Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Good morning. The Senate Natural Resources and Water will come to order. We are asking all Members if they can come to room 2100 so we can establish quorum on today's agenda. We have nine bills. Three are proposed for consent. Bills will be heard in file order. This is our first hearing of the new legislative session.

We will also adopt Committee rules for the session when we have quorum. We don't have quorum at this moment, so we are going to wait for one more Member with the hope that we can establish quorum very soon. And just as a reminder for the Committee, the Committee, we have three bills on consent.

That's file item two, SB55 Umberg. File item three, SB234 Niello, and file item seven, SB609, layered. So we're going to start as a Subcommitee until we have Coram. But we have our first author here. That. That's Senator McNerney. Senator McNerney will be coming up to the podium, please, to present SB31.

If I have to interrupt you to get quorum, I apologize ahead of time. And if you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit up at the table or you can stand there, whichever you prefer. All right, Senator McNerney, thank you.

And I want to thank the Committee for Letting me come first. It always makes it easier and more pleasant for presenters. And I also want to tell the Committee I accept the amendments, the technical amendments. We'll move forward with those. And I want to thank the Committee staff for working with my staff to find these nice amendments.

First of all, my Bill, SB31, basically encourages expanding use of recycled water in California. And that's critically important. We see climate change is going to be reducing the available supply of fresh water. Estimates are 10% reduction in 10 years.

So in order to deal with that, California has targeted, has encouraged using recycled water, first of all, by targeting 2.82.5 million acre feet of recycled water use by 2030. So in order to meet that goal, we're going to have to expand the use of recycled water somewhat. SB31 does that.

It makes it easier to use recycled water in outdoor irrigation in some circumstances. And it also allows use of recycled water in very specific indoor applications. So it's very straightforward. It's simple, it's targeted, it's rather narrow. And I have an expert witness, Beth, if I can pronounce your name, Oskal will be my technical witness. At this point.

I recognize you.

Just we are giving two minutes limits for testimony. So Felicity start.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Beth Olasso on behalf of Water Reuse California Water East California is the State Association of Water recyclers. We are working to hit the state's goals and maximize the use of recycled water in lieu of potable water. We thank the Senator for introducing SB31.

It really looks to update Title 22 of the Code of Regulations. Title 22 holds all the non potable regulations for recycled water. So think of all the purple pipe that's irrigating turf parks, golf courses, that's where the non potable regulations sit. And those haven't been updated for about 20 years.

And as you can imagine, technology has advanced significantly in those 20 years and we are seeing where the regulations need to match where the recycled water technology is. And so we're making these few tweaks until the state board can do a larger Update to Title 22, which would take staff and resources that really available right now.

So these tweaks will just allow recycled water to be used more readily in parks, to be used for toilet or urinal Flushing, to be used in school campuses and their flower beds and whatnot and a couple other uses.

And make sure that as we are switching from potable supplies to non potable that there aren't some over onerous regulations and and make sure we can get that done and maximize our use of recycled water. So happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. And we have established decorum so I'm just gonna ask that we please call the roll Senators.

Limon.

Here.

Limone. Here. Cerdo. Here. Seardo. Here. Allen. Grove. Here. Grove. Here. Hurtado. Laird. Here. Laird. Here. Stern. Stern. Here.

All right, Perfect. Any other witnesses in support, please come forward. Please just state your name and your affiliation and your position. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. I'd also like to express support on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Thank you.

Thank you. Jennifer Williams with the East Bay Municipal. Utility District in support.

Good morning. Sarah Starr with the City of Roseville in support. Also in support of Inland Empire Utilities. Agency and Irvine Ranch Water District. Thank you.

Good morning. Madam Chair and Members. Franco here on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District in support.

Good morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Lily Mckay on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in support. Thanks.

Good morning. Jamie Minor on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, West Basin Municipal Water District, Santa Margarita Water District and Monterey One Water. Thanks.

Good morning. Kylie Wright on behalf of the Association of California Water agencies in support. Thank you.

Hi. Dennis O'Connor with the Mona Lake Committee in support.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of MWD and support.

Great.

It's 9:00am, y'all.

