native species and ecosystems. This Bill represents a critical step in preserving the natural beauty and biodiversity of California for future generations to enjoy.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I am joined today by Mark Smith and Mark Hennelly. Mark Hennelly is. Mark Smith is not here. Who are available to answer any technical questions you may have.

Are we having any testimony from One of the Marks. .

If that's all right. If you'll indulge me. All right, thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Mark Henley with California Waterfowl.

This Bill is a much needed legislation in our view to help Department of Fish and Wildlife control mute swan populations, which have increased significantly in recent years in California and frankly are threatening to establish resident populations throughout the state. Just over the last two years, their population has risen 71%. They're 535% above their long term average.

So it's one of those cases. If the population gets too large and out of control, it may be beyond our ability then to really effectively manage them. So we want to get ahead of the problem. As was referenced by the Assembly Member, these swans are very aggressive, very large. They can weigh up to£25.

They drive out native waterfowl and they also frankly degrade wetland habitat. As you all know, We've lost over 90% of our historic wetlands. And so we want to make sure that the few acres that we have remaining are managed properly and have full ecological value.

Mute swans are not just a problem in California, but they also are a problem in other parts of the country. So Great Lakes Northeast have had quite a few swan issues there In Chesapeake Bay, the State of Maryland adopted a similar approach to what we're doing, you know, considering today.

And they were able to bring the population down on Chesapeake Bay from about 4,000 down to less than 200. So it was very effective, their management strategy.

I would just close by saying we also have, you know, in our state already, strategies to control nutria, which are a problem in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta similar to mute swans. We have them for house sparrows, starlings and rock pigeons. So essentially what we're considering today would be consistent with what is already practiced for those birds. So we urge your support and thank you for the consideration.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. And you're the other Mark's not here, I'm assuming?

Correct.

Okay, great. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? And before we do that, if we could call roll, because we do have a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, let me get through this item and then we'll do this. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward or forever hold your peace. Okay. Any questions from the Committee at all? Comments? Questions? Going once, going twice. Would you like to close?

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to present this Bill. And I respectfully, respectfully request an aye vote.

Terrific. Okay, thank you so much. Do we have a second from Caloza? And we'll go ahead and take a vote on that, and then we'll vote on our consent calendar and our rules.

[Roll Call]

Okay, and we'll leave that open if anybody else shows up and wants to add on. But things are looking good. Okay, with that, do we have a motion on the rules for 2526? Second. Okay, we got Hart. And then we have Mr. Rogers. Go ahead and take a vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that open, but I think we've got enough to pass that one. And now do we have a motion on the consent? Second from Coloza.

[Roll Call]

Okay, and we'll leave that open for future takers. I'm not seeing any authors. Where's Coloza? I see you. Come on down. Take it away.

I spared you all of my Swan puns.

Including the mute muting the swans.

All right. Good morning, Chair Papan, colleagues. I'm really excited to present before our Committee today to present AB616, or as I like to call it, park for all. AB 616 authorizes state parks to transfer annual day use passes to the state library free of charge.

This Incredible program provides 33,000 physical passes with a minimum of three passes at every library location, including mobile libraries. AB616 will create a safety net ensuring the program remains available even when General Fund Support is limited. I believe that all Californians, regardless of income, deserve access to our State park parks.

AB 616 promotes outdoor recreation, provides more equitable access to California's beautiful state parks which are often underutilized, especially by a lot of low income communities. In my own districts I go to and many of our constituents get to enjoy the outdoors by visiting Rio De Los Angeles State Park.

Currently, the State library park's pass program is funded on a year to year basis. A significant portion of its costs come from the state library purchasing having to purchase each annual pass from the Department of Parks and Recs at market rate due to state laws that prohibit one agency from gifting funds or resources to another.

So funding for the program has been at risk in difficult budget years threatening the availability of this highly successful initiative and limiting public access state parks.

A survey conducted by the California State Parks found that nearly 9,000 or 80% of first time visitors using the pass cited cost barriers or a lack of awareness as a reason they have never visited a state park before. This program helps break down these barriers, encouraging Californians to explore and enjoy the outdoors.

Here with me today to support this Bill is Abigail Smet on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation.

