Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Will come to order. Good morning. I'd like to ask all Members of the Committee if they can come to room 2100 so we can establish quorum for our hearing. We have 13 bills on today's agenda and four are proposed for consent. The bills will be heard in file order.

We do not have quorum at this time, but the proposed consent items are File item number four, SB463, Alvarado-Gil, file item five, SB662, Alvarado-Gil, file Item six, SB514 Cabaldin and file item seven, SB650 Cabaldin. When we do have quorum, we will make a motion on the consent.

Until we have quorum, we are going to begin as a Subcommitee. And first off, we have Senator Blakespear here to present SB4 to 7. Senator Blakespear, you may begin. We will begin as a Subcommitee and once we have quorum, we will move forward. Thank you.

Great. Well, thank you. Good morning, everybody. Thank you, Chair and colleagues for the opportunity to present SB427. Since 1990, the Habitat Conservation Fund, otherwise known as HCF, has been a highly effective program for implementing a wide range of vital conservation efforts. To date, the Fund has protected more than 1.2 million acres of wildlife habitat throughout California.

The HCF has a 35 year track record of providing resiliency to the effects of climate change, creating new jobs, increasing outdoor access in communities and supporting a robust tourism economy.

Initially created by Prop 117, the California Wildlife Protection act, the HCF was approved by California voters to Fund projects that protect critical ecosystems, open spaces, wildlife corridors and enhancing public access to natural areas, and promoting outdoor education. Cities, counties and any regional park or open space district is eligible to apply for these funds. Prop.

117 required an annual transfer of 30 million General Fund dollars into the HCF until July 12020 and specified how the monies were to be expended. In 2019. The Legislature and Governor agreed as part of the annual budget process to extend the annual allocation through July 12030.

Senate Bill 427 will remove the sunset date of July 12030 on the habitat Conservation Fund, offering a necessary, consistent and reliable revenue source for conservation efforts across the state.

In my district alone, the Wildlife Conservation board has allocated 13.9 million in HCF money for projects including 1.9 million for habitat linkages across Lusardi Creek in San Diego, County, 2.2 million for the acquisition of 134 acres along Buena Creek in Carlsbad and Oceanside, and 1.3 million for the Trabuco Creek Fish Passage Project in south Orange County.

Nearly 1,000 projects statewide have been supported by HCF dollars since 1990, including funds to acquire 235 acres by the Santa Clara Open Space Authority for protection of migration corridors and a natural valley floodplain in Coyote Valley to acquire land, restore and enhance prime salmon and steelhead habitat as part of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project in Shasta and Tehama Counties and to preserve and manage local open space and parkland, coastal access, watershed lands, and the trails in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange Counties.

The Habitat Conservation Fund has demonstrated success and it should be made permanent. With me to testify and support, I have Natalie Brown on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League and Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California. And if you don't mind, I'll turn it over to my witnesses.

Thank you. You may begin. You each have two minutes, so we will cut you off at the two minute mark.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Natalie Brown and I'm an environmental policy advocate with the Planning and Conservation League, the California State affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, a co sponsor of SB427. When California voters passed Prop.

117 in 1990, they did so with the intent of creating a statewide source of funding for open space acquisition and the conservation of lands and waters in California.

This measure created the Habitat Conservation Fund, a unique pot of funding that has since protected 1.2 million acres of habitat across California, supported hundreds of local and regional parks projects, and preserved some of our state's most treasured landmarks.

In the districts represented by this Committee alone, the Habitat Conservation Fund has protected over 116,000 acres of wildlife habitat and invested over $180 million in wildlife habitat conservation and local parks projects since its creation. Importantly, the benefits of the Habitat Conservation Fund are not limited to these actual grant dollars themselves.

When conservancies, park districts, and other recipients receive HCF funding, it can create opportunities for private investment and matching grants that go well beyond the benefits of the state's upfront contributions. Creating a huge economic impetus for critical conservation projects and making the HCF permanent helps project proponents strategize for long range projects.

Knowing that these funds will continue to exist into the future. Palo Corona Ranch in Big Sur, Runyon Canyon in Los Angeles, Kern National Wildlife Refuge, Riverside County's Bee Canyon, and hundreds upon hundreds more projects in every corner of our state provide everyday benefits to California's people and ecosystems.

Thanks to the Habitat Conservation Fund's support, this program has proven itself and deserves to continue in perpetuity. I want to thank Senator Blake Speier and Senator Stern for their leadership on SB 427 and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi, Good morning. Good morning Chairmembers. My name is Michael Chen, Senior Manager of Government relations for Audubon California, co sponsor of SB427. We want to start by thanking Senator Blakespear and Senator Stern for taking up the fight for biodiversity and protecting the Habitat Conservation Fund in perpetuity.

The HCF was created through voter approval and has for nearly 40 years been an important Fund source for protecting critical critical ecosystems throughout the state. California is the most biodiverse state in the country, yet we are rapidly losing species and seeing once common species in decline.

California must make long meaningful investments if we are to reverse this startling trend. California has gone through massive changes in its ecosystem in the past 170 years. We have lost 95% of our historic wetlands, resulting in significant declines in populations of migratory birds, which includes ducks, Geese, shorebirds and songbirds.

The primary cause of decline in birds and other wildlife, as we know, is the loss of habitat. This is what makes the HCF so essential. In addition to providing habitat for wildlife, HCF funded projects provide many other public benefits including recreation, flood protection, scientific research, climate resilience and nature based recreation.

Since its inception, the HCF has been vital and instrumental in restoring habitats and extending. This Fund shows California's commitment to preserving its biodiversity, building climate resilience and expanding access to nature. For more Californians. The HCF has protected close to 1.2 million acres of wildlife and of wildlife habitat and provided benefits throughout the state.

It has funded projects to improve trails in places such as Riverside and Humboldt counties, outdoor education programs in Los Angeles and Kern Counties, and habitat restoration in Alameda and San Diego Counties. The HCF has demonstrated its efficacy and deserves a permanent commitment.

This will be even more important going forward as California strives towards meeting its 30 by 30 goals, implementing nature based climate solutions and improving more equitable access to nature. Your support today makes an important commitment to conserve California's vulnerable habitats and expand access to nature for another generation. Thank you and I respectfully asked for I vote.

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

Morning Madam Chair Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the co sponsoring organization National Wildlife Federation, our clients San Diego Humane Society and Surfrider Foundation also asked to convey the strong support of Caltrout Defenders of Wildlife, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sierra Club California, Sonoma Land Trust, the Nature Conservancy, Mountain Lion Foundation and Wild Futures. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Reid Addis on behalf of the Statewide Association of NCCPs, the California State Parks Foundation and the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, the California Council of Land Trusts and the California Tahoe Alliance and strong support.

Thank you.

Morning Madam Chair. Mark Landgraf, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair. Amy Ricard, Community Resources Manager with Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? See no lead witnesses on opposition. Any witnesses in opposition that would like to come forward? Seeing none. We're going to pass it over to our Committee. We have a subgroup. We need one more to make quorum. But do we have any comments? Senator Laird, then Vice Chair Seyarto.

Excuse me. I was just going to say thank you for bringing the bill. This is great. Thank you for the shameless shout outs of projects that are in all our districts in your presentation and just in these current times trying to keep a backsliding on Prop 4, trying to look for, for federal stuff.

We are just working hard to make everything work and, and, and to have sources for the 30 by 30 and this is a key part. So I'm really glad for the leadership. Look forward to either of moving it or voting for it whenever we get a corn.

Thank you Senator Laird, Vice Chair Seyarto.

I'll join my colleague over there. And thank you for making this an effort to continue what we are doing with some of the, a lot of our conservation area plans.

Some people don't realize that these are also important when you do want to build because there are, there are mitigation efforts that contribute to a plan so that we can have the open space and we can build at the same time. And in Riverside it is really important to keep the funding going.

If we don't have funding, that means what's going to happen is they get delayed and delay is putting everything on hold. And hold costs a lot more money. And so we're probably going to have to have more investment than this if we're going to get these plans completed so that we're not in limbo.

Because that's limbo for property owners, that's limbo for building, that's limbo for conservation agencies. And none of that is good. So I applaud this Bill to continue this effort. But $30 million today was not what it was, you know, 40 years ago or 30 years ago.

And so this is a small piece of what's going to be needed in order for us to go forward with these conservation plans.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. Do you have any closing comments you'd like to leave us with?

Yes, thank you. Well, I appreciate the support from the Committee. Thank you, Senator Laird, for your support and comments and also Senator Syrto and the Committee and the chair for your support.

I think it's important that we do this particularly right now, because last year there was a proposal to sweep this money when we were looking for different ways to balance the budget. And there was a dispute about whether that's actually legal, given that the voters supported this.

But the fact that it was on the table and that it was something that made it through the process for several months to me indicated that it, it's something that we haven't been voicing our value for recently. And so it was considered to be something that might be able to make ends meet without much notice.

So it's very important for this Bill to pass because we need to extend the deadline, have at least 30 million. As Senator Syrto said, we will need more in order to do important projects, but at least it's a down payment on projects or they are smaller projects that are truly making a difference throughout the state.

So habitat conservation is obviously, I think, a core value for many and we assume that it is happening. But this money is needed in order for it to happen. So I am grateful for the support and I hope that you continue to speak up about the importance of it as this moves through the process.

With that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. And once we have quorum, we will go ahead and vote for that. And I appreciate you coming in and working with our Committee on this. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blakes. Spear, I do see that we have our second author here, Senator Cortese.

If any Natural Resources Committee Members are out there, we need one more for quorum.

Walk fast.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. You may begin when you are ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm appreciative of the opportunity to present SB 462, which creates a yearly $20 million appropriation to fund agricultural conservation easements on crop producing land. Most think of Senate District 15 in Silicon Valley, most with possible session of Senator Laird as a Committee Member, as Silicon Valley.

But San Jose and its surrounding area not only had plenty of agricultural land before it was developed, but even now there's a significant amount of farmland surrounding the densely populated Bay Area. And I know that because I grew up in that environment. I grew up farming in the region, as has my family for generations.

