Assembly Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is called to order. And so since we do not yet have a quorum, we will open the hearing as a Subcommitee to allow Bill presentations and obviously grateful that you guys are here ready and on time.

And so if we don't have a quorum by the end of the presentation of the Bill, we will be the Bill will be placed on call until we do so. I know that we already have one author here, so just to in the interest of respecting people's time.

So first, as I begin and before I begin to talk about some logistics, I do want to welcome some of our new Members who are have joined the Ag Committee this year. We want to welcome Assemblymember Gonzalez, Assemblywoman Hadwick, and Assemblywoman Ramson.

I know that she's in local government, but will shortly join us this afternoon just to cover a few logistics for everyone as we proceed with the witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of a hearing as much from the public, within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For all those who will be providing comments today, we ask that you please state your name and the organization you represent and if you support or oppose the Bill being considered. Any Member of the public may also submit written comments to our Committee through through our email.

Emails may be sent to the address found on the Committee website which is agri.comassembly excuse me agri.comm assembly.ca.gov so for today we do have eight bills on the file. We will hear Bill presentations on file order. We have Mr. Hoover who has joined us already.

If the author of the next Bill on the file is not in the room, we will immediately move to the Bill next on the file. Also, just to kind of keep with the tradition that I started when I first took over as Ag Committee, I did want to open it up also by sharing a fun fact.

And so if you guys did not know, California rice is one of the state's largest crops and contributes more than $5 billion a year. California rice actually supplies, or California actually supplies. Virtually all of America's sushi rice majority is grown here in the Sacramento county area where the climate for soil conditions are perfect for cultivation.

Plus flooded rice fields provide an essential habitat for millions of migratory birds. So just a fun fact for all of you guys to know. So now we're going to move. Can we do the. zero, we can't wait. Okay. Because we are actually. Excuse me.

Since we don't have a quorum yet, we will open the hearing as a Subcommitee to allow Bill presentations. As I mentioned, we will start with hearing bills on file order. If we do not have a quorum again by the end of the presentation, the Bill will be placed on call until we do. Just a reminder. Okay, perfect.

So first on the agenda we do have Assembly Member Hoover with AB 1142. If you want to join us, along with any of your sponsors related to horses, horse shows, competitions and sales, you may proceed.

Oh. We good? All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1142. This bill simply updates the maximum entry fees allowed for small public course events that are exempt from the Equine Medication Monitoring Program regulations.

Existing law established in 1971 was intended to prevent the abuse of certain performance-enhancing drugs in public equine events and sales. The original legislation created an exemption for smaller horse events where the entry fee does not exceed $4.99 and other related fees do not exceed $19.99.

The inclusion of this exemption shows that the original intent was to exclude these events, these smaller events, from the drug testing regulations. Unfortunately, the fees have not been increased since 1971, and so what our legislation will do is increase those fees for these exempted events to $50 and $60 respectively.

This allows more flexibility to continue having these wonderful programs in our communities. With me today is Sharon Fells, a constituent of mine, on behalf of the Twin Lakes Riding Club, and Deb Shatley, on behalf of the Pacific Coast Quarter Horse Association. I'll pass it to them. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Sharon Fells. I'm director of a small local horse club called Twin Lakes Riding Club, and I'm here today in support of this legislation due to the fact that it hasn't been changed in over 50 years.

And it's about time, because clubs like mine who offer these shows to the community are not able to make a profit and will no longer be able to provide these important training and learning sessions for young as well as older adults who are looking to get into the equine industry and eventually show at a higher level.

We are a schooling show or a small nonprofit club, and we can't--we can't continue doing these shows any longer at this rate. So we're just asking for the ability to raise the pricing up to $50, not that we will get to 50, I'm sure, anytime soon, but we've been restricted to $4.99 for way too long. We can't even buy a ribbon for that cost. So we're just looking for some more flexibility in how we can increase our rates and at least break even over time. Thank you.

Madam Chair and the committee, my name is Deb Shatley, and I am the current president of the Pacific Coast Quarter Horse Association. The PCQHA is the oldest affiliate of the American Quarter Horse Association and was established here in the State of California in 1945.

We look to our smaller grassroot entities such as the Twin Lakes, Sacramento Horsemen, Loomis Basin Horsemen's Association, the 4-H, FFA, as well as a whole host of riding clubs across the state to ensure that we have a grassroots effort to educate and support youth and amateurs that are interested in equine activities.

The scope of equine activities has changed since the inception of the initial rule back in 1971. What has happened, for example, at the collegiate level? Equine sports is now a collegiate-level sport such as like baseball and football. You go, 'it's the NCEA,' which is part of the NCAA. We have teams at Fresno State, UC Davis. We have collegiate teams also across the United States: Georgia Bulldogs, Texas A&M, SMU, Baylor, for example, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

So it's important to us that we encourage our young folks to come up through the ranks to show at the grassroot level, go through--go to a secondary college and participate because it's these folks that come back and have interest in participating in roles such as trainers, membership organizations at a national level, such as from the grassroots--they feed into the national organizations such as the National Cutting Horse, National Reining Horse, American Quarter Horse Association, etcetera.

So we see our grassroots efforts very, very important here in the State of California. We would like to suggest--and we support this increase because we've not kept up with inflation, and this was written into the rule which is prohibit us to make the increases, and we all know that the cost of insurance, judges, supplies, rent, etcetera has all gone up since 1971. Thank you.

Thank you. So now we do have a quorum, so what I will do is have the secretary, if you can please call the roll. Once the roll is established, we will adopt our rules for the legislative session.

[Roll Call]. On the adoption of 526 Committee Rules, [Roll Call].

I think actually we need a motion to adopt the Committee Rules for the 2025--we got ahead of ourselves--for the 2025-2026 legislative session. So we have a motion and a second, so motion by Assembly Member Connolly and second by Assemblywoman Hadwick. So please call the roll.

Sorry about that. Again, on the Committee Rules, [Roll Call].

Yeah. With a vote of five/zero, the Committee Rules are adopted. Now we'll continue on and move to--back to the bill, so thank you for your testimony. We'll go ahead and open it up. If there are any other folks that are on the opposition side, if you want to take a seat here, anyone, in the room?

Okay, seeing none. If there's anyone else in the room that wants to also share your support, if you can please state your name clearly and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Afternoon, Madam Chair and members. On behalf of the Western Fairs Association, in support. Thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any comments, questions?

I just have one. I just want to thank you guys for bringing this, and I served as our county 4-H coordinator for years. This is one of--we have a lot of things in agriculture that are not up to par with inflation, so thank you for bringing it to us and happy to support.

Thank you to the author and to your constituents. I love this. I love that it reaches the need. I would probably make a recommendation to the author to also include cost-of-living increases throughout future years so we don't have to continuously keep on coming back. Just say, okay we got the 50 but let's, let's look at cost-of-living because obviously we'll have to come back here and it can save some time.

Great. Seeing no one else, thank you to our members for comments or questions. Also, Assembly Member Hoover, would you like to close on your bill? And the motion on the bill is do pass to Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair and--yeah appreciate the comments from my colleagues and the support expressed. Certainly something we can look at. We definitely did set these at a place where we don't believe they're going to hit these numbers right away, which is, we're trying to future-proof this a little bit, but I do think it's a great suggestion and we can continue looking into that. With that, would request an an aye vote to support our local equestrians and our local smaller events. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Is there a motion and a second? Motion? Great. So we have a motion by Assembly Member Gonzalez, second by Assemblywoman Hadwick. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1142, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

We have six votes. The Bill will get out of Committee, but we will leave it open for absent Members to add on. Thank you. Right, she's next. So we'll move on to item number two. Assembly Bill 411 by Assemblymember Papan. Assembly Member Papan, please proceed with your Bill when you are ready.

Just let my witnesses get settled in here. So I'm here today to talk about everybody's favorite subject, carcasses. AB411 will allow ranchers to compost livestock carcasses on their farms. Currently, disposing of deceased animals can be complicated and costly. Options like burial, rendering plants or using bone piles are either expensive, inefficient, or create further problems by attracting predators.

There are only three rendering plants, plants in the state that accept animal carcasses. This Bill will provide a practical, environmentally friendly and cost effective alternative to the current practices. Recognizing this practicality, actually, 42 other states already allow animal composting, and more states are moving in that direction.