Thank you. Abigail Smet on behalf of California State Parks Foundation, thank you so much for giving us a moment today. I won't reiterate necessarily all the details of this Bill as the Assembly Member just went over, but I will emphasize how incredibly successful this program has been in the three or four years that it's been operating since 2021 when it was established through the state budget.

This provides free access for anyone who has access to a local library, which is everyone, right? Anyone can get a library card. And if you can get a library card, this Bill would help ensure that you can also go see our state parks.

This is really across the board the most equitable way to provide access to state parks. There are a lot of other programs that do this which are also wonderful. But this is kind of the lowest common denominator or lowest common barrier that folks can overcome to be accessing these parks.

So we really appreciate you giving us some time to hear this proposal and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Terrific. Thank you so much. Any, we cannot possibly have anybody in opposition. How'd you like how I teed that up? Nobody would dare come down. That's okay. Any comments or questions from the Committee, Mr. Tangipa?

Well, thank you. And I just wanted to say I'm very supportive of this program and the benefit for Families, especially those that are homeschooling libraries in my district, have seen a lot of people utilize this program. I actually have my Chief of Staff, who he takes a lot of pride.

He found out that people didn't even know about this program, went told a bunch of families that were part of homeschool programs and just different ones that didn't know, and they are now overwhelmed with how many people utilize it. So we have a ton of state parks in my district. We love to call it the outdoor district.

So this is great legislation that ensures that people continue to visit parks. Additionally, this Bill isn't a mandate, which I appreciate. I'm happy to support the Bill and I just wanted to say thank you for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member

I just want to thank the author for presenting this Bill and more importantly, for reaching out and helping clarify any confusion. I really do appreciate the. The ability to just kind of have a conversation, clear up any confusion. And that just goes to your professionalism, and I thank you for that. And I'm along with Assemblymember Rogers, I move the Bill.

Excellent. I would concur. First of all, thank you for bringing the Bill because I know this has been on your radar to bring forward and it is popular in my city as well. And I feel like as. As our housing situation gets denser and denser, the opportunity to be outdoors becomes more and more important. So I thank you for bringing the Bill. And let's get on with parks for all. Shall we take a vote? Okay.

[Roll Call]

Well, I was going to be a no, but I was convinced by this.

[Roll Call]

Excellent. Thank you so much. And I. Do we have the entire Committee here at this point? Not yet. Okay. We'll leave it open for add ons, but that has a do pass and I don't know where you're going, but I'm sure it'll be successful. Where are you headed? Approps.

Yeah. Thank you, colleagues. And if anybody would like to add on as a co author, we will follow up. So thank you all so much.

I'll add on.

Oh, thank you. Oh, Parks for all.

I mean, come on. Okay. Excellent. Excellent. So Mr. Bennett, now that I got you and now that you've buttered me up, might as well take it.

Good. Thanks a lot for coming. Good to see you. Appreciate it. Madam Chair and Members, AB293 will enhance transparency and accountability in groundwater management by requiring groundwater sustainability agencies to publish the membership of their board of directors on their website or local agency's website.

This Bill also requires GSAs to publish a link to the Fair Political Practices Commission website where the Board of Directors Statements of Economic interest or form 700s can be viewed.

While many GSAs already publish the membership of their boards of directors, it's vital that we ensure the public can easily access this information across all 260 of California's GSAs.

Current regulations require GSA Board of Directors to file form 700-00, but there's no mandate for GSAs to actively disclose Board Membership or provide easy access to these economic interest statements. And I'm going to stop here and talk about what motivated me to do this.

When I first was elected and came up here, my major focus was on groundwater. And I asked my staff, I said, trying to get an idea of who are on these GSAs.

And so I asked my staff, the talented staff that was eventually hired by the chair, to research and find out who were the people on these GSAs. It was really difficult to start figuring that out.

And I went, if it's difficult for an Assembly Member's office to figure out who's on the GSAs, just think about the average public that is out there. So dozens of public officials, including planning commissions, are already required to maintain a link to the Fair Political Practice Commission on their website.

In addition to publishing the names of the officials who file form 700. Now, planning commissions are focused on the important resources of a particular county, a particular city. The groundwater sustainability agencies are focused on a very important resource and that is the groundwater that has an enormous impact on the people of the community.