I apologize, Madam Chair, and my compliments. On running a very prompt Committee. Jason Eichert on behalf of the Rancho. California Water District also in support.

You are all good. Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition?

All right. See no witnesses in opposition. Members, we're going to bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments or a motion. All right, we have a motion from Senator Stern seeing no questions or comments from the Committee. Senator McNerney, would you like to close?

Yes. This is common sense. We want to increase use of recycled water. It's going to make our state more resilient for the future. And I respectfully asked for an I vote. Great. Thank you. With that, we do. The motion is do pass as amended to environmental quality. Can we please call for the vote?

Aye. Limon I. Seardo. Aye. Seardo, I. Allen. Grove. Grove I. Hurtado. Laird. Stern. Stern. Aye.

All right, that is 40 on call. So we will welcome any other authors. And while we get authors, we are going to go ahead and adopt the rules for our Committee first.

So since quorums has been established, the Committee membership has been provided with the Committee rules for review and there is unanimous approval without objection, the Committee rules for the 2025-2026 legislative session will be adopted. If there are no objections, seeing none, the Committee rules have been adopted.

Next, we will vote on the consent calendar, which are file items number two, SB55, Umberg. File item three, SB234Nelo. And. And file item seven, SB609. Layered. And just for clarification, we did have to remove one consent Item, which was SB360. File item 4, since there was a late opposition letter received. If we can get a motion for.

So moved. So moved. We have Senator Stern that has made the motion for consent bills to be approved. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 40. And that is on call. So now we are waiting for authors. Yes, I can do mine. Thank you. And I'm going to pass it over to our Vice Chair.

Okay, thanks.

All right, we're going to be hearing SB 567, by the author, Senator Limon.

Thank you. Thank you, Members and Committee, I'd like to start by accepting the Committee Amendments. The California Energy Commission has projected we will have 52,000 megawatts of energy storage capacity by 2045, to meet electricity demands. To reach this goal, we will need a variety of types of energy storage, large and small, across the state.

The state also has nearly 39,000 idle wells. SB 567 would create a pathway to pilot and study the use of gravity wells and how this technology may be able to take advantage of idle wells to create more energy storage.

It will allow the permitting of gravity wells, with appropriate testing and reporting afterwards, to determine the impacts of this new technology. With me today, I have Peter Montgomery with Renewal Energy to speak on behalf of the Bill.

Mr. Montgomery, welcome.

Thank you, Senator, Good morning. Pete Montgomery, on behalf of Renewal Energy. We're the sponsors of SB 567. We were the sponsor of similar legislation last year, that many of you had the chance to vote for. We're very grateful for Senator Limon for authoring its important legislation.

As Senator Limon mentioned, this sets us on a path to addressing two really important challenges facing California.

Converting idle and orphan wells to gravity energy—energy storage wells—will increase the way in which these wells get plugged, and we'll also have additional monitoring for emissions and leakage, and we'll also provide credible—critical—and flexible energy storage that enables the deployment of more renewable energy.

This Bill creates a pilot program, but it's a much-needed step because it's going to lead to a report and some criteria that will allow the further deployment of this technology. Since you saw the Bill last year, we've—we—addressed the concerns of any of the opposition.

We enjoy support from a very broad group of stakeholders and ask for your "Aye" vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses that are primary witnesses in support? If not, anybody else in support can come up to the mic, state your name, your affiliation, and also your support for the Bill.

Thank you very much. Good morning. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, at this time, I'll call for any opposition to the Bill. If there's anybody who wishes to speak as a primary witness in opposition, come on up.

And since there is nobody scrambling to the mic, the remaining people in the room, if you just want to come up simply and say you oppose the Bill, you may do so at this time. And since none of you are running up there, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee dais.

Questions? Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Limon, you and I finally agree on something regarding the oil industry.

But I do sincerely really like the Bill, because I do think that it takes a technology, an older technology, not the newest that's available, but it does allow an older technology to help produce power that we desperately need in the state and use idle or abandoned wells to do it.