While a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I help chair the Ag Preservation Task Force there to try to protect 12,000 acres just in my own county, which is emblematic of what we see in many other counties with an urban core and still many farms and many farm workers working around the perimeter of that urban core.

Senators from the Bay Area, Los Angeles are all too familiar with the proliferation of low density development that creeps further and further into California's open space. We need to be more responsible with urban growth and sprawl, particularly when it comes at the cost of California's iconic and historic farmland.

As one of the biggest agricultural producers in the world, we have an obligation not only to Californians, but also to the rest of the world that California feeds. The California Farmland Conservancy Program, sometimes known as CFCP, is a program that funds the permanent preservation of California's agricultural lands.

As of January 2024, it's been funded just under $90 million over all time, over the entire life of the program. SB 462 establishes a $20 million yearly appropriation to the CFCP. In just five years, this bill's historic allocation will surpass the program's decades of funding.

I've submitted a budget request in support of this bill, and that's been supported by Senators Hurtado, Laird, and McNerney. I'd also like to thank Senator Laird for agreeing to become a principal co-author of this bill and acknowledge his tremendous work earlier in his career, if I can say that, to establish the base program that we're talking about here.

This bill is co-sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, the Santa Cruz Land Trust. It's also supported from the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. I should mention Sonoma has been a model of doing this kind of conservation work.

The California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, the County of Santa Clara, the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, and the California Farm Bureau. With us today to speak in support of the bill, we have Marc Landgraf with the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority and Amy Ricard with the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. And at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And you will each have two minutes. But before you begin, we're going to go ahead and establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Great. Thank you. Quorum has been established, and we will go ahead and have you each begin with two minutes each.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Marc Landgraf, Assistant General Manager with the Open Space Authority. I'm here today on behalf of the Authority as a proud co-sponsor of this bill. Our agency was created by the state Legislature in 1993 to protect irreplaceable natural and working lands.

In collaboration with farmers and ranchers, the County of Santa Clara, and other local agencies, we play a lead role in identifying and preserving the region's most important farm and rangeland. We operate from a modest parcel tax and benefit assessment that does contribute some local funding to farmland protection, though the majority goes to stewardship and operations.

Over the last 20 years alone, farmland in Santa Clara County has declined by 45%. Of the remaining 27,000 acres of currently productive farmland, roughly half are considered at risk of development over the next 30 years. Thousands more acres of farmland with high quality soils lie fallow, but could be productive if a critical mass of protected farmland and ag infrastructure existed in the region.

The Open Space Authority has helped bring about permanent protection of thousands of acres of productive farmland in the region, providing for more orderly growth of adjacent cities and limiting sprawl. Just one example is our purchase of a conservation easement of 100 acres in San Martin, known as Frantoio Grove, where the growers produce high quality olive oil for local markets. It's also in the Hundred Year Floodplain, which makes it a source of flood risk reduction and groundwater recharge.

Ecosystem services like these are often underappreciated but extremely important to surrounding communities and, of course, to state climate goals. But much more needs to be done to prevent the conversion of good farmland to other uses, and we must employ every tool we have available to us.

The CFCP was created by the state in 1995 to support local efforts like ours to permanently protect farmland through voluntary agricultural conservation easements. It's an excellent program that is in dire need of additional funding, as the Senator pointed out. That's why we're proud to sponsor Senator Cortese's leadership legislation that provides ongoing funding to the CFCP, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Exactly two minutes. Wow. You may begin. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Limón, Committee Members, and Committee staff. I'm Amy Ricard, Community Resources Manager for the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, or Sonoma County Ag and Open Space. And I'm here today to express our support for Senate Bill 462.

Sonoma County Ag and Open Space is a community created, taxpayer funded agency creating lasting protections for agricultural and natural lands. We use funds from a quarter cent sales tax collected countywide to conserve farms and ranches, scenic landscapes, natural resource areas, green belts, and recreational lands.

A core facet of our mission is to permanently protect the diverse, sustainable, and productive agricultural lands of Sonoma County for future generations through the purchase of conservation easements. These conserved agricultural lands not only safeguard our county's rural beauty and character, but also our capacity for local food production and the connections necessary for thriving farms and ranches.

These working lands also build climate resilience by creating healthy soils, sequestering carbon, promoting biodiversity, and enhancing food security. But farmland in Sonoma County and across the state is at risk. And once agricultural land goes out of production, it is unlikely to go back.

We are proud that nearly all of the family farms we've conserved are still active today, helping to provide over 7,000 local jobs and contributing to a $1 billion industry. Properties with conservation easements are also more affordable for the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

The California Farmland Conservancy Program can support local districts such as ours in permanently protecting farmland through voluntary conservation easements, but it lacks sustainable funding. That is why Sonoma County Ag and Open Space supports Senator Senator Cortese's bill, much needed legislation to ensure significant and stable funding to preserve California's vital agricultural lands. And we respectfully request the Committee to vote aye on SB 462. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. You're both exactly at the two minute mark. Impressive. All right, do we have any other folks in the room who are in support?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Reed Addis on behalf of the other co-sponsor, the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members. Peter Ansel from the California Farm Bureau in support.

Great, thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anybody else in the room in opposition? All right, we will turn this to Members. I see Senator Laird.

Thank you. Once again, let me thank the author for doing this. And I thought I would just make a comment of context. And that is when the Williamson Act was in effect not funded by the state after the Great Recession, the thing that was put into place that we were very successful with was the ag easement program, the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation through Cap and Trade.

And while it was $5 million in the first year, it has grown to 70. And the experience that Senator Cortese has is he served on the Board of Supervisors with Mike Wasserman, who really got farmers in southern Santa Clara that are hanging by their fingertips together.

And there were more requests from southern Santa Clara than existed in the state program in its entirety. And now, magically, that area is passed into Senator Cortese's district, and he's really advertising for today. And on Friday, I was in King City in southern Monterey County, and they are the poster child for this program because they are...

They have prime ag land on two sides. They have a riparian quarter of the Salinas river on the third, and then they have rangeland on the fourth. And by the fact that the prime ag land has conservation easements on, it means that prime ag land has been protected.

If there's ever growth in King City, it'll go into the least valuable land. And what the author is trying to do is make sure we have enough resources to continue these kinds of efforts. And in the ideal world, this is a small number in the bill, but it is very significant that you're doing it. It's very significant that there's a foot in the door. And I would be happy to move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any other Committee Members with comments? I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And I agree with Senator Laird that this is important in conservation. I also want to note, on page five of the analysis, it talks a little bit about some of the limitations, including some definitions around grazing.

Our Legislature has moved forward some more ecologically friendly versions of grazing for wildfire mitigation and other reasons, and so I just want to note that that also would limit some of this. But as it moves forward, I'm sure there will be a lot of considerations for a lot of, you know, different things, but wanted to make a note of that. So thank you again for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Yes, and thank you. Thank you, Senator Laird, for your comments. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your comments. That's last issue there. We'll continue to work on. I'm a big believer in grazed land and hillside protection as well. It's really a question of how to marshal resources to the most threatened land the soonest.

And that's, you know, kind of a broad brush statement. So we need to, we need to keep working on that. We appreciate the Committee analysis, the Committee help in terms of kind of pushing us back and forth a little bit on this. And we'll continue working on it throughout. Let me just close by saying the outcomes that this program, even under its current limited funding, achieves really are magical. Senator Laird used that word.

We've seen everything from first generation immigrant farmers who are able for the first time to come in and afford to farm on very valuable land because the county now owns the easement and can turn that over at a substantial discount, and retired Silicon Valley executives who want to come in and do the same thing. It's just almost turning the page back to the last century when folks really had the opportunity to come in and work the land. So thank you so much, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cortese. This bill has a do pass to Appropriations. And we have a motion from Senator Laird.

[Roll Call]

Great. We will leave this on call for absent Members. I don't see any other authors here, so we're gonna go through. We started as a Subcommitee with File item number two, SB427. That was Blakespear.

And I would move file item number two.

Perfect. We have a motion that is centered Laird. The recommendation is do pass to Appropriations. Can we please call the roll for that?

Senator Limon?

Aye.

Limon, aye. Seyarto. Allen. Grove. Hurtado. Laird.

Aye.

Laird, aye. Stern.

Stern, aye. 3-0.

Aye.

That is 3-0. We will leave that on call.

And Madam Chair, we have four items on consent and I would move them.

Perfect. Senator Laird is on it. So he has moved our consent calendar. And that's File item number four, SB463. File item number five, SB662. File item number six, SB514. And file item number seven, SB650.

Senator Limon?

Aye.

Limon, aye. Seyarto. Allen. Grove. Hurtado. Laird.

Aye.

Laird, aye. Stern.

Aye.

Stern, aye. 3-0.

Perfect. That is on call. 3-0. And now, perfect timing of Senator Ashby who is going to be presenting File item number 8, SB639. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Nice to see you this morning. Yes.

All right. I am here to present SB639. This is a pretty district specific Bill. It's the Sacramento Flood Control Authorization Act. This Bill extends the deadline for three Sacramento projects to achieve urban level of flood protection in my former City Council district. Actually, it's a project I've been working on for well over a decade at this point.

Sacramento region is one of the most vulnerable urban areas in the nation for flooding. Which means that Sacramento cannot approve new development until achieving urban levels of flood protection by 2026\. Vital housing, transportation and infrastructure projects which are critical to the growth and sustainability of the region could face delays without extension of this deadline.

Three capital improvement projects are on track to meet the urban level of flood protection requirement. But anticipated staffing changes in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and some uncertainties with the Federal Government are a bit of an issue for us. So this Bill is necessary to ensure that we're prepared in case delays do occur.

It truly is just an insurance policy. SB 639 extends the deadline for three projects within Senate District 8 so that we can achieve the urban level of flood protection from 2026 to 2030, ensuring Sacramento avoids critical infrastructure setbacks. And I would just add to that that these projects are actually on track to finish this year.

So it truly is just an abundance of caution situation given the Army Corps as the lead and the uncertainty around the Federal Administration. The project has already achieved substantial gains towards 200-year protection. The three things that remain are two pumping stations and a slurry wall along Reach A.