And California composting is already authorized in emergencies such as extreme heat or natural disasters. So what this Bill does is it just extends the right to compost beyond emergencies, offering ranchers and small scale meat processors a sustainable solution for everyday carcass disposal. This Bill would create a more resilient and sustainable meat supply chain right here in California.

Composting offers numerous benefits, including reduced predator, livestock conflicts, diverting livestock carcasses from landfills, and allowing for pathogens to be killed in compost piles instead of them just remaining in bone piles on one's property. It is time for California to adopt this sensible solution that benefits ranchers, wildlife and the environment all at once.

I would also like to thank all stakeholders for all of their active engagement on this Bill. I do look forward to continuing the conversations as the Bill moves forward. With me here to testify and support is Dr. Kasey DeAtley, who is an associate Professor at the CSU Chico College of Agriculture, and Mr.

Kirk William, who is with the Kirk Wilbur. Excuse me. With the California Cattlemen's Association. So I'll first turn it over to Dr. DeAtley.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Committee Members. It's A pleasure to be here today. I speak to you today not as a representative of Chico State, but as a researcher and a cattle rancher in Shasta and Lassen counties. And I am severely limited in legal options to dispose of the routine livestock deaths that occur on our ranch.

For example, in the winter on our operation, mortalities get hauled to decompose on a remote part of the property because the soil is frozen, making burial impossible. There are no permitted landfills in our area, and rendering is not an option for us due to location.

Over the past six years, our team has conducted livestock mortality composting research at two locations in Northern California under exemptions from CDFA, CalRecycle and the county Departments of Environmental Health. We've developed a best management practices document, worked alongside and educated each agency, and collected data on over 30 compost cycles. Our results are compelling.

First, composting whole carcasses or butcher waste can be done in 90 or 45 days, respectively, using materials and equipment that ranchers already have access to. Second, the compost product does not accumulate heavy metals or pathogens and offers nutrients similar to that of green waste compost. Finally, composting can be used for predator mitigation.

Specifically, our trail camera data showed that nearby bone piles received an average of 341 predator visits, compared to only eight visits at the compost pile. The results of our data complement those in scientific journals in the position paper from CDFA that states that composting of mammalian tissue does not pose a threat to human or animal health.

Furthermore, composting can reduce the presence of prion diseases like BSE. In conclusion, AB411 will provide ranchers a much needed and safe method for disposing routine mortalities. Thank you to Assemblymember Papan for authoring the measure, and I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. I'm Kirk Wilber with the California Cattlemen's Association. We are one of the co sponsors of AB411. Routine mortalities are an unfortunate reality of raising livestock. Whether they result from predation, from accidents, or from natural causes. When livestock do die, California ranchers have limited options for their disposal.

The go to option of rendering is simply out of reach for many folks in the state. Burial is an option, but only some counties authorize it, and weather, terrain and equipment needs may make it impractical for ranchers. Many ranchers instead resort to disposing of mortalities in bone piles.

But bone piles are an attractant to predators and increase the likelihood of conflicts between livestock and predators like Wolves. Wolves being a topic of growing concern among ranchers. And a growing topic of interest among the Legislature. California's ranchers are in need of an alternative disposal method. And Composting is it.

USDA and now 43 other states recognize routine livestock mortality composting as proven safe and effective. Additionally, a diverse coalition of stakeholders in support of AB411 is evidence that the Bill will benefit ranchers, livestock meat processors, wildlife and the health of California's rangelands. Through this regenerative agricultural practice.

We are aware of concerns that some within the organized rendering industry. Have raised about AB411. Renders provide a vital service to a huge swath of my membership. And if this Bill presented any threat whatsoever to the rendering services. It simply wouldn't be sponsored by the California Cattlemen's Association. But many of CCA's Members can't access rendering.

And even those who can may not be able to reliably access hauling and rendering services. Just as current practices, including bone piles and burial. Have not spelled the end for California's renderers. Neither will composting. This Bill will provide ranchers a much needed method. For disposing of routine mortalities on the ranch.

It will reduce conflicts between livestock and predators. And it will help create favorable soil amendments. In furtherance of the states regenerative agricultural goals. For those reasons, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Pappin. For authoring the legislation. And I would urge your. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wilbur. Now we will hear from those testifying opposition. I believe we have one organization that would like to voice their opposition unless amended position. Do we have anyone? No, we will do that after. Yeah, but is there anyone. Is there opposition here? If you want to take a seat up here. Yeah.

Oh, sit down here. Okay. This is a funny story. I used to have a seat, if you could. I had heart surgery in November. And when I woke up from the surgery, I lost all the hearing in my left ear. So whatever you said there, if I repeat anything, bear with me. Thank you. Thank the chair.

And I thank the Committee for the Opportunity to speak. My name is Michael Koewler. And I'm the President of Sacramento Rendering Company. I chair the rendering industry Advisory board for the State of California. And I also sit on the feed Inspection Advisory Board for. For the Department of Food and Ag.

The majority of our plants in California, specifically in Sacramento, are union plants. We have over 100 union employees, the Teamsters. And we've been collectively bargaining with them since about 195051 or 52. Regrettably at this time, we're opposed to AB411. Unless there are some amendments. Just to give you a little background on the rendering industry.

We've been deemed by the State of California. As critical health and safety infrastructure. And in fact, we're designated that during the pandemic. Our trucks. Without the rendering. And cooperation with the grocery industry. A lot of people wouldn't have been able to eat. We use a high intense heat process. That kills all the bacteria and all the pathogens.

And the product, when it comes out of the rendering facility. Is fit for animal consumption. As well as fertilizer. The oils we make, biofuel and paints, lubricants, other industrial products. I always say that we were green before. Green was cool. And it's really kind of true. In fact, we're embarking now. Where we're taking some of the vapors.

That normally cause some odor issues in the plant. Condensing them back into liquid and making a liquid fertilizer. So we're doing all these good things for the environment. But California has been, let's say, put in a bad position with rendering plants. Because of residential encroachment. We've had to. We've had to close a lot of them.

Not ours, fortunately. Well, you guys probably know we are out. Out on Jackson Highway. But they put 22,000 homes right downwind from us. So it's a challenge for all these plants. But what we do have is. Although our number of plants have shrunk. We do have some collection centers. That go out and collect material from different parts.

Aggregate that and bring it back to the. To the plant for processing. We work closely with the dairy industry and the cattlemen. On a number of issues. Because our two industries are very much intertwined. You know, I understand that the proponents of the Bill. Talked about. Or distributed a graphic. That showed the rendering industry and its coverage.

But it really didn't contemplate these collection centers that we have. That reach out even further. Than the radius at the current facility processes. The amendments that we would like everybody to consider are as follows. Limit this to livestock producers. Not professional mobile processors. You know, we have, like I said, collection centers.

That mobile processors could take the material to. And find their way to a rendering plant. If I didn't mention this. We. The rendering industry captures five times more carbon than it emits. So if we're talking about a greenhouse gas effect on the state or in the country. Rendering is really the most viable option.

We'd like to, in fact, ensure compliance of these composting facilities. Through The Department of Food and Ag. We have trust in them, work with them. And we'd like to have the Committee consider the amount.

When you're talking about 100 metric tons of products, you're talking about 23 times that in the media and carbon needed to reduce the. The mammalian tissue. And the last thing I'd like to mention is we'd like to limit this Bill to areas that are not currently served by the rendering industry.

And once again, I'm sorry if I did anything that. Oh, I just didn't hear you. Okay. But that's all I have. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to take them. But if you're not, thanks for the time.

Thank you so much. Thank you. At this time, we're going to open it up for public comment. Do we have Members of the audience that would like to register support or opposition for the Bill? Again, please state your name, organization, and whether you support or oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members Kathy Mossberg, on behalf of the Public Health Institute and their program Roots of Change, in strong support. And actually a co author or co sponsor. Excuse me.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of Tomcat Ranch in support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jason Bryant on behalf of Western United Dairies and our friends and allies at Defenders of Wildlife and support, thank you.

My name is Addison Peterson with the California Certified Organic Farmers. We're in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Brian Shobe on behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network. In support.

Chair and Members, Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau. In support.

John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California. We don't have an official position. We have some serious concerns with the Bill, the current scope, where these can occur and where application can take place. But we've been in communication with the Committee, with the author's office.