So AB293 is a simple step to build public trust, strengthen accountability, and protect one of California's most vital resources for future generations. It ensures the public can easily access information about the individuals responsible for managing our groundwater. And with me today is Catherine Van Dyke, Community Alliance with Family Farms, to speak in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Chair Papan and Members. My name is Catherine Van Dyke. I'm the Deputy Director of Water Policy for the Community alliance with Family Farmers, also known as Cafe Caf, represents over 8,000 small and mid sized family farmers in California.

And has worked for more than 45 years to preserve family scale agriculture and promote environmental sustainability. I'm here today to speak in favor of AB293, which supports transparency of groundwater sustainability agencies. As the only agricultural group to support the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management act, or sgma, CAF respects the nuanced needs of groundwater regulation in California.

The local control approach of groundwater sustainability agencies ensures that communities can steward their groundwater resources and work with the state to reach sustainable groundwater use. However, we believe that transparency for GSA boards is critical to ensuring that local control does not equate to undisclosed conflicts of interest.

We respect and value the opportunity for public participation in GSA boards and believe that AB293 will help the wider public to understand who is shaping roles for their local sub basin.

In our efforts to help family farmers understand their local groundwater sustainability plans and the potential impacts of demand management actions, it can be challenging to understand the board composition and who has decision making power in the gsa. Having a standardized system to disclose this at a local level will support transparency.

Some GSAs do this, but many do not. CAF supports AB293 as a helpful next step following last year's passage of SB 1156, which requires GSA board Members to complete the Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests.

Given that underrepresented small farmers are often not considered in groundwater sustainability plans and are seldom included on GSA boards or committees, more transparency is critical to SGMA success and the survival of family farmers in California. We urge your yes vote on AB293. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition? Okay, anybody want to come forward in favor? Anybody want to come forward and give a opposition? Okay, this is opposition. Yeah.

... Association of California Water Agencies.

Okay, anybody else? Going once, going twice. Questions or comments from the Committee? Assemblymember Gonzalez?

I'd just like to thank the author for bringing up this. This Bill. I appreciate the. The. The ask for transparency as we need that in all forms of government. So that's great. I just need some clarification so that way I can understand this a little bit better.

It seems as though from my perspective that there's already transparency with every single Member of the gsa. Conflicts of interest forms, so on and so forth. So I guess my question would be why do we need another layer of redundancy, if you will.

Maybe you see something that I don't see and I'd like some clarity on that, please, because it's.

It's simply not a mandate. Some. Some GSAs do it, some GSAs don't do it, but it's not a mandate. And there are GSAs that, you know, make it very difficult for people to know that because they don't post all of that information.

So in this. In this Bill. Thank you for that, by the way, and I appreciate that there's not a mandate. I do agree that there needs to be a mandate across the board. So thank you for that clarification. Great.

Thank you, Assemblymember Macedo

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. I think we share our love of groundwater and our wanting to protect it. I do have concerns because I have worked with a lot of these GSAs that it's hard sometimes to get people to serve on these boards.

And we do already have a lot of reporting mandates on the Members of the GSA board that. I do have concerns that this added layer will make them fearful of, you know, their political actions outside of the GSAs. Not saying that they're any nefarious, but they do have personal lives outside of the GSAs. So I am going to oppose this Bill for those reasons, but do appreciate your candor and wanting transparency in our government. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Do we have a motion? Okay, Rogers, then Rodriguez, let's take a vote. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully, in response to the. To the one specific reason raised in terms of opposition, and that is, you know, if. If we take this position that, hey, people, one more thing. It's hard to get people to step forward.

If you want to step forward and manage a public resource, you shouldn't have any problems making it clear that you're doing that and that everybody. That there is transparency. So I just think that the public clearly benefits from that.

And if there is somebody that won't step forward for that reason, that's in my mind a good reason for us to. To work harder to find some people who are willing to step forward and comply. Thank you very much. And with that, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Bennett.

[Roll Call]

Okay, and we'll leave that open. Thank you so much, Mr. Bennett. Thank you. Assemblymember Bennett, Assembly Member Soria.

Come Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the amendments in the Committee analysis and thanking the Committee's staff for their work on this Bill. AB 639 makes a narrow exception to the definition of dams to ensure it does not inadvertently apply additional unnecessary regulatory burden on weir operators.