CalGEM is releasing permits for idle and orphan and abandoned wells. They're being processed and then they're just left there. And I appreciate you recognizing the fact that they can be used to create energy, which will reduce the cost of our constituents' utility bills, maybe power data systems in certain locations.

I'm wondering if you would consider, and I'm just going to throw this out, and I'm going to have a meeting with you later, making the Bill a little bit more broader.

So, well conversion technologies like GeoTest, the State Water Board has been reviewing the governor's offices involved on this GeoTest project, which is a very minimal footprint that uses solar to heat up the water inside the orphan and abandoned well, which generates steam, which produces power for turbines.

This brand-new technology, that they're using in several states, is not available under this because of the word that you use on gravity-based wells, because a lot of the wells out there aren't gravity-based. I am also disappointed in the Committee's Amendments that it goes from 1,000 wells to 250.

We're going to have hundreds of thousands of wells out there. Thousands. They're going to be orphaned and abandoned by the State of California through CalGEM, and we need to move faster on this so we can create an energy process.

And I don't know why the Committee didn't adopt your good idea—if I think it's good—and it's in the oil industry. So, those two questions, are you interested in new technology that's been around, that's being approved through the regular process, and this would streamline it? If yes, I'd like to talk to you.

I think we should talk. I don't know enough to actually make that commitment at the moment, but, like, I think we should talk.

I think the idea is how do you take some—I mean it's the basic principle that you just described—how do you take some of, you know, the, either, the idle wells that we have and use some of that energy to help our community? So, happy to talk about it. And I think that the reason it went from 1000 to 250 is simply because it's a pilot.

We're actually trying to figure out right before you establish a brand new program, if it works, if it's going to work for our state, for our agencies, and so forth.

Okay, and this, this geothermal energy storage is being used in different states, Wyoming, Texas, every, you know, other states, and it's working very well in creating energy and reducing cost. We just don't adopt "new" technology here in California. So. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there anybody else who would like to heap praise on the author while we kill some time and wait for other authors?

Senator Stern.

I'll heap. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the legislation and for coming back again. I know, we want to get these pilots going. I think that's, that's my—it was frustrating last year. I thought you did a great job pushing it all the way along, and then it sort of didn't come together.

You know, the pressure I hear from the Senator from the Central Valley is just to get moving and be as open as we can to thinking about solutions for those fields, and how to generate value in Kern County.

So, I would just say, maybe something to consider going forward, I know we've got a sunset of 2035, but—and this may end up being a CalGEM issue, as opposed to needing it in the legislation—but some kind of near term commitment from the Administration, as to how they want it to look, and even starting to outline that through the budget process in parallel to this legislation.

I think that might bring, you know, just a little more urgency to it. I just don't want to pass this Bill and then just wait for a few years for it to happen. It feels like we're knocking on the door for these projects.

So, that's all.

And I think making this kind of progress, in these kinds of fields with new technology, is a very important new kind of step forward, with new politics around domestic energy production, but that is the kind we actually want. That's going to bring value. So, I'd move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Okay, and I agree with my colleagues. So, that's as much heap-age as I'm going to do for you this morning. But it is very good, but since we do have another author that just walked in, we're going to end the extensive debate and go to the author for her final closing.

I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

All right. And this has a "Do Pass," as amended, to Environmental Quality. Can you go ahead and take roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is 5-0. We'll keep it on call for additional Members to add on.

Thank you to our Vice Chair. Next we have Senator Hurtado, who's going to present SB224.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, today I'm here to present SB224, a measure rooted in a simple yet profound principle that water is life and managing it responsibly is our duty. I want to start by thanking the Committee and your diligent staff for your collaboration on this Bill.

I have accepted the recommended amendments and I am grateful for the thoughtful work that went into refining this measure. SB224 builds on the foundation of SB231. And it is driven by the undeniable truth that California's water management must be accurate, transparent and resilient. Yet we find ourselves facing a crisis of confidence. A crisis sparked by catastrophic errors.

During water year 2021, when DWR's faulty modeling led to the over release of hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water, billions of gallons flowed needlessly into the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, yielding no benefit to people or fish.