We understand that she's interested in addressing some of these concerns in future amends. So look forward to working through that process to narrow the scope of the Bill, the size of the carcasses that are allowed and where these can be used as compost. So thank you very much.

Anyone else? Is there any other folks that are here in opposition? Great, seeing no one else. Do Members of the Committee have questions?

I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. I am from District 1, so from the Oregon border down to Amador and Alpine County, 11 very rural counties. Predators are one of our biggest issues right now. So those bone piles do Attract them. I have one on our farm.

Any livestock owner will tell you this is a huge struggle and I just. I thank you for bringing this forward.

Any other Members, Vice Chair.

Chair, I'll be real quick just as want to thank the author and also as a co author to this Bill as well. I'll be supporting it and thank you for bring it forward.

Thank you.

Great. Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Want to thank the author on this one. Absolutely, very common sense Bill. Read through it and it hits the mark for a lot of folks. So thank you.

Good.

Great. Thank you to my colleagues who have chimed in. Just before I pass it over to Assembly Member Papin for your closing, I did just want to make a few comments. I think obviously opposition brings up some valid concerns in terms of maybe the scope of the Bill.

So I look forward to you guys having the additional conversation, seeing how we can get to a place where maybe it's a little bit more narrow.

I know that you've been in conversations with those folks and then also obviously with some of the rural counties and their concerns, but obviously access to these services is extremely critical for rural communities.

I also represent a district that is very rural, so obviously very empathetic in terms of what our especially even the smaller local ranchers and farmers that need access to these services where they're in much remote areas.

So I applaud your efforts to try to bridge that gap and so look forward to seeing the Bill moving forward and hoping that you guys can address some of those concerns. Thank you. And would you please like to make your final closing remarks?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We will continue the discussions and I appreciate the Committee and the chair's receptivity to the Bill. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Perfect. Do we have a motion and a second?

I'll second.

So we have a motion by Assembly Member or Vice Chair Alanis and second by Assembly woman Hadwick. Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB411 Papan. Motion is do pass to Natural Resources Committee. Soria, aye. Soria, aye. Alanis, aye. Alanis, aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Hadwick, aye. Hadwick, aye. Irwin. Ransom, aye. Ransom, aye.

Great. Your bill has seven votes. So we'll get out of committee. We will leave it open for any of the absent members. Thank you. Next we have file item number three, Assembly bill 928 by Assemblymember Rogers. Please. Assemblymember, if you want to proceed with your bill when you are ready.

I don't know if you have any folks that will be joining to testify in support. But if they could also take their seats. And you may begin when you're ready.

Well, good afternoon, chair and members. I'm here today to present AB928. It's the California Cock Fighting Cruelty act. This bill is a common sense measure to address the active criminal industry of cockfighting and rooster trafficking that still persists in this state. USDA estimated that California currently has more than 3 million birds who are being bred for cockfighting statewide.

An analysis from 2024 documented evidence of these game foul yards and the trafficking of birds in 43 of California's counties. There's a very real impact to Californians from this industry.

We've seen evidence where Avian flu has been spread from the transfer of these birds, whether it's from the open wounds that they move with or at the unregulated pace that they move. And it's actually been linked back to Avian flu outbreaks that have cost millions of dollars for California consumers. And it's not just for birds.

It's also been found to jump to other livestock for different farms that are near or in the vicinity of these farms. The three largest cockfighting busts in the country's history were in California and also not that long ago. They were all within the last 10 years.

The most profitable aspect of the industry is the trafficking from the game foul yards. Each of the birds goes for hundreds of thousands of dollars after they've been bred to fight. The birds are raised outside with minimal shelter and sold domestically and internationally. They're oftentimes tethered. They're oftentimes in cages.

This bill would empower law enforcement to proactively address some of these issues. They've typically had issues in doing so because current laws rely on intent language, whereas what we're looking at is looking at the elements that typically are associated with cockfighting and with game foul yards and giving them additional tools to be able to investigate.

The legislation is not meant to interfere with commercial poultry operations, poultry hobbyists, school schools, animal agencies, FFA, 4H. I've raised chickens in my backyard. So what we really are trying to do is go right after the bad actors to make sure that we're giving additional tools for enforcement.

I will also say we've heard some additional concerns from some hobbyists and from some homesteaders within the last week. We're working with folks as they have concerns. Again, the intent is to shut down this illegal industry, not to infringe on people's rights to raise chickens.

Again, my wife would probably kill me if I took away our ability to have our chickens. We love them. They're social animals. We have two expert witnesses here today.

We have Adam Par- Parascandola, the Vice President of Animal Rescue Teams for Humane Worlds for Animals, and Gail Hansen, Humane Veterinary Medical alliance and a consultant in veterinary public health who can answer any of our questions as well.

Good afternoon, chairperson and members of the committee. I'm Adam Parascandola, and yes, I'm with Humane World for Animals. I'm the Vice President of our animal rescue team and we are the sponsor of the bill. Formally, previously to that I spent I was the Director of Oakland Animal Services in Oakland, California.

I'm here today to urge the Agricultural Committee to vote in favor of AB928 legislation to address cockfighting operations in our state. In my current job, I assist law enforcement agencies across the US to address cockfighting.

But as Director of Oakland Animal Services, I investigated cockfighting complaints on a regular basis in Oakland and routinely seized backyard populations of 25 to 50 fighting roosters, as well as disrupting cockfights in progress. Cockfighting is an important crime to address because it's an inexcusable practice that profits from violent cruelty to animals.

In addition, in my experience, cockfighting is often associated with other criminal activities such as drug trafficking, gang activity and illegal weapon sales. Although illegal in every state and federal law, and under federal law, cockfighting continues to be a widespread criminal industry in California.

The three largest seizures, as the author mentioned in US history were all recently in California, including including in Los Angeles County in 2017, which I was present for, in which an astonishing 7,000 birds were seized. AB928 will address game foul yards by offering strong complement to existing state cockfighting laws.

The bill provides criminal fines for maintaining more than three adult roosters per acre, or 25 total, on a parcel of property. California needs this new provision to cut off the most profitable aspect of cockfighting, which is the sale of the fighting birds.

Providing law enforcement with the tools to intervene before these operations grow into large scale criminal enterprises is critical. AB928 is also a fair way to address these illicit operations. There are common sense exemptions for commercial poultry operations, hobbyists, rescues, and 4H and FFA projects. And there's also a one year grace period.

So I urge you to support AB928 to protect animals and our communities and the poultry industry from the clearly detrimental aspects of cockfighting. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and members of the committee. I'm Dr. Gail Hansen. I'm speaking on behalf of the Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance, a national association of veterinary professionals with a focus on animal welfare.

On behalf of our over 9,000 Members, Humane VMA strongly supports AB928 legislation to combat California cockfighting by limiting the number of adult roosters kept. Despite California's strong animal fighting laws, game fowl yard operators still illegally breed and sell adults roosters for cockfighting.

The sale, both domestically and internationally, is often the most profitable aspect, with birds selling for hundreds or even thousands of dollars. And these operations are a risk to public health and the poultry industry.

Game fowl breeders are often keep their fighting birds outside with no vaccinations, regulatory oversight, or protection from wild birds, creating a significant risk of Avian disease in California. Avian influenza has impacted every single state, affecting more than 168 million domestic birds.

And California has been especially hard hit, with nearly 23 million commercial and backyard birds killed to date.

The virus has also impacted more than 975 dairy herds, 100 cats, and 70 people in the US game follow may further be a health risk to anyone handling the birds because they can have other infections which can be transmitted to people such as salmonella, campylobacter, E. Coli, which are all common in chickens.

AB928 is an appropriate remedy to cockfighting because the most common reason to possess a significant number of roosters is for cockfighting. By cracking down on these, California can mitigate the risk of further outbreaks and protect animal and public health. Finally, there's no reason to believe there will be unintended consequences with this legislation.

Commercial poultry operations, poultry hobbyists, 4H FFA projects are exempt. And even though smaller broiler operations could have more roosters, they're likely to be killed before they're adults. Humane VMA and I encourage you to help California get out of the cockfighting business by voting in favor of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone in opposition? I believe there are two individuals. Stacy Lane and Becky Locano. If you guys want to join us here on the table. Oh, Kolano. Sorry. So if you can just again state your name for the record. If you represent a particular organization, that would be as great as well.