All the rest is aimed at a 300 to 500 year level protection. So that being said, I have with me a couple of witnesses. I think I have Remi Mendoza from the City of Sacramento and not Audrey. So I just have Remi and Jack Gualco and do you want to come up, Audrey? Okay, that's fine. Audrey is representing Sacramento County.

So we have. Usually we do two at two minutes each and so I don't know how you want to split your total. Four minutes. Okay, perfect. Great. Thank you. So we will go ahead and begin.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Remi Mendoza and I'm a principal planner with the Community Development Department for the City of Sacramento. I would like to thank Senator Ashby for sponsoring, sponsoring Senate Bill 639. The city is a co-sponsor of this Bill.

This Bill aims to ensure that the entire city achieves an urban level of flood protection. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the city have been working diligently with their state and federal partners, investing billions of dollars in important flood improvement projects. We anticipate that these ULOP projects will be substantially complete by the December 2025 deadline.

However, despite everyone's best efforts, it's possible that three flood improvement projects may require additional time to be completed. SB639 only applies to two sub areas within the city known as the Natomas Basin and the Beach Lake Subareas.

This Bill proposes extending the deadline for these areas to achieve ULOP by an additional five years, moving the target date from 2025 to 2030. This timeline extension is crucial for our community as it will allow us to continue complying with state laws that require adequate progress findings for new development.

Simultaneously, it supports our commitment to addressing the statewide housing crisis by preventing potential delays in issuing permits due to flood management, regulatory or construction issues. Without this Bill and the proposed timeline extension, approximately 2,000 new infill housing units could be hindered. With this Bill, we can continue to develop responsibly and in a sustainable manner.

We can meet our climate goals and support the provision of much needed infill housing for our community. Thank you for your time. I respectfully request that the Committee vote in support of SB639.

Thank you. Next.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Audrey Ratajczak from Cruz Strategies on behalf of Sacramento County here today in support of SB639 and thanks Senator Ashby for authoring this for the District.

The Bill is a critical measure, as Remi stated, that extends the statutory deadline for specific areas within the City and County of Sacramento to achieve urban level of flood protection from 2025 to 2030. This extension is necessary to protect the economic and public safety interests in our region.

SAFCA is here as well, in partnership with local, state and federal entities, has made significant progress in strengthening our region's flood defenses. Of the numerous capital projects identified to achieve ULOP, only three that are close to the deadline and one of those is portions in the Natomas Basin, located in the unincorporated area of the County of Sacramento.

Without the extension proposed in SB639, Sacramento county could face restrictions on development approvals and housing growth, even though the necessary infrastructure improvements are there. SB639 provides a reasonable and narrowly tailored five year extension to allow for final certification of the remaining projects.

And this timeline ensures that we can responsibly complete our flood protection efforts while avoiding unintended economic disruption or halted growth in the region. So for these reasons, we ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room in support, please come to the mic. All right, seeing that, any lead witnesses in opposition? Any other witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing none, we're going to bring it back to the Members. Senator Laird.

Sorry, I am the one person still in the Legislature that was an author of one of the bills that's in the flood package that is being amended here. And the dates were really firm and out into the distance. And you answered my question.

But I thought I would just make sure because we have had, I think I've lost track, two or three bills to do the same thing in other parts of the state.

And we have really tried to hold everybody's feet to the fire to make sure that if the deadline was being extended in any way, that there was actually a project on the horizon, that it was to just allow something that couldn't quite get over the finish line to get over.

And it seems to me that that's what you just said, that you are so close. This is insurance. It's going to get across the finish line within our natural life. And this is just insurance. Is that correct?

Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator Laird. That is correct. And I did add some speaking points specifically for you in there because you did let me know you had this bit of a concern. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency is comprised of the elected officials from Sacramento county, the City of Sacramento and Reclamation District 1000.

And they are represented by Jack Gualco. And I wanted to give him an opportunity to just tell you how we're, how he's, how his client is putting a bow on this 43 miles of levee improvements.

I don't know what a bow on a levee looks like.

Really big.

Really, really big.

Good morning, Madam Chairmember. Senator Laird, when you were Resources Secretary, you made sure that there was full funding for the Sacramento projects, as did the prior Administration and the Administration prior to that. We're really at a point where we are just doing the final touches on the Natomas work, the Sweeney Pump Station.

And the city has its own project that it's going to deal with. And you would be pleased to know that on the American River, for example, we're already at 200 year level flood protection and our goal is to get to 500. So for us, with the Corps managing the Natomas project, it's really out of our control.

And with some of the vagaries, I get to put it lightly at what's going on with the Administration in D.C. we're concerned that there could be some hiccup. So SAFCA is committed to getting these things done by the end of 2025.

But if for some reason there's a spillover, we just want to make sure the city and the county have the flexibility.

Thank you. And when I did the building Assembly, my staff member was a Member of the board of SAFCA and resigned his seat so he would not have a conflict in staffing this Bill all the way.

The sacrifices people make.

I would move. I would move the Bill. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Stern.

I'm much less steeped on the details of all this. I just wanted to, I guess probe that, that federal risk question a little bit because we have similar some major Army Corps projects down in Sepulveda Basin in my district.

And some of its contention on what we assumed would just be a normal cycle of funding, maybe from the feds on say, pre hazard mitigation, other sort of standard FEMA funding. Can you just give me a sense of that risk factor here?

I mean, if we get an unexpected and really asymmetrical federal response to the work, like how much is contingent on the federal piece going right, and if it doesn't go right, does 2030 just creep up really quickly on us?

Well, you'll be pleased to know the SAFCA leadership is in D.C. right now talking to the Corps and fortunately all the money has been encumbered. And you'll be even perhaps surprised to know that we got a huge chunk of money from the Trump Administration and Congress when Donald Trump was President the first time.

So I think there is a significant commitment there. And so I, at least for Sacramento's purposes, we think the risk factor factor is less than 5%.

Okay, that's right. Thank you.

If I can just chime in on that through the chair. When I first won my seat on the Sacramento City Council, the Natomas levees had actually just been decertified pursuant to a change that the Army Corps of Engineers decided to implement nationally after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.

And Sacramento's levees in the Natomas Basin, which protected about 100,000 people, were decertified and they became the biggest risk in the whole country. I spent the first six years of my time as an elected official representing people for whom there was no federal flood designation.

That means should you start a kitchen fire or your kid drives the car through the garage door and the damage sustained to your home is greater than 50% of the total value, you cannot rebuild because the area is unmapped, your insurance is no good.

So our beloved Congresswoman Doris Matsui and myself spent six years fighting in every corner of a Republican-led congression then that said no federal new starts and no new money to projects like this, but also had created the new project. Of those six years, we spent five of them in drought in California.

And we did eventually get a federal new start put into the WRDA Bill. It was one of the best days of my elected life. I still have that letter framed. It's addressed to Kevin Johnson, but I crossed his name off and put my name on the top. I did all the work.

Actually went to the signing of that Bill in Washington, D.C. it's the first time I got to see Barack Obama sign a Bill. And it was invigorating for me to come back and tell my constituents it's going to be okay.

So for me to stand in front of you today and tell you there are two pump stations and a beach is like. I almost want to cry because I know how hard it. I chaired the SAFCA board for like, three years straight because we had to go to D.C. every other month to do exactly this.

Federal dollars have always been a risk, and now, of course, everything federal is a risk. But this project, they've always been uncertain. And now we're down to just these three components to achieve the 200 year.

And very little that needs to be done to get to 500 year beyond that, which will actually, ironically, give the people of Natomas the best flood protection in the entire greater region. So trust me, I look forward to that day.

Thank you.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and also for the work that went into it, because clearly you've had years of working on this, but even from the time of introduction to the presentation of this Bill, there was quite a bit of things that happened, including some really substantive conversations about liability.

So I want to thank you all for being part of this conversation and being able to resolve that as this Bill is presented in the first Committee. So with that, I would like to welcome your close.

Respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. So this is Senate Bill 639, and the recommendation is do pass to local government. Senator Laird has made the motion.

Senator Limon?

Aye.

Limon, aye. Seyarto. Allen. Grove. Hurtado. Hurtado. Aye. Laird.

Aye.

Laird, aye. Stern.

Aye.

Stern, aye.

All right, that is 4-0 and we will leave that on call for absent Members. Thank you, Senator Ashby. We are going to welcome Senator Durazo. Perfect timing.

Okay.

And I'll let you catch your breath, and also, begin whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair—Chair Limon—and, and Members. I want to thank the Committee for your analysis and for working with our staff, and I accept the Committee Amendment on Pages 4 and 5 of the Analysis. SB 803 creates a Green Collar Certification for young adults participating in state-certified Conservation Corp programs, enhances opportunities for career readiness pathways, into registered apprenticeships, higher education, and the workforce.

Young people in California, especially our youth in low-paid working communities, face barriers to accessing and keeping good jobs. Lack of access to transportation, adequate job training, and historical exclusion affect a young person's ability to find a pathway to a career.

Corps programs are pivotal for young people to receive the education, training, and certification that puts them at an equal footing to pursue a natural resources career. With SB 803, our green economy and climate crisis response will include pathways to stable, good-paying jobs.

This certification means responding to climate change, while at the same time, uplifting policies that support the dignity of work. For example, today you will hear about the hard work of corps members in the Watershed Protection Mission Task Deployment, in response to the Palisades and Eaton fires.

The Green Collar Certification will help prepare the workforce, environment, and communities for future disasters and emergencies. For these reasons, I appreciate the opportunity to bring SB 803 before you and respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote. My witnesses today are Erika Mascota and Wendy Butts from the Los Angeles Conservation Corps.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Welcome, to your, your witnesses, and we will give you each two minutes and then, let you wrap up.

Okay, thank you. Do I have to push the button?

It's on. Oh, you turned it off.

Did I turn it off?

There you go. Don't touch it.

Okay, okay, sorry. Thank you, Chair Limon and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Wendy Butts, and I serve as the proud CEO of the LA Conservation Corps, one of California's 13 state-certified local Conservation Corps.

For almost 40 years, the LA Conservation Corps has provided thousands of young adults, many from under resourced communities, with hands on job training, education, and career development in environmental conservation. We work closely with our partners at the California Conservation Corps, and other local corps, to serve thousands of corps members across California every year.