And just this year we witnessed a similar reckless mistake when billions of gallons were released under federal direction with no positive impact. This left our farmers and communities once again shouldering the burden. These are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a broken system. But this issue runs even deeper.

The Department of Water Resources practices have created the perception of bias, selectively using data and AI models to justify decisions rather than employing forecasting tools that could ensure accuracy and fairness. The selective usage risk favoring specific stakeholders, especially those who stand to benefit from more consistent or higher water allocations, even in the face of severe drought conditions.

Let's call it what it is. It's reckless and it's irresponsible. Whether it's machine learning driven releases or an Executive order driven release, it's reckless behavior. When public agencies fail to deliver accurate data and transparent practices, it erodes public trust.

The California State Auditors 2023 report initiated by Congressman Adam Gray pulled back the curtain on these failures and made one thing crystal clear. We cannot afford to continue with business as usual. As the Congressman himself stated back then when he was an Assembly Member, we cannot trust the water data we are being given.

How can we manage our water resources responsibly? The report provided clear actionable recommendations. But recommendations mean nothing without commitment. We must follow through and demand accountability. That is what SB224 is all about. Taking the right steps to restore trust and secure our water future.

Specifically, SB224 requires DWR to implement new forecasting models and procedures that account for climate change because we cannot afford to base critical decisions on outdated and faulty data. It provides annual updates to the Legislature on progress because accountability means staying the course, not just starting the journey.

And it also established formal policies for documented water management operations because transparency is a foundation of public trust. There are those who will say that this Bill is too much regulation. Some will claim it's burdensome. But let's be clear. What is truly burdensome is doing nothing.

And doing nothing means more communities paying the price for reckless water decisions. Doing nothing is not an option. And California cannot afford to gamble with its most precious resource. We owe it to our communities, to our farmers, to our families, to get this right. With me here today, I have Rachel Glauser, Executive Director of Delta Water Association, in support of this measure.

And you're welcome to come and sit here if you'd like to provide testimony.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, again, my name is Rachel Glauser. I am the Executive Director for the Delta View Water Association. I have the privilege of representing farmers and landowners in Tulare and Kings counties. I'm pleased to be here today to share my support for SB224.

As my growers navigate through SGMA implementation in the heart of the Central Valley, it remains a top priority to see that our state has the ability to manage water resources in the most efficient manner possible.

I also have Members and landowners in disadvantaged communities, and the goals outlined in SB224 will give residents more confidence in overall water management practices. The Bill, as it's proposed, could prevent unnecessary water loss and enhance the state's preparedness in the inevitable drought years.

Accurate water data, modeling, planning, and proper accountability are paramount in supporting our local communities, our farmers, and our incredible agriculture industry. Holding DWR accountable for their water management actions allows the Legislature to see how the Department operates, how. How its actions directly affect our people and our economies. Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

Thank you to Senator Hurtado for protecting our water resources and for supporting the breadbasket of the world. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Please just come to the microphone and state your name, position, and affiliation. Thank you.

Good morning. Rob Doornboss with Weather Tools Incorporated in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we are going to move it back to our Members in the Committee. Any questions or comments. All right. I will entertain a motion. All right. Senator Stern makes a motion to move the Bill. Senator Hurtado, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this measure. Thank you.

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. And so with that, we'll call the roll.

[Roll Call]

5-0. So that Bill will be put on call. And we are looking for authors. Another call for authors. We're going to take a short recess until we have an author.

Natural resources will reconvene. We're very excited to see Senator Rubio here. All right, thank you, Senator Rubio, and when you're welcome to begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Chair and Members. Today I am proud to present SB 360, a district specific Bill that will conserve open space and expand park and recreation opportunities for San Bernardino county residents. San Bernardino county families rely on parks as a vital community space. Parks bring communities together and improve the quality of life.

Parks also are known to encourage economic opportunities in the surrounding areas such as restaurants, housings and other business that can bring economic mobility to that region. SB 360 will unlock an important funding source for San Bernardino county to provide those opportunities. Under Proposition 70, the county has access to funding for purposes of open space.

But the county needs clarification before it can use those funds for planned park improvements, specifically Prado Regional Park. This Bill provides that clarification that we need.