Are you ready? Okay, so just a couple things I'd like to say.

Thank you.

First of all, if you want to get closer to the mic so that I can hear you.

You're right. Sorry. Okay. There you go. And I just want you to know that everything I'm saying today is not personal. So please don't take it that way. I think that there's a way for us to collaborate together and find a solution because we are all completely with you. Cockfighting is terrible.

It needs to be stopped and we need to find a way to have more teeth to do that. So I'll just read my statement and if you have any questions, let me know. Sorry. Bad with this.

Obviously we're a small group of people just found out about this last week and we don't have have the advantage of having a multi $1.0 million political or lobbying group behind us. So please bear with us as we kind of work through your process. It's new to us. So my name is Stacy Lane.

I'm a resident taxpayer and poultry owner in California. I also-

To the mic. Talk to the mic.

Oh, sorry. Okay. I hate not looking at you and I am in your district. I live up in Humboldt County. So I'm here today to voice my strong objection to Assembly Bill 928 and its current format.

It's massive government overreach into private ownership of poultry, specifically roosters. I encourage you to vote against moving this forward. This bill is highly, in my opinion, sorry, under researched, poorly written and uses emotional response tactics instead of facts and logics to push a political agenda likely tied to certain organizations.

As I know you mentioned you are with particular organizations here. These groups likely include, as you mentioned, the Humane Society, Animal Wellness Action and the Center for Humane Economy. This bill, pushed by these animals rights activists ironically will condemn millions of roosters to death in California every year if it passes as is.

I believe it's your legal and ethical duty to put a stop to this purposeful, incorrect spread of information and think about how much of a financial impact this is going to have on the citizens of this state as well as the economy for business owners in the State of California, the state of intention of this the stated intention for this bill is to reduce illegal cockfighting and stop the spread of the Avian flu.

However, what it will really do is create millions of dollars in annually renewing expenses for taxpayers with minimal offset with income and discriminates against law abiding citizens while neither stopping cockfighting nor the spread of the Avian flu.

While I think illegal cockfighting is completely reprehensible, this bill fails to propose to propose any solution that would empirically mitigate its prevalence in California. It creates extremely discriminatory financial requirements for poultry hobbyists and fails to increase penalties for offenders.

I know, I was told that it's too hard to get it increased to a felony from a misdemeanor but consider we are one of only eight states in the entire country who currently have it as a misdemeanor. So if someone's making $20,000 in a week in cock fighting, what's a misdemeanor charge and a $500 fine?

That is not going to change someone's behavior. And I think ultimately that's what your purpose of this bill is, is to change behavior, stop that from happening. The penalties and applications are extremely minimal in California. Why would you consider limiting the hobby and husbandry of the majority of fanciers in the state?

Because you haven't increased the penalty to a felony. Reducing cockfighting will only happen when you take measures drastic enough to change these people's behavior. Criminals will only find a way to do their criminal activity. That can be easily accomplished by rejecting this bill and working towards changing that from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Many rescue groups throughout the country work with their local governments to humanely and ethically rehome cocks seized in cock fighting raids alone or with a group of hens. These birds make excellent pets. They are fundamentally no different than a beta fish that your child might have.

They just need to be separated from another male so they don't fight. I might add that the majority of rescuers in California are not non for profit organizations.

The bill specifically states nonprofit, but there are many rescue groups in California that haven't taken the expense or the time because there's no need to be a nonprofit in order to be a rooster rescue organization.

As far as the Avian flu, there are zero reports from the state or the USDA stating that cockfighting is any more of a spread of Avian flu than you or I going to Tractor Supply and tracking it home on our boots.

We all know the Avian flu is being transmitted primarily by migratory and other wild birds landing in fields and spreading it to domestic poultry, waterfowl and cows. Flawed logic states the practice of staking roosters on the grass invites infection. There are a lot of people that stake roosters that don't fight.

So to say that people who stake do. Also, these people, unfortunately, it's disgusting. But they, this is an investment for them. They make money from cockfighting, otherwise they wouldn't do it right? So those people do take serious precautions and biosecurity measures to keep their birds happy and healthy.

Because if they don't have a bird to fight, they don't have income. Which is horrible to say, but it's reality. In reality, the biosecurity protection of fighting cocks is much better than realized by a local zoo, FFA or 4H kid hobbyist or rescue group.

To say this bill would prevent the spread of disease any more than any other source to me is a red herring and intentionally created to scare you into passing this bill. In summary, I think this bill is written with the intent to accomplish two things. Reduce cockfighting and reduce the spread of the Avian flu.

However, it will 100% fail to do either. I encourage you to reject this bill and please try to work towards moving the felony for cockfighting from a misdemeanor to a felony. That's the only way that you're going to be able to get people to stop.

I would encourage you to reach out to one of us who is not contacted from the American Poultry Association, the oldest agricultural organization in the country. We were not contacted for any information on how this would impact our members prior to this bill's first reading. And we would really encourage you to do that.

Thank you. If you could.

From someone who was unable to attend who for 17 years.

We'll, we'll, we'll take it and then we'll share it with everyone.

Next. If you could please again state your name and who you represent and your opposition.

Okay, thank you.

Hi, my name is Becky Kolano and I'm opposing this bill. I'm a leader of. I'm reading this letter as written by Alan Galleg- Gallegos, but I myself am a Herald 4H poultry project leader and the chairperson for the Sacramento County Fair Poultry show and a board Member for the Pacific Poultry Breeders Association.

And I am also a breeder of several breeds of poultry on the Livestock Conservatory list of endangered breeds and show our birds as proud Members of the American Association and the American Bantam Association, which is the longest standing agricultural association in the country created in 1873. Now I will read the letter written by Alan.

I represent many people in California who keep and breed heritage poultry. And I'm a Member of the American Bantam Association and the American Poultry Association and several local poultry clubs in California. There are currently seven poultry club shows in California that are attended by thousands of people.

Over half of them are Youth engaged in 4H activities at these poultry shows. Your legislation, if passed as currently written, will shut down these shows and most country county fairs because people will not be able to acquire quality poultry because this law will essentially shut down quality breeders within the state.

I raise otherwise known as standard bred poultry chickens and show them at poultry shows in California and throughout the country. These poultry shows are American Bantam Association and American Poultry Association sanctioned shows. We raise heritage breeds chickens that are on the verge of disappearing in the United States.

We supply chickens to 4H Grange and FFA kids to show these that also show these at the same shows and county fairs. We support our local feed store and poultry feed mills in San Joaquin County and Sacramento County.

People who are involved in legitimate poultry operations should not be punished because of cockfighting operations and the state's inability to stop these illegal cockfighting operations. Many people who are involved in cockfighting should face felony charges instead of a misdemeanor. I understand California is one of eight states across the nation where illegal cockfighting is a misdemeanor.

If you are serious about deterring cockfighting, make it a felony. The idea to have an exception to be NPIP certified is a ruse because the state is not staffed adequately to respond to requests for certification now, much less if this legislation is passed.

If you are serious about NPIP certification, this law will need to provide the funding to increase staffing for NPIP certification. I guarantee that no cockfighting operation will comply to NPIP anyway. The idea that roosters are responsible for the spread of Avian Influenza is not based on science.

Have you engaged the state veterinarian and requested real data on AI infection infected rooster operations? If not, I suggest your committee gets real science based data.

By the way, most legitimate poultry operations such as myself and other small operation breeders are recome- following biosecurity measures recommended by the California Department of Food and Agricultural Department AI's website. Most people who are involved in poultry shows in California are members of non profit poultry clubs including the ABA, APA and our local club, the Greater California Society of Poultry Fancier Fanciers.

And I would also like to add the Pacific Poultry Breeders Association. You refer to the and if you refer to the ABA and APA websites and review the breeds of the type of poultry that are shown at these poultry shows as well as the Livestock Conservatory. Again, I oppose this legislation as do many others.

Sincerely, Alan and Becky Kolano, the Pacific Poultry Breeder Association, Harold 4h Poultry Project, Sacramento County Fair Poultry Chair and the Greater California Society of Poultry Fanciers. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your comments there Becky. At this time we will open it up to for other public comment. If we have members of the audience that want to come to the mic. Please state your name, if you represent an organization and whether you support or oppose the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, William F. McCullough I and not here on behalf of any organizations, but I do speak only as a citizen. And I did look at the language in the proposed bill and I thought that the civil penalty, particularly as to three or more birds of $2,500 per bird, I kind of find that scary.