Weirs are water impounding structures intended to control the depth of water channels to aid in water deliveries to farms and ranches during times of low flow. These structures are operated by placing removable flash boards against a fixed structure to temporarily raise water levels to enable water diversions.

These structures do not typically cross the entirety of rivers or streams and allow for rapid deployment of removal of flashboards, significantly reducing the risk and impact of a structural failure.

Despite this, the current definition of dam in the water code inadvertently captures some of these structures and places them under the same level of maintenance, inspection and fee structures as dams. AB 639 corrects this oversight and preserves California's high standards for dam safety.

Here today, with me to testify in support of AB639, we have David Merritt, the General manager for the Kings River Conservation District as well as Chris Ferrari from GEI Engineering to answer any technical questions that you all may have.

So Madam Chair, Committee, thank you very much for your time today. Again, my name is David Merritt. I'm the General manager for Kings River Conservation District. The KRCD manages about 1.2 million acres of agricultural lands within Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties. We've approached Assembly Members story on this Bill and greatly appreciate her taking this up.

You know, after our experience in history of Weir's operation on the Kings, which is 100 plus years, these structures are of average age and we have seen no issues with human health or safety as a result of their operation. We also wanted to look at ways to reduce regulatory burden on our agricultural community.

And we thought that this was a great place to try and find some of those areas to alleviate those concerns. And in addition, we commissioned GEI Chris Ferrari to do a very in depth engineering analysis of these weirs. And through that process we were able to show that there were no issues with these.

If they were to fail with that, I would ask for your support on this and we'd be available for additional questions and or.

Okay, great. And I'm sure you weren't there all 100 years. Okay. Just clarifying that, please. Do you have a second witness? Go ahead.

Yes, my name is Chris Ferrari. I'm a water resources engineer with GEI Consultants here in Sacramento. Part of my evaluation. I'll just give you an overview of the valuation. We provided a hydraulic model which analyzes the Kings River from Pine Flat on down into discharges in the Sanke River.

What I was tasks to do during irrigation low flow times is look at these structures that are located in the river with they just store water. We felled each hypothetically, and each of the flow from the failures of these structures would just stay within the river conveyance.

So it opposed no, you know, no health or safety risk if these were to fail. So that was basically just an overview of what I accomplished with this evaluation.

And then to add one additional comment. We did provide you all with a handout here. So you could actually see a little bit more of the technicality with these weirs, you know, these, these structures that we are looking at. This, you Know11 in particular, as you can see, it does not cross the entire channel.

It only crosses a very small portion of that channel. And then on the high flow channel, again, that water is allowed to flow around these types of structures that again, that are used for the agricultural delivery of water.

I'd just like to say I think you get an A plus for handouts.

I would like to thank my team for all that work.

It's very vivid. And all joking aside, I actually really appreciate it because it tells a thousand or if not 100,000 words. So I appreciate that. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Any public comment in favor?

Raquel Ayala with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition in support. Thank you.

Jack Gualco with the Gualco Group on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers and the Kings River Water Association, in support. Thank you. Madam Chair,

Good morning. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau, in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen on behalf or on behalf of the Tulare Lake Water Storage District, in support. Thank you.

Great. Any public comment in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions. Assemblymember Bennett,

Thank you very much. I appreciate the author working with people in her district on this. I would make a request. I will vote in favor of this now, but before it comes to the floor, I would request and recommend that you narrow this down to the Kings River District specifically so that it doesn't apply statewide. I think you've done some due diligence.

You have people here that have looked at this, but there are a number, a couple of impacts of this, and one is it means now if they, they no longer have to pay fees to DWR as a result of this if of this action, which means it could make the Bill more challenging as you go to approps.

If that. If this Bill applies statewide, then it has a bigger approach, a bigger financial impact on DWR and potentially less likelihood of you getting this passed for your particular district.

The second thing is there are some regulatory issues around Wes and Rivers and having somebody, an agency in charge monitoring to make sure a wear hasn't been inappropriately modified or is a weir actually three feet below the freeboard line, you know, the high flow line, et cetera.

Those are things that again, I think we should be cautious about applying it statewide. But for the Kings river district here, that this, the area mapped here, I think it's more appropriate because you've, you have, you're going to be doing the due diligence with that.