But importantly, SB 360 does not ask for any money from the state, which I think it's important to note, but simply gives local leaders the flexibility to use existing resources to not only support local businesses, create jobs, boost outdoor recreation, but meet the needs of our growing community, which will be a key driver in Southern California.

I can tell you as a child I remember San Bernardino county being almost a desert, respectfully. However, in past years it has grown into vibrant, beautiful communities that continue to need open space to meet the needs of of the growing community. And today I have with me my witness.

Joining me, Nicole Wardleman on behalf of San Bernardino county to testify on my behalf. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you. Yeah. Nicole Wortleman on behalf of San Bernardino, county, sponsor of SB360. San Bernardino County has invested nearly $27 million in regional parks and over 46 million in ongoing park related projects. 6.0 million of those dollars has been allocated to Prado Park, a 2200 acre park impacted by SB360.

Prado park is truly a regional park serving about 1 million residents surrounding and the surrounding communities including LA County, Orange County, Riverside County and San Bernardino. County. In 1988, voters passed Prop 70 which provided up to $20 million for San Bernardino county which was used to purchase nine former Dairylands which were non contiguous.

In 2010, SB 1124 helped the county to maximize public benefits of parklands by allowing land exchanges provided replacement land was acquired in the Chino Agricultural Preserve and there was no net loss in acreage. Three dairy sites that were originally purchased were sold in exchange for land in a different area, expanding the amount of land acquired under Prop.

70 by about 100 acres. The land that was originally acquired with Prop. 70 funds increased in value from the time it was purchased. As a result of the sale and exchange, the county has funds in a restricted account that currently cannot be utilized for parklands and the recreational purposes we're seeking.

Additionally, the 2012 land plan submitted to the Department of Parks and Recreation was extremely limited in the allowable use of lands. SB360 expands those allowable uses to more effectively serve the regional community and provide the ability to amend the land plan.

SB360 would amend SB1124 to clarify that proceeds from the sale of land, money that is currently not providing any public benefit, may support further investment in the Chino Agriculture Preserve and enhance open space, recreation, cultural venues and infrastructure to expand access to the park. Voters granted the Legislature the authority to amend Prop.

70 if the amendments are consistent with the purposes of Prop. 70, including SB 1124 and now SB 360. SB 360 fulfills the intended mission of Prop. 70 funding by prioritizing the expansion and improvement of state and local parks, protecting and increasing habitat value, supporting active recreation, and preserving historical and agricultural heritage. As such, we. Urgent.

I vote on SB360 and are greatly appreciative of Senator Rubio's efforts on the Bill.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any other additional witnesses in support? Seeing no additional witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in. In opposition? All right.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club, California and respectful opposition. Apologies for our late letter.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? And we did receive that letter late. All right. Seeing none. Members. Yes. We're going to start off with Senator Grove.

Just move the bill when appropriate, Madam Chair.

Great. So we do have a motion. Members, any other questions or comments? All right, so we have a motion and no additional comments or questions. Would you like to close, Senator Rubio?

Yes. First of all, I just want to thank my witness for coming today. And this is an important, really important Bill for our region, and it will really boost the economy in the surrounding area. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Senator Rubio. We have a motion by Senator Grove. The motion is do pass to appropriations. We'll call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay.

Hold one moment. Okay. We.

We already called for the role, so we can't have a discussion Right now, but not voting for a moment. Okay?

Okay.

All right, so this is 40 and it is on call. Thank you, Senator Rubio. Next we're going to have center layered present. Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Laird is going to be presenting SB697. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee Members. The State Water Board conducts stream system adjudications to determine water rights. Currently, they're required to perform detailed in person field investigations during a stream system. The water code provisions that govern this were enacted in 1976 and the world of technology has substantially changed since that time.

This Bill streamlines and modernizes the stream system adjudication process by allowing the State Water Board to utilize modern technology when conducting investigations from water rights claims rather. Than requiring in person field investigations for. Every piece of it.

The Bill would allow water managers to utilize enriched real time data to inform their decisions, increasing the efficiency of the adjudicatory process while continuing to authorize the. Use of field investigations if needed. There was this pesky little Bill authored by Senator Allen and signed in 2023.