Our corps members actively contribute to California's environmental resilience, by engaging in projects like wildfire prevention, disaster recovery, land restoration, and urban greening.

Recently, our Corps, along with the CCC and other local corps, played a vital role in fire recovery efforts for the LA fires, where they worked on watershed protection, habitat restoration, and debris removal, to help protect communities and natural resources. This type of hands-on work is crucial for disaster preparedness, recovery, and long-term environmental sustainability.

The Legislature and Governor Newsom have been—and are—great partners. Your support provides us with funding for job training and work experiences, that we provide to our corps members. But what happens next for our corps members is the challenge that SB 803 will help to address. Thank you to Senator Durazo for elevating this Green Collar Certification Program.

Young adults, especially from underserved communities, face barriers to entering well-paying, sustainably focused careers, due to a lack of formal certification and recognized credentials. SB 803 directly addresses this issue, by establishing a Green Collar Certification Program within the California Conservation Corps and with state-certified local Conservation Corps.

This Certification will validate the real work—real world—skills Corps Members gain, such as conservation infrastructure development, wildfire mitigation, and energy conservation, making them more competitive for jobs in the growing green economy. California's ambitious climate goals require a skilled, prepared workforce to manage conservation projects, disaster response, and clean energy solutions.

Investing in young people today means a stronger workforce, healthier communities, and a more resilient California tomorrow. Our corps members should be moving into jobs with California State Parks, CAL FIRE, Our City...

...wrap up. You've hit your two minutes.

I respectfully urge your "Aye" vote to deliver corps members into jobs. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right, the next witness in support.

Good morning, Chair Limon and Members of the Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my story today. My name is Erika and I'm a proud Corps Member with the LA Conservation Corps. Before joining the LA Corps, I spent about a year, post undergrad, searching for a stable job that provided both income and real—rear—real career training—I apologize.

I knew I wanted to do meaningful work, but I didn't have a clear path forward. Since joining the Corps, I've worked on tree planting projects, which support wildlife and improve air quality for the communities, as well as fire fuel reduction projects, in response to the recent LA fires.

This job has given me hands-on skills, like how to use specialized tools, follow environmental safety protocols, and work as a part of a team on large-scale conservation projects. Being a Corps Member has helped me build confidence, discipline, and leadership skills that I didn't have before.

I've gained real world experience that has changed how I see my future in the workforce. Before this Program, I didn't realize how many jobs existed in the fields like forestry, environmental restoration, or clean energy. I know the LA Corps has helped me prepare for the next step in making one of those careers, my own.

Right now, many Corps Members, like me, gain valuable skills, but we don't have a formal way to show our employers what we've learned. While I'm an exception with a college degree, most of my fellows do not have a college degree.

A Green Collar Certification would prove and validate that we have the training and experience to work in conservation, disaster response, and sustainability focused jobs. It would help open doors to apprenticeships, technical training programs, and stable careers, instead of struggling to prove my skills to potential employers. This certification isn't just a piece of paper.

It's a way for Corps Members to transition from temporary work to long-term, well-paying careers in the green economy. LA Corps has changed my life, and I want more young people, like me, to have the same opportunity. SB 803 would help Corps Members get recognition for their work, build better careers, and contribute to California's environmental future.

Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We will welcome any other witnesses in the room, who have a support position. Please just state your name and affiliation.

Good morning, Madam Chair. John Moffatt, on behalf of Waste Management, in support.

Thank you. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing no lead witnesses in opposition. Anybody in opposition in the room? All right, seeing none. We're going to bring it back to Members. Any comments or questions? All right, no comments or questions. Do we have a motion? All right.

Move the Bill. So, we have a motion by Senator Laird. I want to thank the— the author—for bringing this forward and also working with our Committee to tighten up some of the pieces in this, and I look forward to seeing how this moves forward. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I hope we remember Erick's story and repeat that to anybody else who has questions. She represents the heart of what this Bill is all about. So, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Members.

Thank you. And that—great note. We will call the roll. This Bill, SB 803 has a "Do Pass, As Amended" to Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

All right, that has three votes. We're gonna leave that on call for absent Members. Thank you, Senator Durazo. And seeing no other authors in the room, we're going to go ahead and go to Committee Member authors. So, Senator Laird is going to go ahead and begin. He has two bills.

So, Senator Laird has SB 484 and Senate Bill—SB 839.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 484 has to do with coastal housing, and we in the committee in the last year or two, have presented with bills that would break open the Coastal Act for different types of housing. This bill addresses that concern by trying to figure out how to prioritize housing within the Coastal Act.

And when I was first elected to the Assembly, the City of Carmel, which is in my Assembly and now Senate district, did not have a local coastal plan. They'd never had one. And as a result, anytime a project was appealed at the city, it came to the Coastal Commission.

And the Coastal Commission became the Planning Commission for the City of Carmel until finally the Coastal Commission said, 'we can't take it anymore,' and they did a year's moratorium on appeals from the City of Carmel until Carmel did a local coastal plan. Well, we still have areas in California that don't have local coastal plans.

And what this bill does--the Coastal Commission still has the regulatory authority like they did in Carmel--but what this bill does is allows for three pilot programs in three of those areas that don't have local coastal plants to prioritize housing there. And it really allows us to get ahead of the curve.

Now, there have been some concerns expressed, and I will call out the League of Cities, of which I am a former board member--and I'm about to go up to my office and tape a tribute to--but they express concerns about this bill, and let me speak to them directly because it's my view they do not understand the bill clearly.

They express two concerns: that it empowers two different state regulators to take the helm of authorizing and enforcing housing policies for coastal communities, and second, the bill would usurp local land use authority by allowing the commission to dictate housing projects.

Neither of those is the case with this bill. It is limited to uncertified areas where there's an uncertified local coastal plan, and this bill gets the Coastal Commission out of the way of other state regulatory authorities, local governments.

It leaves the local government as the sole permitting and entity for 100% affordable housing projects that are targeted in these three pilot areas. And it would be my hope, since there are at least 11 that fall in this category, that if it works in the three, it's something we could expand to others.

So basically, this bill would work within the Coastal Act, where they already have the authority to prioritize housing to get out of the way, allow cities to do it when it's targeted, and I think rather than us fight about this issue, this allows us to move ahead and construct housing in the coastal zone. So I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Laird, do we have any lead--no? No lead witnesses in support. Any witnesses in the room who just want to state their position on this bill in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? If you're a lead witness, you can come forward in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Garden, on behalf of the League of California Cities in a respectful oppose unless amended conversation. Just wanted to say we've had great conversations with the Senator and their staff and look forward to continuing those conversations as the bill moves forward.

Our concerns are around--we just want some more clarity in the law to make sure that the parcels that are selected by the Coastal Commission for housing would comply with the inventory of sites for housing elements that have been state-approved at the local level, and we don't feel like the bill does that right now.

So we agree with the intent of, you know, having the Coastal Commission give waivers for coastal development permits. We think that's a valuable idea and it's a good phase of testing, you know, how we can increase, you know, affordable housing on the coast. We agree with the intent of the measure.

We just want to make sure that there's clarity in the law that it would only apply to sites that are approved by the State Housing Element or complies with local zoning and General Plan requirements, concern being that we don't want to--as the Senator pointed out--we're concerned that it would lead us to have duplicative planning efforts that we need to go through.

That said, we are open--we can consistently look forward to working with the Senator. He's been very supportive of the League, and so we'll look forward to those conversations, but right now, we do have an oppose unless amended conversation and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Any other witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing none, I'll bring it--actually, there is no other members on the dais, so, just kidding. So, Senator Laird, I want to thank you for bringing this. I actually think it is a very thoughtful approach in how we can think about aligning and also building housing along the coast, so I'm interested to see how this is going to continue to move forward, interested in also what some of these pilot areas will be.

Certainly appreciate the opposition's concerns, but I'm pretty confident Senator Laird is going to be able to work some of this out and think of the alignment also with our cities and local government's Housing Element plans on this. So I, I'm not going to move the bill because I'm the Chair, and I think you're not going to move the bill, so I think we're going to wait for the bill to be heard, but you're welcome to close.

Let me just thank you for your comments, and I will look forward to continuing to work together. I think there's a needle to thread here because we want to have a sole authority. We want to make sure that local control is there, but if we narrow the bill dramatically, we push things out of it, and that's our concern of not trying to do that, but we will continue in good faith to work together, I'm confident we'll get somewhere, and the Chair echoed the one thing that I keep hearing.

How are we going to choose? Who are the 11? And I have one in my district, the City of Monterey, that I have been in touch with, and that just has a unique situation where they're in a de facto water moratorium, and so I am working in other ways with the Water Board to try to get that water order redone because it is holding up a couple of housing projects and it's been in order since 1995, and if we can do that, then that actually might not cause the need for this bill.

They're going to get a coastal plan by the end of next year and if we get them water, then they can move the housing projects forward, but it just speaks to how in each of these 11 jurisdictions there are different issues that are causing the circumstances we're in. And whenever we get more than you and me here, I will respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Senator Laird, thank you so much. We're going to move to the next Bill, which is SB839.

Thank you very much. Senate Bill 839 reduces the number of unnecessary fishery closures due to oil spills and adds grant eligibility to rules. In 2023, there were approximately 1,370 oil spills reported in California. The vast majority of these were very small.

This could be, I kept saying in the office, this could be a can of Valvoline that fell in the river or it could be a 4,000 gallon dump from some vessel.

And yet the law, since some changes in the law, does not recognize those differences and in fact almost requires a fisheries closure in each of those places until they determine what it is.

What this would do is give more flexibility to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the responding OSPR program to not have to mandatorily close a fishery if the science shows right off the top that this is a minor thing that will not broadly affect.

So this gives flexibility to the agencies within the law and there is also removes a liability exemption. I want to be clear on this. First, for private pleasure boats or vessels causing oil spills, and there was one in particular.

In September 24, a ship called the Admiral dumped approximately 4,000 gallons of diesel after it exploded and sank in Marina Del Rey. They could be exempt from damage liability under existing law. And as part of this overall effort, this removes that liability exemption. So I think this makes both of these issues workable.