So I would move the recommended action and at the same time offer that suggestion and request regarding the Bill.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Gonzalez, did you want to respond to that or you.

No, thank you. Thank you to Assembly Member Bennett for his comments. Appreciate the suggestions. We will be working with staff as we move along in the process to make sure that it is as narrow as possible and that in our region we can take advantage of this exception. Thank you.

Thank you to the author. How many, how many weirs are we talking about statewide? If this were a statewide.

So I can answer that. So for the Kings river, there's nine structures that we evaluated within Kings river of this type within the state plan of flood control. I don't know of any.

I've, you know, I've worked in Sacramento river system, San Joaquin river system, but, but this type within the state plan, I don't know of any with this type of structure that's used for irrigation.

And to add, and also to Assemblymember Bennett's point, the one thing I forgot to mention is Kings River Conservation District is the sponsor for the federal flood project on the Kings River. So that was under the 1944 Flood Control Act, Pine Flat Dam was built and then the channel below was a part of that project.

And we've been the local maintaining agency since, since our inception 1951. So we have a very direct relationship with these weirs and structures that are on the Kings and ensuring things are maintained properly so we can convey flood flows as needed.

And you know, in the farms in my area, what are the flood control measures called? In a canal that allows the water to enter into a, onto the farmland. What is that called? Is that also a weir?

Well, the ones I'm thinking of are they, there's two types of weirs.

The ones these are in line with that are placed in the river flow and there's some on the irrigation that are placed laterally so the river passes and they can control when the river gets to a certain elevation that it'll laterally flow into an irrigation canal.

And does this legislation speak to that as well or are we just talking about these specific type of weirs? These specific types.

It's very narrow to effectuate our region.

Okay then then I think I would, I would echo my colleagues comments with respect to if there's only nine and it's centralized to this area, then I would recommend that as well. Just because we don't have that issue anywhere else.

The question would be is if that did come up some way, some shape form in the future, how would this Bill impact that future development?

And we are, you know, we, we will work, you know, more, more with Committee staff and then along with a DSOD to, to make that determination if it does get a bit broader or more narrow from what we're asking for today.

So I want to thank KRCD for being here as well. I worked for Supervisor Nathan Magsig before this.

So I spent a lot of time at these weirs and especially when we were having the floods of 2023 and 2024, really looking at the importance and the vital need for these, especially as we were trying to protect a lot of people downstream and a lot of communities and vital communities that needed controlled water flow.

So I just wanted to just say thank you. Thank you for the author bringing this forward as well.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? Summer Bennett, second round.

I am told, and I'll leave it to the author to confirm this later, that there are 1200 jurisdictional dams in the State of California and that Your Bill exempts 10 from that 1200 because of your definition of we're we can find out whether that's totally confined within the Kings River Conservation District or if there's a few outside of that that I do not know and we'll leave it to the author to take it from there.

We'll do our due diligence, Chairwoman, on. Making sure that our Bill is as narrow as possible to fit the needs. That we have in our region. Again, thank you, Assemblymember Bennett, for your. Suggestion and also assemble Member Gonzalez we. Look forward to continuing the work.

Obviously we're at the very beginning, but look forward to that work together so. That our region can benefit.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member Soria. With that we had who moved the Bill? Celeste Rodriguez. And then we had our Vice Chair, Assemblymer Gonzalez to second. Let's take a vote.

[Roll Call]

If there's any others add ons, we'll let you know. Thank you. Assembly Member Soria, Assembly Pelleran, you're up.

Good morning.

Please begin. Assembly Member Pellerin

Good morning. I will start by accepting the Committee's amendments. Following the devastating 2020 CZU Lightning Complex wildfire in my district, the California Department of Parks and Recreation initiated a planning process to reimagine Big Basin Redwoods, our oldest redwoods here in California.

In this effort, State Parks has partnered with various conservation organizations with the intention and shared goal with State Parks to ultimately transfer ownership of land parcels to the Department for long term protections.

The current process of state land acquisition, which requires approval by the Public Works Board and Department of General Services, is often delayed when conservation organizations end up having to wait typically years to transfer property to the Department.