And that is the one real remaining thing is we have to make sure this Bill aligns with that Bill. And so we are committed to work on it. That's why there's no opposition here today, or at least there wasn't when I started out today. But it's because we're committed to working that issue through. And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Laird, do we have any witnesses in support? We have no main witnesses in support. So if you would like to just do your name, affiliations, position. Thank you.

Good morning. Jacob Evans with Spherical California in support. Thank you.

Hello. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association, also speaking on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies. We don't have position on this, neither associations do. We have been working diligently with your staff and glad to see the amendments that we've been working on in writing soon and hopefully you'll just see the Bill through the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses with either in between or opposition? All right. Seeing none Members will bring it back to the dias. Senator Allen wants a comment on the pesky Bill.

Appreciate the the work in progress and. We'Ll move the Bill. And thank you for, for your work in this area.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While I deeply respect the author, you really are my favorite Democrat. You are here, I guess you'd say.

Ohno, I think you're destroying both our careers with that comment.

Okay. Wait till the podcast comes out. I don't understand the need for the Bill. When adjudication occurs, monthly reports are produced and also adjudication is controlled by the reports or the courts.

And to insert the Water Board to me is just a disaster and a way to circumvent individuals water rights that have had water rights for legacy generations. And so I have a deep concern that that's going to be a runaround to circumvent water rights that people who have had them for generations. That's my concern.

Can I. Absolutely. I think, and believe me, I understand the nature of your concern. This does not insert the Water Board any place where it isn't already inserted. They do investigations as part of this.

This is basically about the fact that they can do the investigations, some of it with real time technology rather than in person inspections, but it doesn't insert them into a process where they are not already there. Thank you.

Thank you. I did have a deep concern about that.

Thank you. I could feel it from here.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments and I will entertain a motion. zero, you did? Sorry. Senator Allen did the motion. So Senator Allen has made the motion. Senator Laird, would you like to close?

I appreciate the witnesses. We're still going to work with. I appreciate the questions and the comments and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Senator Laird, that motion is do pass to Judiciary. So with that, we will go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 4o. We will put that on call. So we are waiting just for our last author. So while we do that, can we lift the calls? We'll start from the very beginning. All right, and so we're going to begin with SB31. Senator McNerney.

[Roll Call]

All right, so that is 6-0 and we'll leave that on call. Next we're going to go to file item four, SB360. Rubio, motion is do pass

[Roll Call]

All right, that motion is 5-0. We'll leave it on call. Next we're going to go to file item 6, SB224. Hurtado.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is out 7-0. Next we're going to go to file item nine, SB567 Limon.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is out. That is 7o and then we're going to go to consent. The consent items, just as a reminder is file item two, SB55 by Umberg, file item three SB234 by Niello and file item seven, SB609 by Laird.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 6-0 and that is on call. So we are just waiting for our last author. So we will recess for a couple minutes, hopefully.

All right, we're going to lift some calls. We're going to start with SB31. McNerney.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out 70. Next Bill is SB360. Senator Rubio.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill. Wait, wait, wait, wait. No, Stern, that is six.

[Roll Call]

That is a 6-0. And we're. We're gonna Senator Stern. Not kidding. Yeah. All right, and next we have file item 369. File item number. No, no, no, no, no. File of item number eight. Senator Laird. Yes. SB 697.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Senate Bill 697 is 5-0. And then we have two not voting. So that's out. And then we have, I believe the file item 7 and consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

All right, the consent calendar is out 7-0. We are still waiting for our final author. And we're going to go ahead and recess until we get our final author here.

No, sir, I am not. But because you are late, I'm asking you to sing Happy Birthday to my friend, the former Secretary of Natural Resources.

Today. The secretary's birthday.

Denied. Okay, so we're going to go ahead with SB369. Padilla, go ahead and present. Mr. Padilla, welcome.

Oh, sorry, it's out of order, isn't it? Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for your patience. A busy morning this morning in the Senate. Chair Limon and I are literally swapping positions.