And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Laird, any lead witnesses in support or any other witnesses in support? All right, seeing none. Any in opposition? All right, seeing none. I'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments or I do welcome a motion. All right, so we have Senator Hurtado who has made a motion.

Thank you so much, Senator Laird, for bringing this forward. We have a support position here. Would you like to close?

I appreciate the exhaustive conversation.

I mean, this is pretty good. Senator Laird, two bills in a short period of time. Says a lot about the author. Thank you. All right, so we have file item 11 SB839, and that has a do pass to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Can we please call the roll?

Senator Limon? Aye. Limon, Aye. Seardo, Allen, Grove? Hurtado? Aye. Hurtado, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern.

All right, that has 3-0. And so we will put that on call for absent Members. I do want to ask if Senator Hurtado will entertain a motion for Senator Laird's Bill since the chair and author could.

Okay, so Senator Hurtado has made a motion for SB file item number 10, SB 484, and that it has a do pass to the Housing Committee. So if we could please call the roll on that.

[Roll Call]

Right. That has three votes. We will leave that on call for absent Members. And next we are going to go to Senator Caballero. File Item number one, SB72. Thank you, Senator Caballero. You may begin whenever you are ready. I have the same exact reaction.

Uh, reaction.

I don't know who put it up so high. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm pleased to present SB 72, a bill to modernize the California Water Plan to reflect the state's new climate reality and establish long-term water supply targets that when met, will ensure sufficient, high-quality water for all beneficial uses in the state and will ensure a drought-proof future.

I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and I want to thank the Chair and the committee staff for working diligently over the past several weeks to make the bill work better. The California Water Plan is the state's strategic plan for sustainably managing and developing water resources for current and future needs.

The plan is updated every five years and provides a key opportunity to inform decision-makers about water management and California's water future. Major revisions to the Water Plan have not been made for over 20 years.

During those 20 years, extreme weather patterns, resulting from climate change, has profoundly impacted water supply in the state for virtually all beneficial uses. SB 72 would set an interim target of nine million acre feet of additional water by 2040, while the Department of Water Resources develops a long-term target for 2050.

And let me just say that there's been a lot of stress and angst over setting a target, and the argument used is we don't use targets to try to reach a goal. And that's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. We use targets all the time. It's a way to drive us towards sustainability, and so that's what we're trying to do with this bill. And it's based on studies. We can talk about that if you want. The research supports the targets.

In June of last year, the UC research study entitled, "The Magnitude of California's Water Challenges" estimates a shortfall in California's water future supply between 4.6 and nine million acre feet annually by 2050, and that really depends on what kind of climate we see between now and then.

It's hard to predict, but we know there will be less water because we'll have less snowpack. It's anticipated to disappear. The research also supports the conclusion that California must plan for tomorrow and rely on all of the tools in our toolbox to ensure adequate water supply for future uses, including investments in desalination, recycle and reuse, water storage, including groundwater recharge, and demand management and conservation.

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

An updated approach guided by state policy must be implemented to meet the challenge. In closing, without clearly defined water supply targets and strategic planning to achieve targets, the state will continue to experience devastating water shortages in the future with devastating consequences. SB 72 identifies targets to help us avoid water scarcity and to ensure a drought--a drought-proof future.

This is a logical first step. I respectfully request your aye vote, and with me today to testify is Andrea Abergel, Director of Water with the California Municipal Utilities Association, and Catherine Freeman, Senior Legislative Advocate with the California State Association of Counties.

Thank you, and each of you will have two minutes. Thank you. Whoever would like to begin first.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. We are proud to co-sponsor and support SB 72. CMUA represents over 70 public agencies that provide water and wastewater to 75% of Californians.

Our co-sponsors are the California State Association of Counties, here with me today, and the California Council for Environmental Economic Balance. The current iteration of the California Water Plan, which has always been developed through the leadership of the Department of Water Resources, has been in existence for over 65 years.

It provides detailed information on the state's water resources and recommendations for reasonably sustainably--to reasonably sustainably manage those resources. However, it is missing a key component, a north star for water supply planning.

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

As one of the largest economies in the world, we should not have a fragile water supply that two years of drought nearly cripple our communities, farms, and fisheries. We continue to experience volatile hydrologic conditions, bouncing from wet winters to drought conditions threatening our water supply.

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

SB 72 fulfills the generational responsibility to develop a water system that will adapt to environmental changes, allow the state to thrive now, and preserve the California way of life. We thank Senator Caballero for her leadership in bringing this bill forward. We support SB 72 and urge your aye vote.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Catherine Freeman with the California State Association of Counties. I want to thank our fellow co-sponsors, the author, Senator Caballero, and in particular her staff for working with all of our diverse 58 counties. In recent years, California has experienced an increasing frequency and intensity of disasters, including droughts and floods.

Each disaster disrupts entire communities. Counties play a critical role in disaster preparedness, response and recovery, and we're the first to respond when a community runs out of water due to drought or water supply disruption. Our 58 counties vary drastically in hydrology and water availability, but California's hydrology in nearly every part of the state has changed significantly.

Rainfall, water supply has changed. We need to adapt and we need active planning for climate mitigation. We need to move beyond the 1970s Water Plan and focus on current and future needs of our local communities, our local economies, and our rural economies. We need the state to address--the State Water Plan to address regional water needs.

And as an example of why we need water targets, counties are required to plan for targets for housing under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements. We can't do that without proper water supply planning on a regional basis, and to be clear, this bill, this is an all-of-the-above bill.

To continue to protect our most vulnerable communities, enormously valuable ecosystems, and economic production statewide, we need to support planning for all types of water supplies: groundwater, surface water, floodplain management, recycling, you name it; we want to see it in the Water Plan.

So if we want to be ready for climate change and we want to be prepared for disasters, we need to adapt, and SB 72 moves us in the right direction and we urge your support for the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support? Please only state your name, your affiliation, and the position. Thank you.

Thank you. Julee Malinowski-Ball, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association of California, the Fire Districts Association, and the Contra--excuse me--the Contra Costa Water District, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. Willie Pelote, on behalf of the American Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in support of the bill.

Sarah Starr with the City of Roseville, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Alfredo Arredondo, on behalf of Irvine Ranch Water District as well as the San Diego County Water Authority, in support.

Dennis Albiani, on behalf of Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, San Gabriel MWD, Mesa Water, and several agricultural entities. Thank you. We support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Brady Guertin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thanks.

Good morning, Chair and members. Brenda Bass, on behalf of Western Municipal Water District, Western Growers Association, and Mojave Water Agency, all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jaime Minor, on behalf of a few agencies; have a list here: Turlock Irrigation District, Santa Margarita Water District, Monterey One Water, West Basin Municipal Water District, and Eastern Municipal Water District. Pleased to support. Thank you.

Morning, Chair and members. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau, in support.

Chloe King with Political Solutions, on behalf of the California Water Association, in support. Thank you.

Morning. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in support.

Good morning. Lily McKay, on behalf of San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, West Valley Water District, and United Water Conservation District, in support. Thank you so much.

Morning, Madam Chair. Jack Gualco, on behalf of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, Kings River Interest, Kern County Water Agency, Modesto Irrigation District, and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, all in support. Thank you.

Patrick Foy, Three Valleys Municipal Water District, in support.

Good morning. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cucamonga Valley Water District, WateReuse California, and the Santa Ana Watershed Projects Authority, all in support. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Keely Morris, with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robson & Smith, on behalf of Orange County Water District and Rancho California Water District, in support.

Good morning, Chair Limón, committee members. Bryant Miramontes with the American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees, in support, and just want to appreciate the author for addressing inclusivity on the Advisory Committee.

Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nossaman, here on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, all in support. Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair and members. Jason Eichert, on behalf of the California-Nevada American Water Works Association and the Community Water Systems Alliance.

Good morning. Raquel E. Ayala with Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of Desert Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District, Solano County Water District--sorry-- Solano County Water Agency, Palmdale Water District, Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company, Puente Basin Water Agency, Rowland Water District, Walnut Valley Water District, and Water Replenishment District, all in support. Thank you.

Tweener?

Tweener is accepted.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the five delta counties. I want to thank you and your staff. I want to thank the author and the staff. I want to thank the supporters of the bill for taking the amendments that remove the opposition of those five counties, and I'm just happy to say that this could, in fact, be a bill that none of the 58 counties oppose. So thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, now we will welcome lead witnesses in opposition to please come forward.

So we have one. Is it just one? Yeah. All right, so you'll have 4 minutes, which is the combined time of the support.

Chair and Members, Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee. Appreciate the thorough analysis. It touched on most of the issues that we raised in our letter, plus a few other things. I gotta say as an aside, I don't think I ever wrote a 17 page analysis, so she gets bonus points for stamina if nothing else.

And we do appreciate the Committee amendments, but we still remain opposed to the bill and the water supply targets. I want to make three points. One, we continue to believe that this bill will skew the water plan to focus on increasing water supply to the detriment of other less expensive and less environmentally stressing water management options.

Two, we're concerned that the 9 million acre feet target for 2040 is too high. As the author noted, the CMUA Commission study reported that the reduction in water supply would likely be would likely range from 4.6 to 9 million acre feet. Another way of saying that is that the reduction would be 6.8 million acre feet plus or minus 2.2 million acre feet. That 6.8 being remarkably close to DWR's estimate of about 7 million acre feet. Three, there can be real consequences for overestimating necessary water supply.

The analysis noted the challenges of rising water rates in San Diego County because they overbuilt their water supply system. We already have a water supply affordability problem in this state. And while the San Diego experience is just one example, we want to ensure this bill doesn't inadvertently create more such problems.

If this bill were to be amended to codify the neutrality raised in the comment, Water plan is intended to be neutral, on page 10, and if the bill was amended to change the current target language to match one of the two alternatives identified on page 9 under the comment, why 9 million acre feet, then we could talk about changing our position, but until that happens, we must remain opposed. And also, I've been asked to me too opposition for Defenders of Wildlife and Sierra Club California.

Great. Thank you for that. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition in the room? If you can come up forward. Yep. To the mic. Thank you.

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. Not a witness, but also aligning our concerns in opposition. Thank you so much.