It creates uncertainty for conservation partner entities regarding whether the land they purchase will be bought or accepted by the Department in a timely manner. This uncertainty and untimeliness will often leave organizations in a vulnerable position as they must continue to own and manage high conservation value lands for long periods of time.

AB679 will help provide certainty to acquisition partners by adding property acquired for Big Basin Redwoods, Ano Nuevo and Butano State Parks to the list of exemptions from the Public Works Board process.

By speeding up the land acquisition process, this Bill will serve as a model for permanently protecting lands for conservation, cultural and recreational purposes as well as helping us meet our climate goals.

With me to testify in support is Rachel Dann, who is representing the Sempervirens Fund and Abigail Smet, who is who is representing the California State Parks Foundation.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Papan and Members of the Committee. My name is Rachel Dann. I'm the Director of Government Relations at Sempervirens Fund. Sempervirence Fund is California's first land trust and the proud sponsor of this Bill.

For over 100 years, our organization has been a committed partner with State Parks to protect and connect the redwood forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains. In 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex fire burned over the entirety of Big Basin Redwoods State park, as well as portions of Butano and Ano Nuevo State Parks. In the wake of this catastrophic fire, State Parks initiated a planning process to reimagine the future of Big Basin.

The resulting vision describes the need to acquire additional land to support the relocation of of visitors serving facilities previously located within some of the most ecologically sensitive areas of the park, as well as the need to strengthen landscape connectivity, improve forest health, enhance climate resiliency among and within Big Basin, Anuevo and Butano.

All of this requires new land acquisitions to achieve. So to help fulfill this reimagining of Big Basin, the Department partnered with conservation organizations in the Santa Cruz Mountains, including our organization, Sempervirens Fund, to develop a tool for identifying land parcels adjacent to, within or near the current boundaries of these parks that are essential to realizing this vision.

Conservation organizations like ours are key partners in acquiring these lands. We often need to move quickly to purchase and protect parcels, which we then transfer to the Department. Unfortunately, the current process for transferring lands to state parks is drawn out and can take years.

In the meantime, partners like us are limited in our ability to manage and protect additional key parcels. AB679 will pilot a streamlined process for transferring lands associated with the rebuilding of Big Basin and the surrounding parks to the Department.

By allowing the Department to acquire property on its own behalf, much like the Wildlife Conservation Board, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and several other state agencies already do, AB679 is a crucial step in rebuilding the parks that have been decimated by catastrophic climate events in recent years and fulfilling the vision of a connected climate, resilient and accessible state park system in the Santa Cruz Mountains. We respectfully ask for your support and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Good morning again. Abigail Smith. On behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, I'm here to reiterate the usefulness of this proposal that was raised by the Assembly Member and Rachel.

But also to underscore that California State Park System has such a critical role to play in achieving our 30 by 30 goals, our climate resilience goals and our outdoor access goals. The state Parks manages over 1.6 million acres of protected land across the state and some of our most valuable conservation areas.

This Bill would just expedite the process to enhance and bolster some of those key and earliest pieces of conservation or conserved land in the Santa Cruz Mountains and strengthen those benefits that parks have for all Californians. So we respectfully request your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone witnesses in opposition? Okay. Any public comment in favor?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Molly Culton with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Hi. Kristen Goree in support on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and Save the Redwoods League. Thank you.

Some of my people. Any public comment in opposition? Okay, great. I will bring it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Hart,

Just wanna thank the author For carrying this Bill. Historically, visionary citizens and organizations over time have really created our state and national park systems. And they didn't have many barriers in their way to making those incredible gifts to our future generations.

And to recognize that these barriers are important, impeding what is really an important process and, and a gift to our community is astonishing on one level and. Really reassuring that you're working hard to fix that, make this more successful for the future. So thank you for carrying the Bill.

Thank you.

Would you like to move the Bill, Assembly Member Hart?

I would. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Second, from Assembly Member Boerner. Welcome. Any other comments? I. I actually. Oh, Assmeblymember Tangipa.

So, you know that this issue is near and dear to my heart. And you know, I think about some of the historical events that have happened. I look at the 2021 Sequoia Complex fire that is part of a, you know, more public lands.