It's my pleasure to present SB369, which will statutorily require the use of a local, skilled and trained workforce for all restoration work at the Salton Sea. This Committee is well aware the largest inland body of water, the Salton Sea, has been rapidly depleted due to decreased water inflows.

It's becoming increasingly saline, resulting in impacts to the immediate ecosystem and to the air quality, to the public, health, economic health, and a variety of other factors in the region.

As you also know, the state and Federal Government has provided a massive amount of investment in this towards Restoration efforts at the Salton Sea, which is in turn critical to ensuring the health and well being of the ecosystem and the Imperial Valley community.

And indeed in parts of Riverside County, workers performing restoration projects face extreme and unique conditions in engaging in this work. As you know, the statistics for this region of the state have more than double the rate of unemployment, a very high rate of uninsured, and a number of other economic and social obstacles.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements ensure a certain percentage of workers on covered projects have graduated from state registered apprenticeship. Apprenticeship program, excuse me. It ensures local workers participating in such projects are paid a living wage, provided with health and welfare benefits for themselves and for their families.

While the state is currently administratively ensuring protection of workers and restoration progress, there's currently nothing in statute that ensures this. This poses a great risk to the health and welfare and the sustainability of these engagements in a way that has ongoing and lasting impacts that benefit the community far beyond the restoration.

In an effort to ensure the protection of workers workforce pipeline for residents of the Imperial Valley and the rapid completion of restoration, SB369 would statutorily require this use of local skilled and trained workforce for all restoration projects at the Salton Sea.

And with me today are Matthew Cremens with the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Keith Dunn. On behalf of the state building trades.

Thank you. All right. And we will welcome our witnesses in support. We have two minutes each. Whoever would like to start.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, in light of the hour that we are. I'll be brief. The skilled and trained workforce as described is a great opportunity to build the community and to provide opportunities for local citizens. But it's more than about just jobs.

Much like our firefighters who have hazmat training, this specific skilled and trained guarantees workers safety as they do operate in these conditions that provide unsafe situations not only for the workers, but the communities that live in and around that.

So this skilled and trained workforce is not only an opportunity to use locals to provide opportunities for them to build a family future for their families, but again, it's really tied into the safety when dealing with hazardous materials. Again, our firefighters and when responding to cleanups and actual fires have special training. They have hazmat training.

The same type of care goes into this work when our individual from the building trades go out and perform work in these dangerous areas. So with that, I'd ask for your support. Thank you very much. And Keith Dunn with the State Building Construction Trades, also on behalf of the. District Council of Ironworkers, thank you, Madam Chair.

Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, we are proud sponsors of SB369, which seeks to ensure the protection of workers at the Salton Sea and the rapid completion of Salton Sea restoration projects.

As I know this Committee knows well, and as outlined in the Committee analysis, the toxic nature of the declining lake bed at the Salton Sea has resulted in poor air quality across the Imperial Valley that has harmed both wildlife and citizens of the surrounding community. As mentioned by the Senator.

Coupled with that is the fact that as Of December of 2024, Imperial county had a 17.8% unemployment rate, which is unfortunately the highest in the state.

Given the severity of the situation down at the Salton Sea, the state and Federal Government have expended significant resources to ensure the restoration of this toxic body of water in an effort to better protect the health and well being of the ecosystem again, as well as residents of the Imperial Valley.

Importantly, these critical projects present an opportunity for the state to ensure workforce development opportunities for local residents as well as ensure local apprenticeship opportunities for aspiring construction workers seeking to learn a trade and pave their way into the middle class.

It's important to note that the state has already taken active steps to ensure local participation in these projects and are currently requiring for certain design build construction projects that the workforce must be skilled and trained.

Given the toxic nature of this work and the rapid need to complete these projects, SB369 would ensure that skilled and trained requirements apply to all construction for Salton Sea restoration, regardless of how the project is procured.

And by codifying these labor standards, the state will be taking active steps to ensure that these products are completed in a timely manner, provide high quality jobs for local residents and create a pipeline of skilled workers for future projects that will benefit residents of the Imperial Valley for years to come.

Thank you very much and we would respectfully request your. I vote.