I think that it should be probably better left to the penal codes as to birds and penalties. I think reaching into civil penalties for the number of birds is kind of pushing it a little too far. There's a really strong cultural aspect to the birds, roosters.

And I think that it should be better off in the criminal courts. And if in fact there is some sort of conviction that fines could be generated then on the birds.

But I think it just reaches a little bit too far into the public's well being as to how many birds you can have on your land and what the issue would be as far as monetary.

Thank you. And sorry, if we can, again, if you're here, providing your name, if you're with an organization, whether you support or oppose. So we're going to keep those comments just brief. So thank you again. Next, again, just your name, if you're with an organization, if you support or oppose the bill.

Hello. Hi, my name is George Hernandez. I want to say thank you first of all for allowing us to speak, get an opportunity to come up here and voice our opinions. I do want to say that I don't think we're that far apart on where we stand as an enthusiast, as a game foul.

I think you guys can tell by my hat, by my wallet, by the way that I decorate my house, is these chickens are not just animals to us. They're. They're our life, they're our traditions, they're everything that we stand for. So we're not that far opposed. I think it should be a felony.

I think that's the way to address making sure that it's penalized.

Yeah. So again, we're asking just if you could state your name whether you support or oppose the bill. Just in the interest of time and thank you for being here.

No worries. My name is George Hernandez and I oppose AB928. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Rebecca Wilson. I'm a poultry leader for Vaca Valley Grange, a Pacific Poultry Breeders Association board Member and a member of the American Poultry Association. And I don't support this bill.

My name is Mikayla Wilson. I am a member of Vaca Valley Grange, and I do not support this bill.

My name is Elizabeth Wilson. I'm a member of Vaca Valley Grange and a youth poultry leader. I'm a board member for the Pacific Poultry Breeders Association and a member of the American Poultry Association, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Ronald Lechuga, and I'm a former member of 4H of Solano County, and I oppose this bill.

Good afternoon. Karen Stout on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in support.

Good afternoon. I'm Juan Beltran from Fresno, California, and I'm a member of the Old English Game Bantam Club of America and also a western member of the ABA. And I oppose this bill because it incriminalizes law abiding citizens that have nothing to do with cockfighting and are forced to sign up to these agencies that are voluntary.

Thank you.

My name is Will Inman, and I represent 4H. I'm a poultry leader for Dixieland 4-H out of Madera County. I'm also part of the ABA, part of the APA. I am a 2025 Vice President for the Greater California Society of Poultry Fanciers. I also am the Chair Coordinator for the Greater California Society of Poultry Fanciers game bird, game foul show. And I oppose this bill.

Thank you. Again, I don't mean to cut people off, but if you can, again, just state your name whether you support or oppose the bill.

Steven Fenaroli with the Farm Bureau. A lot of the concerns echoed today we share, and look forward to working with the author to continue the conversation.

My name is Lauren Plummer. I represent myself and I oppose this bill. While I applaud your efforts to stop cockfighting in this state, this bill will not do it. I was poultry leader for nine years and...

Thank you, ma'am. Don't mean to cut you off, but we gotta go through the entire line. So if we can just state if you support or oppose the bill. And we'll move on to the next person. Yeah. Thank you.

My name is Katherine Plummer. I am here representing myself and I absolutely oppose this bill.

Hey, good afternoon. My name is Cherie Sintes-Glover. I'm a retired poultry project leader, also a California CDFA certified poultry health inspector. I oppose this bill.

Jessica Kong. I oppose this bill.

Adam Dye, and I oppose the bill.

Thank you. My name is Stephanie Davis. I'm the leader of the Green Acres 4-H poultry in Sac County, and we oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mrs. Chair. I'm Eduardo. My name is Eduardo Ramos and I'm with county, coming from County of Santa Barbara. And I believe that these... First of all, I oppose this bill, but it's just the conversations for racism and racial profiling towards our cultures. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Cesar Ortega. I'm a PHI also for the CDFA. I'm here representing all poultry breeders from the state and I do oppose AB 928. Thank you.

Jesse Ortega, 20 year United States veteran. I'm also a poultry health inspector for the State of California CDFA and the President of the California Association for the Preservation of Gamefowl. I don't oppose it. As the current numbers from the state that I just got from the State Veterinarian over modern overseeing and monitoring the avian Influenza, there has not been one case in game fowl that's been positive in California.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Alberto Flores. I don't support.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is David Duran. I'm the founder of the Mexican American Heritage Poultry Show. I've been doing them over 35 years. I've been involved politically with all these cock fighting, anything to do with game chickens. I've done a lot of fundraising through the years with the kids. I help with a lot of children.

Do you support or oppose the bill, sir? Thank you.

Hello. My name is Erik Rosales and I'm actually, I'm actually a feed store owner here in California, and I oppose this bill. Thank you.

My name is Darrell Wright. I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is David Emilio Duran, and to a lot of people these chickens mean everything. I oppose this bill.

My name is Kimberly Hoel. I'm from El Dorado County. I run the poultry show at the El Dorado County Fair. I've had a poultry project with 4H and now the Grange for over 20 years. The reason this is bad for poultry kids is because it will be the nail in the coffin of our breeders. I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is John Hoel. I'm with the Marshall Grange Youth Fair Committee, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Abby Costa. I am the poultry leader of the Marshall Grange and I oppose this bill.

My name is Edgar Garcia. I'm store feed owner, and I oppose the bill.

My name is Jose Gonzalez. I represent myself, and I oppose this bill.

Hi, my name is Leo Patun. I oppose this bill.

Earl Oshima oppose the bill.

My name is Michael Kirkland. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

My name is Vince Bennikid, and I oppose this bill.

My name is Jose Castro, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience? Last opportunity. If not, we will turn it over to our Committee Members, see if they have any questions or comments. I did want to just thank everyone for being here, especially folks that traveled far away to voice your concern opinions today. Go ahead, Assemblywoman Ransom.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank the folks in the community for taking your time to show up today. I want to thank the Assembly Member as well as the witnesses for bringing this bill. My question to my colleague, Assembly Member Rogers. After reading the analysis, I strongly understand what the concerns are in our state.

I just would like to get your commitment to continue to work with the the communities that are feeling impacted by what we're trying to do. Because I do support what we're trying to do and I do think there is an opportunity for us to work with some of the organizations and also to make sure that it's clearly identified that we don't want to hurt people's cultural heritage and what they hold near and dear in our language that we're using.

And I know that's not the intent, but I think clearly there's a disconnect between what we've put forward, what you put forward, and what people are receiving. So I definitely would support this and reserve the right to work with you and make sure that we are honoring the culture and making sure the bill is reading as we intend it to read. Is that okay?

Absolutely. So as I mentioned at the beginning, we have been working with a number of community based groups that do want to have tighter language to make sure that they're not impacted. I understand the concerns from folks. Many of the folks who spoke are already exempt in the bill. Whether it's 4H or Granges or others, they're exempt in the bill. And I will say our commitment is to work with legitimate groups.

We do know that there are folks who hide behind things such as the cultural or the heritage moniker that are also doing the game fighting and breeding those, which is why with this bill, the enforcement is your local AG Commissioner as well as your local jurisdictions working in partnership who can look at that and can distinguish the difference between people who have legitimate or are enthusiasts versus people who are hiding behind what is otherwise a great community of people who care about their birds and still doing illicit activity.

So I'm happy to work with the legitimate folks, but we're going to be very clear on what the intent here is to shut down cockfighting in California. And that's not going to work for everybody, and we understand that.

Thank you. Assembly Member Connolly.

Yeah. So just to... And thank you to everyone who came. To, I guess, clarify and better understand. So in terms of exemptions, we did hear from folks from livestock shows, from Grange, from 4H. Describe how the bill is structured to exempt those groups, from what I understand.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And as of the amendments that we're working on is also looking more geared towards what specific things you see from game fowl yards in terms of how they're handling the birds and the equipment, just to make sure that it's very clear. But the bill language does have exemptions for folks like 4H for Grange.