And in that fire alone, 20% of the redwoods in the world were lost in that fire. And I am not supportive of more public lands when it comes to that. I am not supportive. In addition, and for A couple reasons why. So I see I was doing some of the numbers as well. And the.

This complex fire, this lightning fire, burned about 86,000 acres. And to purchase it at a price here for the state, if we just did that at $25,000 per acre, which is more than half of the actual cost, it would come out to $2.1 billion. So if we were purchasing it at $50,000 per acre, it would come out to $4 billion. And that's just the burn scar area.

And so in a position that this state is moving in, where I see budget deficits, where the LAO has reported to us that future projections are even worse, I fear that state management, because we've seen in the past that dereliction of management or our ability to have people who can service the parks properly manage the forests and manage the communities.

We've seen what that has done to our communities surrounding a lot of these state parks, national monuments, national parks as well. So not only for the budget reasons as well as my personal experience with this when it comes to state managed projects and federally managed projects, I'm going to be a no on this one.

Okay. Anything else? Well, I thank you for bringing the Bill. I appreciate the historical perspective of not having impediments and I also appreciate the 30 by 30 comments and that the conservation requirements are going to be difficult to meet. And if we can expedite that, it's common sense Bill.

Yep. Thank you.

Recommend an aye vote. Let's go. We'll take roll. Would you like to close?

Well, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And this is land that's already been purchased. This is not an extra burden to the state and it allows for continuity and and better management for wildfire prevention. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay with that. Looks like you have enough votes and we'll keep it open for whomever may come along. Thank you so much. We're waiting on Karlra. I've reached out. Hang on and hopefully we can get him here or he'll get somebody here to present with that. Let's do add ons for some of Them are burner, among others.

[Roll Call]

We're just gonna do one quick one on consent, then we'll take a Assemblymember Kalra, thank you for coming over. I know you're in the middle of Chairing Judish

[Roll Call]

What's with the bees? They couldn't get here this morning. Aseemblymember Kalra, welcome. We're delighted to have you. Thank you. It's great to be back.

First, I would like to accept the Committee's amendments. And thank you. Thank you to the chair and the Committee staff. Working with me and my staff to develop this language, AB454 will remove the California Migratory Bird Protection act sunset date, making it permanent.

For over a century, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or MBTA, has allowed the Federal Government to act against the unauthorized take of more than 1,000 native bird species. However, in 2017, the Federal Government issued a legal opinion that set the stage for significant rollbacks of the MBTA.

Specifically, this opinion indicated that MBTA should no longer apply to incidental take, I.e. the killing, capturing, transporting, trading, or selling of birds. The results from activities that are not explicitly meant to take birds. These activities are often perpetuated by industry or industrial entities that harm birds and their nests when they build and utilize their facilities.

In response to this policy shift, California enacted the California Migratory Bird Protection act, authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, which codified at the state level the version of the MBTA that was in place on January 12017.

Unfortunately, the California Migratory Bird Protection act expired on January 20 of this year, leaving our migratory birds vulnerable to rollbacks of the mbta. These rollbacks are already taking shape as the current Administration recently suspended a legal opinion of affirming that the MBTA applies to incidental take.

AB454 addresses this issue by removing the sunset date from the California Migratory Bird Protection act, ensuring that our state's migratory birds will always enjoy comprehensive protections against all forms of unauthorized take, as they have for well over a century. With me to provide supporting testimony is Michael Chen, senior manager of Government Relations for Audubon California.

Good morning. My name is Michael Chen, Senior Manager for Government Relations for Audubon California. I want to start off by thanking Assembly Member Karlra's commitment to this issue. And thank you to Chair Pappin and this Committee's work on this Bill and this hearing.

Audubon is proudly sponsoring AB454 because it ensures that California law will consistently and predictably protect birds regardless of changes in the federal administrations. Migratory bird populations in North America have declined by over 3 billion since 1970, or roughly 1 third of their population levels.

According to our research, two thirds of North American birds face much higher risk of population declines and even extinction in the coming 50 years due to climate change. This is not the time to reduce or complicate migratory bird protections.

Audubon has worked with Republican and Democratic federal administrations for decades to conserve birds, and both have interpreted the Migratory Bird Treaty act or the MBTA to prohibit incidental take.