Thank you. All right. Any additional comments and support? Just name, affiliation and position, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd Bloomstine for the Southern California Contractors Association in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Elmer Lizardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

See no other witnesses in support. We will move to witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we will take it back to Members for questions or comments. We're going to start off with Senator Grove.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I do have a question. Will this allow all individuals that are qualified under approved beneficiary programs from the State of California to be able to participate in this?

The language is drafted and I can allow those to, you know, clearly indicates a link to the registered apprenticeship programs within the trades and as they meet the definition of that skill. I would imagine so. But I will allow my expert witness to all apprentices.

Yes. State approved programs. All state approved programs. All state approved programs, whether signatory or not. Yes. Correct. So all state approved programs are in the language. Okay, so that wasn't my understanding, but I appreciate that the language.

I can follow up and give you.

Would you do that? Because on 2646 it needs to ensure that all apprentices in the state have the opportunity to work, even if, you know. So it's all state approved programs. Just curious. And it's a district Bill. I'm going to support it either way.

But I was just curious if there would just be be a subset of workers would only be allowed to work on the project, even though there's qualified workers out there that would be able to, that are approved and qualified under apprenticeship programs throughout the state to be able to apply for that as well.

Understood. And I mean, I think the intent is, you know, the intent of the Bill is to make sure that we take advantage of highly trained, highly benefited pipeline of labor to accomplish this important work in a way that achieves not just the restoration, but given the unique circumstances of the stats that we heard about the level of unemployment, the lack of insurance, I mean typically folks who are in those programs are going to be much more likely to have access given the work environment and given the Association to have access to.

And I'm not arguing with that. And I'm not arguing at all. I'm just, I know that there are state approved apprenticeship programs. All programs would be out there. It's, you know, resourced by, you know, public dollars in most cases.

And so everybody should have the opportunity, specifically if they comply with state apprenticeship programs that are approved by the State of California. So that was just a question. Thank you.

All right, Senator Syrto, thank you. So, you know, we just had our confLagration down in La. We got the Olympics, which is going to take a massive building thing going on. And so we have a lot of Labor needs. And everybody I've talked to in Labor says we don't have enough Laborers. And so is this going to.

I guess my first question is this. What is the time frame for when the Salton Sea projects are going to be completed.

That's a loaded question, Madam Chair. Senator, There is a 10 year preliminary near term plan. There is a long range strategic plan. There is a number of different restoration efforts. So it's a very long term effort.

So it is a over a number of years, some of which have been completed, some of which are in the planning phase and some of which are to be completed. And so it's a complex and lengthy and expensive undertaking, as you know. Okay.

Because my concern is as we make our labor environment a little more complex. So if I'm a person that got trained out in the Coachella Valley and then I have the opportunity to go work in Pacific Palisades, I'm leaving, I'm going over there.

And so, you know, there's going to have to be this massive ramp up as far as the skilled and trained part of this to be able to meet the needs of what we are going to be dealing with in the next 10 years. And delays in projects mean accelerated costs for US taxpayers.

So that is my only concern. I welcome the relief of getting people out in the Coachella Valley trained to do this. I just hope they choose to stay and do the work there and not create. You know, it may help otherwise.

But we have a big labor issue coming our way and we're going to have to try to ensure that we have the amount of labor that we need in the future.

And if I might, Madam Chair, just in response, I think two things. One, the nature of the work undertaken there is unique. It is not the kind of work that can. It's a one and done. You dust your hands and walk away. It has to be maintained and overseen and supported.

Otherwise the entirety of the state's investments and liability there go to waste, literally and go up in the winds of the sand. So we need to. So therefore the skill levels and the right kind of skills that are employed there is very relevant and that's what this Bill seeks to facilitate.

Thank you. Any Senator Laird. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Laird. Any additional questions or comments or feedback? All right, so Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. So with that SB369, the motion is do pass to a governmental organization. You may know the chair for that Committee.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is a six. zero vote. That Bill is out. Thank you, Madam Chair. So with that, we have adjourned our Senate and Natural Resources and Water Committee for today, Tuesday, March 25.