Hi. Scott Webb representing Resource Renewal Institute, Restore the Delta, and Friends of the River, also in opposition.

Thank you. All right, Members, we will bring this back for a discussion. Any comments or questions on this bill? Vice Chair Seyarto.

All right. Thank you for bringing your persistence in bringing this matter to us again. Last year, you had a great bill. It is hard to get a water plan when you don't know what you need to achieve. And that's all this is doing is helping us understand what we need to achieve in the future to be able to supply California with the water that it needs. And I don't know why that is too hard or too expensive. Apparently, last year it got vetoed by the Governor because of our budget issues.

I know lots of programs that didn't get vetoed that cost more than this. And this is desperately needed. Our water issues, just because we've had 2 and 3 quarters of a wet year doesn't mean that our water issues are solved. What it means is we have enough to get to the next drought and then once the drought is over, we're going to be right back here again listening to people tell us to only flush our toilets once a week or something. We're tired of this. We're tired of this up and down cycle.

We need to get here and kind of stay there. And in order to do that, we need your bill that will help us identify what we have to do in the future. So that a plan, you know, I'm glad that we have the California water plan, but it's just a plan. We don't know what they're trying to achieve and how they got to that either. So I support your bill. I think it's desperately needed if we are ever going to get a grip on our water issues in California and also get a grip on how much it's costing our consumers. So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Seyarto. Any other comments or questions? Senator Stern.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you coming back with this again. Just want to get your comments maybe in your close, but you know, it's easy to look at water as one big picture and having a sort of statewide target. I get the merit of that sort of unity.

But there's so much regional specificity around this stuff. Right. And what say Kern County's going through or more sigma impacted or ag heavy areas are going through may be different for the urban users. And I get we sort of want to try to aggregate all that demand and put it somewhere.

I just, from the veto message, I didn't just take, you know, budget but just that if you're steering staff resources to this sort of central planning target where a, you know, I don't know whether it's regional planning targets or these sort of tailored approaches are going to be better use of staff time.

I don't want to plan, to just plan I guess. I get it if the plan becomes action, but just, I don't know. Thoughts on how you're going to navigate that going forward? I mean, I, I appreciate that you got a diverse group of stakeholders here, right. Everyone from Irvine down to, you know, the all met, you got Kern. But I'm just still struggling with how to, you know, whether this is going to be a plan that sits on the shelf or whether it actually has operational potential. So maybe you can comment on that.

Yeah, thank you for that question. I appreciate it. So, two responses, both which are just totally separate from themselves. One is that if, if I was king of water, I would say our priorities are to slow down water deliveries out of the region and to figure out regionally how we come up with solutions. And there's no sacred cows to those solutions. The problem is people have set up sacred cows, and those sacred cows mean we don't step on them, we don't talk about them, and we don't do them. Right.

Why we haven't looked at small desal when other countries in the Middle East are doing it and doing it very successfully is beyond me. There's nothing about that in here. I've left it technology neutral and region neutral so that we can look at all the options and figure out how to deal with it. Right.

But the other thing is that part of the challenge with water is that for some reason it is analyzed entirely separate, which was the second part, from how we have dealt with climate change. We've pushed goals and targets that have been absolutely difficult to reach. Right.

We're going to struggle to meet the 2030 targets for greenhouse gas reduction, but that didn't keep us from setting them. And nobody said, or nobody is saying, oh, let's not set targets that are too high because then maybe we won't reach them and we'll look bad or something.

But my point is, is that we've done it in other areas, but for some reason we just can't get our head around the fact that we need to set some goals for ourselves in this regard. And why this becomes important is that we have developed our state into this economic engine, and the economic engine is faltering.

The last drought, we had 400,000 acres plus in the Central Valley that were left fallow. And that meant there was no work. That's for trucking and box making and everything that else that goes into agriculture. And farm workers were laid off. They had to find work somewhere else. And so we will...

And then the other part of it is we had wells going dry and people had to buy water to be able to take showers. And so we're going to continue to see that kind of hopscotch negative impact all over the state that is absolutely unacceptable. So part of what I'm trying to do through this bill is not to redo the engine, it's to tinker with it, it's to check the spark plugs, it's to check the filters, and to get some data about what would we do in order to be able to meet our...

How do we drought proof our state so that we don't go through these periods of times where people have no drinking water or we're not doing agriculture. Already through SGMA, 500,000 to a million acres of ag land will be put out of production right through the middle of my district. That's already done.

And there will be more devastation. That's blowing dust in the summer that has a spore that creates illness. So I'm mystified, frankly, why it becomes so difficult. This in reality just says let's create a report. And I'm like you, I don't want to see it on the shelf.

So we have to rely on people that will succeed us, that they'll take that report and say we got to do some of these things. And when we've discussed with the public, the two big issues that they were concerned about were water and wildfires, rightly so. And frankly they go together.

You have wildfires and no water, and that's not a good thing. And so we absolutely have to figure out where are we the weakest in our systems. I'd like nothing better than to have San Diego off the Colorado River and to have the delta subsidies or water movement gone. Now that would kill agriculture in my region, and so I don't say that. But we need to figure out a better way to do things because it's not working.

Thanks for that. And I and the staff did just note also I think some of the amendments with that you've worked on with the Committee to the bill also have, to your point, the most impacted areas are going to get elevated for, you know, even from workshop locations. But also urban sector needs, regional ag water on regional bases. So I think that's... I didn't pick up on the details the amendments too, but I think that strengthens. It's going to make it a plan that is. Has operational potential, you know.

Yes. And the other is, I could add as a footnote we added a letter to the to the Journal from the delta counties because of late concerns about what the language could mean, and we fixed that. That was the I appreciate them showing up and going neutral. We never intended this to signal support for or opposition for the tunnels. This is not about that. And so we found some language that was appropriate and really appreciate the hard work that went into that.

Thank you. Senator Laird.

Yeah, I have some comments that will eventually lead to a question.

So I should pay attention?

Well, when you hear the inflection, you'll know. And I want to thank you for taking the amendments with regard to the beneficial uses. Because I think if you look at what we all saw in Australia after their drought, they completely redid their water rights system, and they assigned by sector to municipal uses, agricultural uses, and environmental uses, and they really, by segment, dealt with it.

And I had to smile when you said that people are concerned that it's oversubscribed or it's too much because then it'll match our water rights system, which gives people water rights over subscribed to the amount that's available. So maybe there's some method to that.

I think that the thing is there is a difference between some of the other goals in that they're not finite resources that are natural resources. If our goal is to take things out of the air, that's one thing. If our goal is to divert things from landfill, that's another. But if it's water that arrives in certain ways, that is a different thing. And the question I was sort of going to get to had to do, and you walked right up to it in your answer, is with climate.

Because when I was in the Assembly, I had a Select Committee on California Water Needs and Climate Change, and there were projections that the snowpack would be within the end of this century, something like 5% of what it was decades ago.

And so when you have the underlying change in climate in how water is created and that is a moving thing where less water in certain rivers, less snow, how does that match sort of a fixed goal? How do you deal with the fact that the climate makes the resource a moving target?

So that's a really good question. Let me just say that part of the challenge, and I'll have another bill that tries to bring in new technology, is you remember the year that it snowed and it was late in the season. It was anticipated that that snow melt was going to be really good for the rivers, and it disappeared. It had to do with the type of snow that fell.

If you send a guy out with a stick that goes like this to find out how much snow there is, you're likely to be wrong because it doesn't tell you the percentage of water in the snow. It just tells you what the depth is, and it doesn't tell you what the natural environment's going to do with that water.

Whether it heats up very quickly and it makes it run or it heats up very slowly and it just absorbs into the... My point about that is I had a bill that would have used LiDAR technology which is the Turlock Irrigation District has used this really advantageously. So they're here. So I keep talking about this.

It's forward thinking. They were able to repurpose the dam that they have, they've had for years to be a storage facility as opposed to a flood control facility. And that's significant because it's the same drop of water, it's the same amount of water, but when you release it becomes important.

And if you have to release it and if you know that the through LiDAR technology that you're not going to end up with any of that water hitting your dam, then you can leave the water in there. You don't have to drain it off during the winter months. And so my point is we've got to get better at this. It's not like we're going to create new water molecules. It's being able to re-evaluate how we capture water.

Which is why I'm big advocate for Flood-MAR because it takes the water that's falling in our region, it is storing it temporarily so it can fill the aquifer. So if we do this right, we have all these alternatives to look at where do we have the ability to do Flood-MAR that'll result in underground storage.

That's going to be good for, for us because we under SGMA cannot take more than we put in. And so my point is not that we'd be looking at how can we create more molecules, but how can we do this better? What infrastructure do we need, how are we going to fund it, and where do we need the infrastructure? The big municipal entities have done a great job of using recycled water.

You'll remember the days in San Jose when they tried to do that, and it was called toilet to tap and everybody got grossed out and it didn't go anywhere. But you know what, they stayed persistent, and that's the kind of technology we're going to need for the future.

Yes, and I had to drink a glass of water In San Jose in front of a crowd at their success.

And it was clear, they said, be clear about that.

I appreciate it. And I think to tail on your point, in a couple of ways, I mean, we measure, but we don't necessarily measure the quality of the molecules. So when we have still a million people that don't have clean, safe drinking water, they have water. But we might be measuring it, but we're not measuring the quality in a way that we know that that is something we have to do.

And I spent Friday in your former district that's now mine, and in King City, in Greenfield, and then partially in Soledad, they are already with water recycling, and they can't get the money to do what they need to do in a way that I'm suspecting you want to set the goals so that you can turn around to these funding sources and say, see, here are the ways that we can meet this need, and we don't have the pots and the resources to match.

Okay. Well, I think, you see one of the frustrations in my prior life was the lack of understanding of California's water system. And I think I was speaking to a group of farmers once when they thought the big issue, which the President of the United States thinks, too, is a small fish, as opposed to releases in from the delta into the bay to keep salt in the bay, and which has to be substantial.

And that's why beneficial environmental uses needs to be in this in a clear way, so people don't think we're creating all this water but then allowing salt into the farms or water supplies that are into the delta. So I just appreciate your craziness in being willing to take on this topic. I suspect it will need work all the way, but I wish you luck and I will support the bill today.