The MBTA is relatively rarely enforced, usually only in egregious situations like oil spills, oil pits, acts of cruelty, or when a violator has been repeatedly warned but fail to address their violations.

As Assemblymember Kalra explained, the Trump administration's novel interpretation of the MBTA, which was rejected by a federal judge in 2021, leaves Byrd potentially unprotected and creates confusion between state and federal laws.

For example, if there were another oil spill off of California's coast, the violator would likely agree that the Trump administration's interpretation of the MBTA means they are not liable for damages to bird populations.

Since its passes in 2019, the original AB454 has not resulted in increased enforcement costs or enforcement actions to industry or to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, but it has helped to ensure migratory birds remain protected in the state. Migratory birds and regulated industries benefit from consistent and predictable laws and regulations.

This new AB 454 keeps the status quo as it has been for decades and ensures that state law remains clear regardless of changes made by the Federal Government. Thank you and I respect the ashray.

I vote excellent. Thank you so much. Do we have anyone in opposition? Okay. Do we have public Are you coming to testify in opposition? So we'll take public comment and support Seeing no witnesses in opposition please.

Mark Smith, on behalf of the Grassland Water District in support of the Bill. Also want to apologize to the vice. Chair was supposed to be the second. Witness on your Bill that went first this morning on mute swan, so apologies for being late on that. The other Mark. I heard the testimony though. Good job.

Good morning. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife, Mojave Desert Land Trust and the Sonoma Land Trust in support

Molly Culton, Sierra Club, California in strong support. Thank you.

Excellent. Any witnesses? I mean public comment in opposition Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee, Assemblymember Gonzalez,

I just need some clarity. So. Correct me if I'm wrong, current law says that got it the, the spill on in the ocean. Absolutely. That's kind of common sense, right? They're responsible for that. If someone builds a building and a bird strikes that building, are they responsible for that? Under what this law would, would provide?

No. Ultimately it's really about taking reasonable mitigated measures of mitigation. And so there's a reason why like when introduced it back in 2017 and initially the timber industry, AGS, even Solar first came out and said, hey, we, you know, how are we going to manage this? I'm like, well you've been managing this for 100 years.

And so basically this is just business as usual. There's not adding any new protections, regulations or punitive actions. The same kind of just best business practices in these industries to best mitigate incidental take will just continue like they had for 108 years or so.

So let's say down the road it's a, you know, birds are flying down this, this path. How am I as a developer or a business owner, a wind farm, whatever that looks like. How do I mitigate any incidental if I don't know that the there's a path?

Well, there's standard mitigation practices for every industry. And so like I said, they've been doing it for well over a century. So we're not asking any business, any industry to do something they haven't already done and are accustomed to for many, many decades. And so I'm not an engineer and what have you.

I can't speak specifically to what any individual industry would do, but every industry has certain measures to reduce and to mitigate incidental take. And so you know that that will just continue. And so there's not going to be any. Again, this is not adding any new protections or regulations that haven't already existed for well over a century.

Then why do we need it?

Because right now the protections at the federal level have been taken away. Yeah. And so this was actually brought. And so we have our own California Migratory Bird Protection Act. This is simply extending it.

We didn't need it before because under Republican and Democratic administrations for a century, it was always understood that incidental takes were included and this international treaty was abided by. And it's only because it's basically codifying what has been federal law for over a century under the treaty. So that's simply what it's doing.

And it's something that our industries have been accustomed to again for over a century under federal law already.

Any other questions? Comments?

Motion, Second.

Hart? Second by Berner. We'll go ahead and take. Thank you. Would you like to close? Respectfully asked for any vote. Great. Thank you so much for bringing the Bill. And we'll take a vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, excellent. We'll keep it open. We'll find out whether Alvarez is coming or not. And then we'll move from there with that. Thank you all for being here. And we will do some add ons. We didn't quite get through the list. Those of you that were timely don't need to worry about add ons. Have a great day. And by the way, it's 10:00. We started right at 9. You're welcome.

[Roll Call]

Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, great. I've reached out to some Member, Alvarez, and he's got a limited time frame to get back to me.

Give him a minute. I always give him like five minutes.

I gotta go to Judish.

So we'll go ahead and take add. On for summit Member Alvarez on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Assemblymember Alvarez. We appreciate you getting here with that. We're adjourned.