We've heard from the State Grange that, as it reads right now has as State Grange. They'd like us to actually say grange to make it more clear that it's everybody and not just them. So we are working with folks on that. But that's built into the language it currently is as exceptions.

So it sounds like there will be ongoing conversations and work if the bill moves forward with the process. Thanks.

Assemblywoman Hadwick.

I have some concerns. I come from a district that very much disagrees with government overreach. I do not at all support cockfighting at all. Have you worked with NPIP? Because this is going to be obviously an influx of membership, and they're already a very, very slow process and hard to, it's a hard process to complete. And are you going to work with the local counties and the AG Commissioners, the clubs, everybody that needs that exemption? Because that's one of your qualifications, right, to be exempted?

It's an exemption where we're actually working to broaden the exemptions so that there are other paths that don't just go through that program because we have heard from folks that they have concerns about the overall cost or the process to doing so. So we're trying to make sure, again, that the intent is to shut down the game fowl yards that are selling these birds for cockfighting. But then folks who are having other legitimate purposes, that they are the ones that have the exemptions in place to be able to do it.

And so just like you come from a rural district, we have folks who love our chickens. And you also, I know, have heard from your constituents as well about the impacts of cockfighting. So happy to continue to work with you on that. The intent is not just to cost more money for folks to not get an outcome from it. But as I said right now, current law for California really relies on intent, which is very difficult, particularly when you have some of these other conversations that look at it.

So is there, what has been your discussions with breeders? Because that's the part I'm most concerned with is the breeders for the shows, for those youth programs.

Yeah, I know we've reached out to... Yeah, I hear you. So I did hear a comment that we haven't reached out to APA. We have actually, in fact. In fact, most of the opposition was from individuals, not from organizations. So we are absolutely open to working with them again if they're legitimate groups that aren't just trying to create masks for additional cockfighting. But I'll let some of the other folks speak to that if they'd like to.

I mean, I can just answer that briefly. I mean, I think that, yeah, you know, we definitely, I'm no expert on NPIP, so, you know, we definitely want to understand from folks what is going to work. I think just to say that, you know, we are aware that there are game fowl breeders associations that are fronts for cockfighting.

And so I think that's sort of what we just want to make sure that we're actually speaking with folks like most of the folks that were here today. Right. Who are genuinely are breeding their birds for legal purposes and, you know, want to, you know, we don't want to put an undue hardship on them.

I think there's good and bad in every sector. Right? So I just hate to make laws for law abiding citizens and make them into criminals. No. Also, you said the AG Commissioners will be enforcing this. There's no letter of support from them. What is their response to that?

So mostly we've been talking with the counties as well as groups like RCRC, the State Farm Bureau. I'm happy to talk with the individual AG Commissioners as well, but we have not heard any concerns from them up to this point.

Okay, thank you.

This has been a popular email thread in my inbox, not only for folks within my district but throughout the state. So I appreciate the authors writing of this bill. You know, one of the, one of the questions that was brought up, and just for my own clarity. If there is already a penalty associated with this and it's a misdemeanor and we're trying to make sure that people don't continue to do this.

Why not change law to make it into, from a misdemeanor to a, into a felony? And have you had that conversation? What's the process that you've gone through to do that? Because obviously that's one of the biggest concerns that people are coming up with.

Yeah, absolutely. And I can let others speak to it as well. But again, part of what is concerning or difficult about current state law is it relies on proving intent. And so especially when you have some front groups that have somewhat legitimate purposes but are continuing to do the game fowl yards behind it, it's hard to prove intent in court, especially to meet the threshold for a felony for folks to be able to shut that down.

By having a civil penalty that's in place as well, you hit them at the pocketbook, which is just as likely to shut them down as having somebody face a felony charge but without the intent language and allowing more flexibility from the, from the Ag Commissioner and from locals to have that relationship or that partnership with their farmers to see what are they actually trying to accomplish.

So I hear folks when they say they'd like a felony because they think that that'll solve the problem. I get what they're going for, but the actual issue is the proving of the intent and especially at the threshold that you have to pass, given some of the ways that people mask these game yards.

Thank you. I think, you know, just from hearing, I see all the, all the supports and the opposed letters through here, and obviously I read all of the emails. I would recommend to the, to the author. And first of all, I appreciate it. Nobody wants cockfighting. Right? I don't think anyone opposed that piece. Right.

Absolutely nobody wants it. I think more conversation needs to take place. And I saw Section 6A where it talks specifically about exempting certain groups. I think there's some others, and I think I heard you say that you're going to continue that conversation. And hopefully I get your commitment to, to continue the conversation. I know you will because I know you. But just so everyone else knows, your commitment to continuing the conversation, to make this a much more voice from the community instead of a voice from Sacramento.

Yep. Understood, Assembly Member. And this one's just for you. We'll make sure that it's hard for legitimate people to run afoul of the law.

Any other comments, questions from the Committee? No. Great. So before you make your closing remarks, I did want to make a couple of statements. And so first and foremost, I do want to say thank you to all the folks that showed up. Obviously, this issue, I know people are passionate about their poultry.

I was actually just communicating with my father. We're going to have to measure his property because I don't know if he has completely a one acre, but he does have three roosters. Because when we actually grow chickens to get eggs in my parents home. So I want to make sure that we're carefully crafting the language. And so I do want to continue to be looking at the bill. I'm going to support it today, but I want to make sure that we are tight because I don't want the unintended consequences that we end up impacting people that are trying to do the right thing.

Like my dad who raises chickens to have eggs, especially in a time when eggs are so expensive. I think that that's not the intent of the bill, as you were mentioning. I know, you know, and I know that you've already mentioned there are very specific exemptions. Just want to make sure that the language is tightened.

Let's work with those that are trying to do the right thing so that those unintended consequences. I think it's pretty clear from the language in the written bill, there are certain groups that who are raising poultry won't be impacted because they are exempted on this bill. And so today I will be supporting the bill.

But I do want to make sure that it's understood that, you know, you did give us a commitment making sure that you work with those that are trying to do the right thing and that we don't impact people that, again, also will get caught up in even though they're trying to just raise chickens to have eggs in their, in their own home. So with that, I allow you to, if you want to give your closing remarks.

Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate the Chair and I the questions from the Committee. Your dad would be exempted in the bill for legitimate food production purposes, which is one of the exemptions. It also is the hens, not the roosters. So we're very careful not to infringe upon that.

And again, we do have the commitment and the honest intent that what we're trying to do is shut down game fowl yards, not infringe on enthusiasts ability to love their chickens. Mine like to watch me do woodworking. And George is welcome to come back to my office.

He was showing his chicken bling. I got it all over my office. I'm a chicken lover. The intent is to make sure that we are shutting down an industry that is harming California and harming our producers as well. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, if you could... Oh, sorry. Is there a motion and is there a second? Motion by Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry. Second by Assembly Member Connolly.

On AB 928, Rogers, motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

The bill has five votes. We will allow other folks to be added to the bill, but it does have enough votes to get out of Committee. Thank you. And the process is not over for folks in the audience. There's still Judiciary Committee and all the others. So thank you again for the conversation.

Next, we have File Item Number 4. Assembly Member Solache, with Assembly Bill 482.

We'll just wait a couple seconds while folks exit the room so that we can.

Great, so we'll move on to File Item 4, Assembly Bill 482, by Assembly Member Solache. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members.

On a lighter note, we're here to talk about grapes, and, you know, grapes, and as a Member of the Southeast Los Angeles Delegation and, you know, someone that might say you don't have any Ag in your district, well, I think I'll use the words of my seatmate, you know, we all eat.

So, we want to make sure that everywhere in California we have a, a voice for our Ag community. On that note, it's my pleasure to present to you AB 482, a Bill to update and modernize the California Table Grape Commission Law. The Commission is created by Statute 1967 and has only been amend—amended—since then in 1982.

That's four decades ago. The purpose of AB 482 is to update and modernize existing law to more consistent with current practices. While this Bill will increase the maximum assessment cap amounts that may be collected by the Commission, AB 482 does not increase the assessment; that responsibility remains with the elected commissioners and will remain with them.

The Commission plays a prominent role in helping the California Table Grape Industry market grapes around the world. The Industry is mostly located around devastated—disadvantaged—communities in the San Joaquin and Coachella valleys. I did say Coachella. Mr. Gonzalez, just for your—for you. A strong Table Grape Industry allows for the job and economic development in these areas.