Thank you. And I want to thank the author and you, your team, your staff, and everybody involved. There was a lot of work that went into this to try to also make sure that we were all kind of moving in the same direction, understanding what it was or wasn't doing. And you made a comment, Senator Caballero, just in regards to, I think it was piggyback on what Senator Stern was saying, talking about, you know, climate change and water goals.

And I think one of the challenges that we, you know, we face with this bill, but as we will with almost every other bill that deals with this, is that sometimes, you know, the climate goals and the water goals aren't always aligned for reasons that have to do with the fact that water is limited resource. And sometimes we are trying to figure out usage of a limited resource versus, for some of the climate goals, we're looking at how to change behaviors or advanced technologies in these areas.

And so we're trying to figure out how you can do both when one is about usage of a limited resource and the other one is about changing behaviors or advancing technology and how those come together. So I wanted to just recognize that because, in your comments, I heard you kind of trying to address this. This is one of the struggles that we have. They're not quite identical goals, but we're trying to figure out how to align them.

So, Madam Chair, I appreciate that, but part of my frustration is that it is a limited product, but we don't treat it like it is. So why do we allow pools? Do people really need a swimming pool in their backyard that nobody goes in for most of the year?

And why do we allow areas where people can afford to pay high water bills, why do we allow them to water two acres of grass in front of their house? I mean, we make these choices, and I'm not advocating we don't do them anymore. But it's not evenly distributed. And my father will roll over in his grave. But how come so many golf courses that we keep watering on a regular basis? So my point about it is that we have a style of life that I'm not criticizing. It sounds like I am, but I'm not.

But it's a limited resource that we overuse in many ways that don't benefit anybody but a small handful of people. And so I'm not suggesting we change it, but that we look at other. If we want to continue doing it the way we're doing it, then we need to figure out how do we use and reuse and not release water from dams when we don't need to. And it's all of the above.

And that's really what this is all about, is trying to figure out, okay, how are we going to deal with this and try to maintain the lifestyle that we have. And if we can't, what changes are we going to need to make in order to be able to meet a future where people actually can turn on their tap and have clean drinking water?

Yeah. And I think that that's a point well made. And these are the types of things that we're grappling with. So, again, I want to thank you. I want to thank your, you know, the team and everybody involved, including the Committee staff, on addressing a few things.

You know, we addressed some of the concerns from the delta counties coalitions, and so those are on page nine of the analysis. And so that was an important piece. We also discussed quite at length, neutrality, language. And I know that the analysis also, on page 10, talks about that and like potential, you know, suggestions or things to consider as it moves forward so that people can see that there was no intent put in one direction or another.

And then I do want to ask you a question just related to one of the things that the opposition has mentioned, which is the discrepancy between the 9, you know, MAF and the 7 MAF that the 2023 report, the Water Plan, the 2023 Water Plan update suggests. How did you come to 9 versus 7?

What was your thought and thinking? We know that some of our water agencies also have borrowed money to build for bigger capacity. And so if that capacity is not used, tell me how you're thinking about that, your reaction to that, or just response?

So, well, we picked. There were a number of reports that were out and initially this started off with 10 million acre feet and then 15 for 2050. And that was the last bill that we did, and we agreed on nine because the Governor was using that number and it was a reduction from 10.

I don't see us, you know, the concern about the overbuilding, that creates an opportunity for them to be drought proof is really what it amounts to. And I don't see that as a disability, frankly. You want to have enough of a resource so that when it's a drought year, you don't have to start imposing higher fees or you don't have to tell people... The last thing we want is to end up like Mexico City.

And I hate to pick on cities because I love that city, but I don't know what they're doing. They were going to go dry. The last thing we need in California is for people to be announcing that they don't have enough water to last throughout the season. This document doesn't require you to overbuild.

It doesn't say that we have to overbuild in California. In fact, if there's a scenario that's very expensive... I look at this very, very similar to what you do when you do an EIR. There are different alternatives that you can choose, some of which are more expensive than others. And by region it may be different.

But if in fact there is nothing the need or the interest in building the 9 million acre feet, it at least identifies where would it come from and how would we get that. Would it be repurposing the dams, would it be doing a small desal, and where would it be? Because different regions have different water needs.

So it just the angst over a number, to me, it's very, very similar to what we've done in the climate sector because what it is is it's aspirational. This is what we think we're gonna need. And if we can get there, here's what it's gonna cost.

It may be that it's cost prohibitive, but when people have no water, cost doesn't tend to be the issue anymore. People are willing. You go to the airport, you pay $5 for a bottle of water that you could get for a dollar in a grocery store. And so it's situational.

Where do you need it and when do you need it? And so, like I said, we landed on nine because that was one of the numbers that the Governor was using. I had 10 before, and the analysis was, well, the Governor's using nine. We should use nine. So that's where the nine came from. And then there have been other studies that have come up that have been in the range. It's not that far off.

Thank you. So I appreciate that. And just the response, I think that, you know, the opposition had raised that. I think I had seen that there was an ID of 6 to 9. And so I think folks are trying to figure out why and how we landed, since that is one of the concerns.

So, Members, any other questions or comments? I want to thank you again for your work, for the Committee's work, for everyone's work on this. It's been an ongoing conversation, and I think, as Senator Laird said, we know that there will be more conversations.

I think the analysis is a reflection of how much thought went into this to try to address previous concerns from, you know, previous years, because this issue has been moving forward. But also to try to make sure that as this moves forward, it's in the best possible place for it to be considered.

So I appreciate that, and I appreciate the amendments that have been taken on this. So with that, we do need a motion. All right, we have a motion by Senator Hurtado. This bill has a do pass as amended to Appropriations. So with that, we'll call the roll. And I'm sorry, did I let you close? My bad.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote today. And I really thank you for the robust discussion. This is not an easy topic. And the fact that Californians want a solution is popping forefront right here. When we don't have water, we have issues, which is why the firefighters are on board. We absolutely need to get this right. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. And we have a motion. We'll call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, this has five. And we're going to leave it on call for absent Members. Thank you, Senator Caballero. Thank you. All right, folks, next we have Senator Hurtado for SB 556.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members. I will not guarantee that I'm going to beat Senator Laird's record this morning, but I will make an attempt. Thank you so much. I rise today to, or I come today to present SB556, a measure to support floodplain restoration and habitat conservation projects.

I want to start by thanking the Committee and your diligent staff for your collaboration on this Bill. I have accepted recommended amendments and I'm grateful for the thoughtful work that went into refining this measure.

The flooding that struck in the Southern San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Basin during the historic winter of 2023 was a stark reminder of the need for major improvements in the region's flood management capacity. But fortunately, we also have these challenges, have a common solution rooted in both science and nature.

Multi benefit floodplain restoration that gives rivers and floodwaters room to spread out, slow down and sink into the region's overstressed aquifers rather than harming people, crops and property. Floodplain restoration projects similar to Those proposed in SB556 produce numerous co-benefits beyond improved flood safety and groundwater recharge.

Some of these benefits include fish and wildlife habitat restoration, creation of good paying jobs, natural carbon sequestration, clean water and recreational opportunities for underserved Central Valley communities. I am confident the effects of SB556 can be another example of consensus in the world of California water.

And with me today to testify in support of SB556, I have Vice Chairman of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Robert Jeff and Mayor Saul Ayon of the City of McFarland. Also with me to answer any technical questions is Bill Eisenstein.

Thank you. You may begin. You each, there's a total of four minutes. So I don't know how you want to split it up between. Okay, so we're going to do with those two, two and two. Perfect. Thank you.

You can do one minute, I'll do three. Please.

All right. Whatever you all want.

I'm just kidding.

I'll be quick. So you might have three. So. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Robert Jeff and I come from the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut tribe, home of one of the most altered landscapes in the world.

Since time immemorial, the Tachi Yokuts people have lived in the San Joaquin Valley and the Tulare Basin. The Tachi Yokuts stewarded, managed and lived, interdependent with the land, rivers, lakes and the floodplains of this region. Our traditional ecological knowledge teaches that floodplains are vital to the health of the region.

They give rivers and floodwaters room to spread out, slow down and and sink into the aquifers. This reduces flooding that harms people, crops and property and reduces drought by recharging groundwater supply, which is a huge issue in our area. Sadly, riverways and floodplains in the region have not been managed according to the wisdom of our tribal ancestors.

Instead, shortsighted attempts to contain riverways and eliminate floodplains have contributed to boom and bust cycles of drought and flooding. These cycles of drought and flood threaten communities, infrastructure and the economic future of our region.

SB556 secures Proposition 4 funds for habitat conservation and floodplain restoration in Kern, Kings and Tulare counties which are traditionally underserved by Proposition 4 monies.

These projects will create numerous co benefits beyond flood safety and groundwater recharge, including fish and wildlife habitat restoration, creation of good paying jobs, natural carbon sequestration, clean water and recreational opportunities for the underserved Central Valley communities. Most importantly for the Tachi Yokut people, restoring the riverways and floodplains of our aboriginal homeland is a cultural restoration.

We look forward to working with local partners to return the land to a sustainable state as we were taught to do by our ancestors. I urge the Members of the Committee to support this Bill and I encourage you guys to come on out as we make this work happen and make it possible for our future generations.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and honorable Members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I stand before you not only as the mayor of City McFarland, but a representative of a small, resilient community that has endured decades of hardship due to flooding from Poso Creek.

For 40 plus years we battled with devastating impacts of this flood that have only disrupted our daily lives, but also affected our low income, underserved and disadvantaged community. It's a problem that while originating outside of our city limits, has been felt deeply within our streets, our schools and most importantly, our homes.

When Poso Creek overflows, the floodwaters travel through a dairy adjacent to the city with thousands of cattle. And I'm not talking about the sacred cows that Senator Caballero was talking about, but I'm talking about they make their way to our community. The water that flows through our community is not just stormwater.

It's mixed with animal waste, making it a health and environmental concern that only worsens over the years. This runoff from the dairy, along with other Environmental factors makes its way to our city streets, our schools and neighborhoods. Like I mentioned before, the result of the relentless flooding has damaged our homes.