With me today, representing our California Table Grape Commission is President Kathleen Nave.

Is it working? Okay, great. So, good afternoon. Thank you all. Thank you all for your service, by the way, it was interesting. It's been a long time since I've been here. Interesting to listen and to watch you at work. My name is Kathleen Nave. I'm the President of the California Table Grape Commission, an organization I am proud to have served with, and for, since 1987.

I've been the President since 1999. As noted, the Commission was created in 1967 by statute. Only been amended once, and so, the language before you today is very much intended to modernize the language, and to align it with current practices of commissions that have been created since.

Table Grape Commission was the first such organization founded in the State of California. As noted, California table grapes are one of the major commodities in the state. Grown in the San Joaquin and Coachella Valleys, it is, in many ways, one of the heartbeats of the rural communities.

So, I don't want to take more of your time than is necessary.

I would simply say that we would appreciate, on behalf of all the table grape growers in the state, which is who we are charged with representing, and on whose behalf we are charged with working, as well as the consumers in the state, and all of the workers in the rural communities that depend on it, we are looking to increase the assessment cap.

While we are modernizing the language, we have not raised the assessment. The Commission Board hasn't since 1994, because we've been close to the cap since that time. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. And with that, will simply thank you for your time and attention.

Move the Bill.

Great. Thank you. So, we have a motion by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Hadwick. We'll go ahead. Thank you again for your testimony. Is there any opposition in the room? Okay. At this time, we will open it up for public comment.

If we have Members of the audience that would like to register their support or opposition for this Bill, this is your time. Any folks coming up? Okay. Great. Easy. So, do we have any Members of the Committee that have questions or comments? Seeing none. Okay. Assembly Member Solache, would you like to close on your Bill?

There is a motion on the Bill and it's do pass to Appropriations.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee, want to respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Perfect. Easy peasy. Now, Madam Secretary, if you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Bill has five votes, so it will get out of Committee. We just will leave it open for absenct Members. Thank you again for your time. Thank you.

Who else do we have? We have File Item Number 5, Assembly Bill 312, by our Vice Chair. Assemblymember Alanis, if you're ready.

Please proceed when you're ready and if you have anyone that will join you as well.

All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, fellow Members. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak with you all today about AB 312, that aims to support farmers who experience Ag theft, by shortening the holding period from six months to three months.

With the rise of digital tools such as social media and online bulletins, common—commodity—owners are able to locate their property much quicker. This Bill will streamline the process and ensure timely resolutions for all parties, decreasing the burden on farmers, as well as supporting counties, in their inspections and enforcement efforts.

I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Move the Bill.

We have a motion and a second, so we'll go ahead and to your witness if you...

She's here for support.

Okay, great. Well, so at this time, we'll open for public comment—if there's anyone in the public that wishes to add your support or opposition. Seeing none. Okay, that's easy.

So, now we do have a motion and a second. Any Committee Members—questions, comments?

I just want to thank the Member for bringing this forward. There's nothing worse than having your walnuts disappear from the yard.

Great. Thank you. Assemblymember Alanis, would you like to close on your Bill? There is a motion on the Bill, which is to do pass.

I'd just like to thank you for the comments from my colleague and ask for your "Aye" vote.

Perfect. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Bill does have five votes. We'll leave it open for any absent Members, so. But it will move along. Thank you.

File Item 6, Assembly Bill 937, by Assembly Member Connolly. This is the first of two bills that we will be hearing today. Whenever you're ready, you can proceed with your first Bill.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Good afternoon. Proud to present AB 937. This seeks to make technical fixes to the California Department of Food and Agricultural, CDFA, as we'll call them, Organic Transition Pilot Program to ensure farmers have full access to organic transition support.

The Organic Transition Pilot Program aims to support farmers and ranchers seeking to transition their land to organic certification, by providing much needed financial and technical support. Expanding organic acreage is one of California's climate strategies. The Natural Resources Agency established a goal of transitioning 10% of cropland to organic by 2030.

The Organic Transition Pilot Program is an important tool in helping California reach these ambitious climate goals and organic goals. AB 937 will create a one-stop shop for organic transition by consolidating various support grants that incentivize organic transition.

AB 937 will also help build capacity for Organic Technical Assistance Providers, to ensure robust backbone support for farmers to transition to organic, by providing staff training, education in organic farming, and assistance coordinating between organizations. I will now pass it to my witness, Manuel Reyes, who has benefited from the Organic Transition Program.

He is a Spanish speaker and Jessica Gonzalez from CCOF is here to translate and answer any questions.

[Speaking Spanish]

Good afternoon, Chair Soria and Assembly Agriculture Committee. My name is Manuel Reyes and I own Reyes Farms in Windsor, California. I have been farming organically for 12 years.

"I am here today to ask you to support AB 937, which seeks to improve the Organic Transition Pilot Program, and ensure farmers, like me, have full access to the support we need to transition to organic."

[Speaking Spanish]

"Growing food has always been more than a skill in my family. It's a tradition that has been passed down through generations."

"I learned how to grow corn and beans when I was just a young boy in my home State of Michoacan, Mexico. I chose to grow organic because it's what I have always known. Throughout my time farming, I have never used synthetic pesticides to grow my food."

"However, I realized that if I wanted to tap into new markets and grow my business, I needed to pursue organic certification."

[Speaking Spanish]

"The problem was, without certification, it was incredibly difficult to gain credibility with new customers. They didn't trust that my food was grown organically, without that official label. I saw organic farming as an opportunity to not only align with my values, but also to benefit from the price premium that comes with certification."

"But navigating the certification process and exploring other markets is challenging. There are many obstacles and without the proper support, it is hard to succeed."

[Speaking Spanish]

"Fortunately, I learned about the Organic Transition Pilot Program through a friend, who helped me apply. Without their support, I wouldn't have known about the program at all."

"This assistance was invaluable, but it's clear that more farmers like me need greater access to this kind of technical support, to fully realize the potential of organic farming. The knowledge and expertise offered through this program will help me become a better farmer."

[Speaking Spanish]

"AB 937 is essential for farmers like me."

"It will ensure that we have the resources we need to successfully transition to organic farming, tap into new markets, and provide healthier food for our communities. It will expand access to technical assistance and provide the support that's needed for farmers to thrive. Please support this Bill. Thank you."

Second it.

Great. So, we have a motion and a second. Is there anyone in the audience that is opposed to the Bill? If there are, you can come forward. If not, seeing none, do we have other folks that want to express your support or opposition from the public? Please state your name, organization, whether you support or oppose the Bill.

Yes. Brian Shobe, on behalf of the California Climate and Agriculture Network and Californians Against Waste. In support.

Beth Smoker—excuse me—with the California Food and Farming Network, in support. Thank you.

Chelsea Gazillo. I'm with American Farmland Trust and we're in support of this Bill.

Hi. April Robinson here for A Voice for Choice Advocacy, and we support this Bill.

Perfect. Do we have any Members of the Committee with questions? Comments?

I have a comment. I love this Bill, and I'd like to be a co-author, please. Would you present me as co-author? I just want to thank you for bringing it forward and I want to thank you for coming to testify today.

It means a lot to see how we can bring people up and to give them opportunities, and so this Bill really hits the mark, and it helps with economic development and feeding people. And so, thank you very much for bringing it. Thank you.

I also just want to thank you for this Bill and thank you for coming today. As a farmer myself, we got into it with a similar program. Being an organic farmer is even more of a challenge, and there's a lot of red tape that goes with it.

So, these programs really do encourage people to get into agriculture and produce food for our state. So, thank you. I appreciate it.

Great. Before you close, I do just have a couple comments. I also appreciate you bringing this measure forward. [Speaking Spanish]

Just thanking Mr. Reyes for coming here today to express his support. Obviously, this is an important program. As someone that represents a highly— a district—with a lot of agriculture, I know that there's a lot of small farmers, especially underserved—from underserved groups—in, in my district as well.

This is I think a very important piece of legislation that will help us continue providing the technical assistance that folks, like Mr. Reyes, need.