For far too long, McFarland has relied on its own resources, seeking solutions from local landowners and looking for funding to mitigate flood risk. But our local efforts can only go so far. To truly address this issue and its source, we need regional action and state leadership. We need a true long term fix.

And that's where Senate Bill 556 come in. With the introduction of Senate Bill 556 is the floodplain Restoration Bill. Senator Melissa Hurtado has shown exceptional leadership and commitment to our region.

This Bill proposes to allocate 20 million towards the Poso Creek flood mitigation targeting the source of the flooding that has affected McFarland and our surrounding communities for decades. This is a critical step to ensuring that the flooding we face is finally addressed. At its root and with solutions will protect our homes and our families.

This Bill represents not just a financial investment, but a commitment to the future of Mcfarland. A future where our streets remain dry, our children can play and our community thrives without constant threat of flooding every year. It's a future where we no longer have to shoulder the burden alone.

In short, this is more than just a budget line item. It's a lifeline for the City of McFarland. McFarland is incredibly grateful for the initiative and stands in full support of this Bill. To the Members of this Committee. This Bill is about more than just water infrastructure. It's about equity, environmental justice and the protection of our community. It is the chance to.

We're going to have to ask you to wrap up because you're well over your two minutes.

On behalf of our residents and our families and future generations, I respectfully urge you to support Bill, Senate Bill 556. With your help we can break the decades of long cycle of flooding and build a safer, healthier and more resilient City of McFarland.

Thank you Chair and Committee Members for your time, service and consideration at three other points. But my time has been cut off. I took a four hour and a half drive. I miss my students today to come here because it's a very important topic to address this concern. So and I just want to finish with this.

I don't only want to forget about our residents, but we also need to remember our beloved pets. Animals that we have to relocate and find shelters. We know the problem that municipalities have with over refill as far as their shelters. So it's just combines with a lot of different.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you. And do we have any other witnesses in the room in support? All right, seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing no witnesses in opposition. We're going to bring it back to Members. Any questions or comments? And we have Senator Stern.

Thank you Madam Chair and Mr. Mayor. I appreciate your respect for just how we have to do protocol here, but I would want to give you the opportunity. Just those final points other than pets, but yeah, I mean it's a long, it's a long drive. I know my folks live in Porterville, so it's, it's a schlep.

Thank you so much for the time I wanted from these from, from the flood impacts. What it does is our low income residents have to get a supplemental flood insurance that it's already a burden for them to sustain. And it's annual. They have to pay for a flood insurance due to the Poso Creek not being addressed.

Two is. Well, I'll just finish off with three. In 2023. In March we had our last flooding and I had about four months of being the mayor. I get a call at 2 in the morning, you know, the county calls, we have to evacuate the residents.

And it's my dad and he's like, hey, what have you done to fix this problem? And I go, I've been only in office for four months. And he goes, well, if I was you, I would get like hundreds of people, get shovels, tractors and build a massive berm and divert that water elsewhere.

And I was like, well we can't do that because of potential litigation. The water's got to come, it comes downstream.

But so for now, if this Bill gets approved, I could tell my father, not only did I get 100 people, I got the whole state and I also got the Senate Committee and the natural resource of water to help us with address this issue that's been going on for 40 years. And thank you for that.

Now I know why you needed to finish your points for your dad watching. Hopefully we can help some of these solutions and everybody else out there too. So thank you for bringing this forward. Center. I move the Bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Senator Stern. We do have a motion. Any other comments or questions? I do feel like this is a very McFarland moment right now. I'm like, you know, those of us that have followed the history of McFarland and knowing many firsts, many, you know, can do attitudes, small, small community, farm working community.

I feel like you're having your McFarland moment as the mayor right now. So thank you. And thank you also to our tribal leader for, you know, for being here and being reflective. I also want to just recognize how important it is to have diverse perspectives here to help us think through some of these issues.

And of course, with the leadership of the Senator, and I know you didn't have a chance to say anything, but this is a moment where, you know, if you'd like to say anything, you're welcome to say something in support of the Bill.

I'm Bill Eisenstein. I'm the Director of Planning with River Partners and we've been working with the Senator staff to sponsor this Bill. We're a nonprofit that has done almost 20,000 acres of multi benefit floodplain restoration around the Central Valley over the last 25 years.

So we have a lot of expertise with this and we've seen these benefits realized for communities all over the valley, including farm worker communities like Grayson in Stanislaus County, several cities. So all over the valley, we work with willing sellers only. I think that's another important component.

These are lands that are likely coming out of production for reasons that are beyond any of our control. And we're converting those lands into properties that rather than potentially being a dust bowl like Senator Caballero said in the last discussion, they're actually creating powerful benefits for the community, for the economy, for everyone in the basin.

So that's why we're involved and that's why we do the work we do.

Well, thank you. Thank you for sharing that and thank you all for being here. So with that, Senator Hurtado, you are welcome to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of this Committee. I think that we may have the next movie coming up, maybe a sequel to McFarland on water though. I appreciate the comments today and the opportunity to extend the points that were missed. And with that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Hurtado. This is Senate Bill 556. It has a do pass as amended to appropriations. Senator Stern made the motion. We will go ahead and call the roll.

Senator Limon.

Aye.

Limon, aye. Seyarto. Allen. Allen, aye. Hurtado.

Hurtado, aye. Laird. Laird, aye. Stern.

Aye.

All right, that is 4-0. That is on call. We're going to go to our last Bill, which is the, my Bill. So we're going to ask any authors, I'm sorry, any authors, any Members of the Committee who have.

Who are not here, if they can come so that we can, as soon as this Bill is over, add on to votes. And I'm going to pass the gavel to Senator Laird, who is going to chair the Committee, while I present.

Madam Chair, welcome to your own Committee.

Well, thank you.

You can present your Bill named after my area code, whenever you're ready.

All right, so SB area code 831. So let me start by saying good morning. And also, California has a notorious history of destructive natural disasters, including devastating earthquakes, landslides and fault displacement. To mitigate the potential impacts from these disasters, the Department of Conservation performs essential functions related to geologic hazard mapping.

It also provides vital information for hazard prone areas. SB831 clarifies the scope of current law by including in the definition geologic hazards certain geologic conditions that may occur in relation to natural disasters and climate change.

As the effects of a changing climate become more apparent, hazards such as mineral hazards, post fire debris flow subsidence, and inland and coastal erosion must be clarified as potential dangers to life and property under the definition today. With me, we have Adam Harper from the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association to speak in support of the Bill.

Welcome. And you're the only witness, right? Correct. You have up to two minutes, but we'll see how that goes.

Chair Members of the Committee, Adam Harper with the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in support of SB831. The Bill adds clarity to the essential duties of an unheralded but important state institution, the California Geological Survey.

As a representative of the mineral and mining industry, I've had the great benefit of the knowledge and publications of the survey throughout my career. I have also heard countless briefings from the state geologists to the Mining and Geology Board on the many services the survey provides California.

There is, of course, the post fire Slope Stability Analysis where the survey gets on the ground quickly after fires, identifying slopes and hillsides that need to be stabilized. There is the work identifying minerals of statewide and regional importance, helping to ensure we know where minerals critical to the human well being may be developed. It's a personal favorite.

There is the work identifying and mapping areas of the state which may have geologic and mineral hazards such as radon gas and earthquake floods, faults and slopes subject to the landslides. By a coincidence of timing, I heard the survey briefing the board on an earthquake cluster in the Sea of Japan.

They were monitoring it closely and quite concerned. Fukushima happened the next morning. I've also heard briefings on each earthquake that has hit California over the past two decades and the work of the survey identifying new faults and hazards such as liquefaction zones as a result of those events, our state's diverse geology has created a wealth of habitat and opportunity for the people of California.

It is the Geological Survey, which was first established in 1860, that has enabled us to understand, adapt and thrive upon this complex geology. And Calcima is pleased to support SB831 and clarify the important roles served by the survey in helping us understand our environment so we can build a safer and more productive society.

Thank you and please support SB831.

Thank you very much for your comments. This would be the opportunity for anyone else to express support for Senate Bill 831. Seeing no one, this would be the opportunity I have no listed lead witness for anyone to express opposition to Senate Bill 831.

Seeing no one, the matter will come back in front of the Committee for questions or comments or motion. Senator Seyarto.

All right so most of the Bill is completely supportable updating some of these laws. One of the concerns I have, especially in light of our issues nowadays is the issue with fuel reduction projects or and having an additional layer of permit approvals going through a process that we don't know how long that will take.

Did you look at that and consider that in this Bill?

We did. So CGS already is involved in the review of for example timber harvest plans in relation to slope stability. So when trees are removed from forest, whether it's timber production, fuel reduction or other reasons, there is the possibility that the ground becomes destabilized by limiting the root structures.

So because they are, because CGS already has internal staff and expertise to perform these responsibilities and regularly does do this. We didn't think at the time, we didn't think of including more since they already do this and the agency already has that ability.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions or comments from Senator Stern?

I just want to appreciate the, the harrowing job the, the witness has to to look in that not so distant future and see disaster before it comes and applaud the author for trying to get ahead of of these things and knowing that science and these kind of surveys are life saving work.

So really do appreciate you showing up and it's a, you know, it's a tricky time when we're trying to put, you know, gut so much of our infrastructure around this at a federal level. And I'm just glad that CGS is here. So with that I move the Bill motion.

Any further discussion then? Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion which is do pass to Appropriations and ask for the call of the roll.

Senator Limon? Aye Limone, aye. Seyarto. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Grove. Hurtado? Aye Hurtado, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye.

Okay, five.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's 5-0. And are we missing someone, or is that Everybody here in 50?

So the. Yes. The. The absent. The Senator will not be making it. So this is everybody right now.

Then the Bill is out.

Thank you.

And over to you.

All right, folks, so we're just going to go through all of the bills that we have today, and we will begin from the top. Thank you so much. We're going to start with file item 1, SB 72. That was Senator Caballero. That Bill has a do pass as amended to Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

All right, so that Bill is out 6-0. Next, we're going to go to file item two, SB427. That's Blakespear. That has a do pass to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 6-0. Next, we're going to go to file item number three. Cortese. That has a do pass to appropriations.

[Roll Call]