I just will encourage you guys, because I've heard kind of over and over in terms of the technical assistance, that we open it up to other groups that are not kind of the traditional technical assistant groups. I can name, like, the Punjabi Ag Growers Association that have been very active with the Punjabi growers in, you know, not just in my area, but other areas of the state, that are also a great group doing what I think Mr. Reyes mentioned he heard through a friend—and a friend helped him apply.

And so, sometimes I think we need to figure out how we have these greater partnerships with folks that are truly on the ground, providing the technical assistance that individuals like Mr. Reyes need.

So, with that, if you would like to—Assembly Member close. Give us your closing remarks.

Yeah, thank you, Chair, and very much appreciate those sentiments, and, and would be happy to underscore that, as we go forward. Thank you everyone for your comments and support. With that, I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Perfect. Thank you. And there is a motion and a second, with the recommendation of do pass to Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

The bill has six votes, so we'll get out, but we'll leave it open for folks that show up in a minute. Thank you. If you want to--we'll proceed to File Item Number Seven, which is Assembly Bill 947. Assembly Member Connolly, whenever you're ready, if you want to proceed.

Again, thank you, Chair and members. Happy to present AB 947, which seeks to update the California--let's just say CDFA again--Healthy Soils Program based on farmer input.

Move the bill.

Second.

Thank you. Farmers have applied to HSP for nearly a decade to implement climate-smart conservation practices on their farms. While HSPs have made substantial contributions to implementing climate-smart conservation practices on farms, several program changes would help better support the participation of small-scale and organic producers.

AB 947 proposes several amendments to the Climate Smart Technical Assistance Program to ensure all farmers can access HSP, promoting climate-smart practices across our state. Specifically, AB 947 will expand technical assistance for the program to include trainings, conservation agricultural planning, grant writing, matching funding coordination, equipment sharing costs, and outcome monitoring.

This bill will also require CDFA to provide increased flexibility to farming nonprofits to support farmers and ranchers in the application process for the grant programs and would allow equipment sharing as part of the grants awarded. I will now pass it to my witness, Brian Shobe, Policy Director of California Climate and Agriculture Network.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Brian Shobe. I'm the Policy Director with the California Climate and Agriculture Network. We are a network of farmers and ranchers, scientists, and organizations that advocate for agricultural climate solutions.

First want to recognize that the Climate Smart Ag Technical Assistance was first--program--was first established by a bill by Assembly Member Irwin on your committee back in 2018 to ensure that all farmers and ranchers have the support they need to access CDFA's incentive programs.

AB 2377 recognized that while some farms have staff and private grant writers who can help them access grant programs, many farmers do not have the labor, time, and resources to track grant opportunities and complete the associated paperwork. The resulting technical assistance program has significantly increased the number and variety of farming operations who have been able to participate in these programs.

That includes farmers like Juan Santana and Rosie Lee, who we visited in the Chair's district two years ago, and Andrew and Ronnie Leimgruber in Assembly Member Gonzalez's district we visited earlier this year, and it's allowed those farmers to save thousands of dollars a year on fertilizer and pesticide costs as well as energy and water bills.

Last year, some researchers from Cal Poly SLO did an independent program evaluation of CDFA's programs and found that almost 50% of participants in the Healthy Soils and sweet programs have utilized technical assistance and the majority of them felt it was very or extremely important to the success of their project.

As the author mentioned, this bill would make a number of changes to the program based on seven years of experience with the program and input from stakeholders, and basically, it expands the eligible technical assistance to help farmers access multiple sources of funding, state, federal, and private.

And I just will close with at a time when we are losing a lot of staff in local NRCS offices, we really need the State of California to be a robust and reliable partner to farmers and ranchers to help them adopt these practices that make their operations more resilient and efficient, and this bill gives those TA providers the flexibility they need to do so. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that is in opposition? Seeing none, is there anyone in the public that wants to register their support? Please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Charles Delgado, Sustainable Conservation, in support of the bill.

Chelsea Gazillo with American Farmland Trust, in support of the bill.

Addison Peterson with the California Certified Organic Farmers and Californians Against Waste, in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hi. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy, in support of this bill.

Hi. Andy Naja-Riese with the Agricultural Institute of Marin, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the committee with questions or comments? Do we have a motion? We do have a motion. Motion. Second.

I'd also like to be a co-author.

Perfect. Assembly Member Gonzalez, you had--perfect. So we have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll?

On AB--

I forgot to ask Assembly Member Connolly to close. I'm getting ahead of myself.

We ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Good answer. Good answer.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

On AB 947: Connolly, motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

The bill has six votes. We will leave it open for absent members. Thank you. Great. So it's my time to present my bill, so we'll pass it over to the Vice Chairman.

Let's do this. Item number eight. AB 1486. Yeah, right. Madam Chair, please proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Vice Chairman and Members, I'm here to present AB 1486, which is an extremely important Bill.

If you guys recall, last year not only the legislative body passed the climate bond, but the voters supported, highly supported Proposition for which is a safe drinking water wildfire prevention, Drought preparedness and Clean air Bond act of 2024 which authorized the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10 billion.

Of these funds, Prop 4 made $15 million available to provide for grants to public post secondary educational institutions that are designated as agricultural experiment stations or agricultural research institutes to to develop research farms to improve climate resiliency. By today's hearing we heard some of these critical pieces of legislation.

I think similarly we have to support these experimental farms in our higher institutions of learning. And so currently the proposed state budget for 2025-26 does not allocate any of the Prop 4 funds for research farm grants. This Bill will start the grant making process sooner. That is our hope. I think the sooner.

Sooner that we can get the dollars out to these institutions, we can continue to learn more on how we can continue to improve climate resiliency in the State of California. And so Prop Forest Research Farm grants will help California's public colleges to improve the existing or help startup research farms with the focus on improving again climate resiliency.

We are accepting our Committee amendments to the completion date of the farm research grant program to July 1st of 2026. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

We have a move and a second. You get the Madam Secretary looks like they were fighting over the seconds. Ad has second. Is there anyone in the audience that for opposition seeing none. Does anybody want to come up to the mic and give their support or opposition? Please your name and your representation.

Charles Delgado. Sustainable conservation and strong support of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Committee, do you have any questions?

Sure. Thank you for bringing this one forward. It makes me so happy to know that we're going to take care of our CSUs and that are devoted to research, including some of my favorites, Chico and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

But I really think that we need to help improve existing and research for the farms and for the students. So we need to improve our food systems. And I really excited that you're bringing this forward considering we need to kind of direct the money from Prop 4 and you're doing so. So thank you very much and I would like to be a co author.

Perfect. Great. Thank you so much for those comments.

Ms. Hadwick.

I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. As a CSU Agriculture alumni and I had worked at UC&R as well. The research there is often not noticed by the rest of the state. So thank you for bringing it forward. I would love to be a co author as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Madam Chair, you may close.

Yeah, I'll say that. Yeah. It is great to you know to hear those comments from my colleagues Also not only the CSUs but also the UCs are doing some some great things also on their campuses in terms of research and so super excited about the opportunity to continue to Fund and also to Fund existing and also new potential experimental farms.

I can think of potentially one in my district. So excited about this Bill and look forward to seeing this Bill get through the Committee. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Congratulations on your leadership on this. And this is do pass as amended to Natural Resources Committee which will be seeing me again. Madam Secretary, can you take the roll.

[Roll Call]

Seven votes. It is out.

Great, thank you. I think there are a few bills where folks can add on. So we'll go through the bills. Which one do we have first? We'll go back to the adoption of the Committee rules for apps and Members. Madam Secretary, if you can please call.

[Roll Call]

Those were adopted. 70.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes, so it is out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes and it's out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes and is out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has seven votes and it's out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has eight votes and eight votes and it's out.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has eight votes and it's out.

[Roll Call]

Bill has eight votes and it's out. We'll go back through the file

[Roll Call]

Those are out. With eight votes.

[Roll Call]

Eight votes and it's out.

[Roll Call]

AB 411 has eight votes and it's out.

[Roll Call]

AB 928 has six votes and 1 no vote. The Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

Has seven votes and it's out. And that's it. So just wanted to thank everyone for joining us today in the Committee. Before we adjourn, just a reminder that we are having a joint oversight hearing with Assembly Human Services Committee on Food Insecurity in this room upon the adjournment of this hearing. Secretary Ross, thank you for being so patient and being here. So we are concluding our work for the Agriculture Committee, so we are adjourned.