Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Okay. Good morning. Thank you, everyone. We'll call our Committee to begin. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair. Okay. Apologies for the tardiness with which we're starting. Okay, so to ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today, this hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website. Don't miss it. That's what I say.

And Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 444. Okay. So, given the long agenda we have today, the Committee will be limiting testimony as follows. For each Bill, the Committee will allow two primary witnesses in support. Two primary witnesses in opposition. Each primary witness will be limited to two minutes.

I do have a timer. Just going to say. Or a total of four minutes. You don't even have to use all of it, though. Following the primary witnesses, remaining witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to their name or organization and position on the Bill, please. And I thank you for your cooperation. Okay, so we've got.

We don't have a quorum just yet. Tangipa is here. One more. Okay, great. So we've got two bills on the consent. We'll take those up once we get a quorum. But let us start. We have two items that have been pulled by authors. AB agenda item number three, which is AB269. Bennett.

Agenda item number six, AB763, which is Ward. Hold on. We got a few more. Agenda item seven, AB 807 by Dixon, is pulled. And agenda item number AB892. Schultz, has been pulled. I see we now have a quorum, so let's go ahead and take roll. Madam Clerk?

[Roll Call]

Okay, great. If I may call upon you, Madam Secretary, to take us through the consent calendar, and then we'll entertain a motion and a vote on that. I beg your pardon?. Okay. Second. Okay, fantastic. Okay, why don't you go ahead and read them off?

[Roll Call]

Moving right along. Okay. All right. So we will let us start with item number 34 Assembly Member Ramos AB362

Thank you, Madam Chair. I first want to begin by accepting the committee amendments on this bill. Today I'm presenting AB 362, a bill aimed at taking steps to repair legacies of injustices faced by Native American tribes in the State of California.

When it comes to water policy, injustices faced Native American tribes through colonization of different periods and errors and histories in the State of California. Since time immemorial California tribes have been stewards of their environment.

Waterways and bodies of water have an important cultural aspect and must be treated as such with a voice of Native American people, California's first people, in the process. That was left out in the beginning, an existing statute, beneficial use of water have been established and required to be protected by local water authorities and the state water board.

This bill would simply add the requirement for tribal uses to be viewed in the same manner. In making this addition, the state can correct a long-standing injustice. Tribes have historically been left out of the conversation as it relates to policy in the State of California, including water policy in the state.

When California's first people are not at the table, cultural impacts are sometimes irreversible. Underscoring the importance of this bill, tribes can fulfill their sacred duties of being stewards of the land in which they are traditionally tied to if they are giving a voice at the table.

With me today to testify on this bill is Vice Chairwoman Malissa Tayaba of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, sponsors of the bill, as well as Vice Chair Chairman Robert Jeff of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe.

Good morning, Chairwoman and committee members. My name is Malissa Tayaba, and I am the Vice Chair for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. And I'm also the Director of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. My tribe's ancestral homelands actually span over seven California counties with major village sites located here in Sacramento, along the Sacramento and American rivers.

And my grandmother was actually born right here at the Village of Pashune, which you guys know as Discovery Park. We sponsored this bill to bring forward this very important measure that seeks to adequately, holistically and expeditiously protect the health of tribal communities.

In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned about the degraded conditions in our rivers which impact the ability of our people to maintain culture, tradition and food sovereignty. Our people have relied upon these waterways and the cultural landscapes connected to them since long before European colonization.

We have also heard similar concerns from other tribes and determined that current state efforts to protect tribal water uses are insufficient, which is why we are pursuing legislation. AB 362 would place tribal water uses on equal footing with other statewide beneficial uses of water, such as recreation and agriculture.

A statutory designation would ensure that state regulators understand and act expeditiously to protect the water uses of all California tribes. Additionally, the bill would create improved frameworks for state agencies to consult with tribes and benefit from our knowledge when setting water quality standards.

Furthermore, it would allow the legislature to track progress on implementation of tribal beneficial uses and evaluate whether regulations conform to statutory policy directives. Some of the problems, although the state water board and regional water boards have made some progress in advancing tribal water use designations, not all regions are moving forward quickly to adopt tribal beneficial use designations.

And none of the water boards have set enforceable water quality standards that protect the way tribes uniquely use our waterways. From our perspective, it appears the water board's incentive is to not act due to various political actors that do not want to add tribal water uses into the mix of beneficial uses that must be protected through regulations.

Not only is this failure to act inequitable, the delay is also unacceptable and puts our tribal communities at greater risk. We are asking -

If I could ask you to get to your conclusion.

Okay. We are asking that tribal water uses be put on equal footing with other statewide beneficial uses. And we're bringing this issue to you, the legislature, because the state board and regional board process needs clear direction to protect the health of tribal people and our ways of life.

As you know, we sponsored AB 2614 on tribal uses of water last year, and this year's bill is our attempt to find a path forward on this critical issue. This bill represents an imperative step towards protecting all tribal water uses for all California tribal communities. Thank you for your consideration and I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Robert Jeff and I'm the Vice Chairman of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe: home of one of the most altered landscapes in the world. Since time immemorial, the Tachi Yokut people have lived in the San Joaquin Valley and the Tulare Basin.

The Tachi Yokut stewarded, managed, and lived independent with the land, rivers, lakes, and floodplains of the region. Although tribes are the original experts on water management in their aboriginal homelands, tribal water uses are often too overlooked in water project or regulatory programs approved by the state water board and regional water boards.

AB 362 would require that tribal uses of water be considered on equal footing with other uses as part of the process for approving a water project or regulatory program for the Tachi Yokuts. The return of Pa'ashi or the Teleri Lake supports the restoration of our traditions and culture.

Pa'ashi is a life-giving lake that once provided for our ancestors, and it is sacred to our people. Pa'ashi's reawakening offers a chance for our people to experience a part of our identity that we had only heard about in stories and songs passed down from generation to generation.

It is a restoration of our human habitat and a restoration of habitat for the many birds and other species that make the lake their home. This cultural restoration should be a priority on equal footing with other water planning priorities for our regional. Yet, many times Pa'ashi has begun to return.

It has been drained again, including most recently in 2023. Because Tachi Yokut's tribal beneficial uses of water are not prioritized in local or state planning. AB 362 will give our people a chance to participate on equal footing in regional water planning. It will allow Tachi Yokuts to advocate for the return of Pa'ashi.

AB 362 will give other tribes throughout the state equal opportunity to advocate for uses of water that support cultural, spiritual and traditional rights and lifeways. This includes fishing and gathering and other foods and materials both for subsistence and ceremonial purposes.

The Tachi Yokut tribe urges you to support this bill today and your committee and we hope that you guys think about our kids and our kids future when you guys make your guys decision.

And we and we urge you guys to come out to our area in the future and see a lot of the great work that's going on and hopefully the return of Pa'ashi.

Thank you so much. Okay, so with other members of the public in support, please come forward.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientist; and support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Michael Chen, with Audubon California; and support.

Alex Loomer, on behalf of Resource Renewal Institute and Restore the Delta, and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Matthew Baker, with Planning Conservation League; and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Marissa Hagerman with TrattenPrice Consulting, on behalf of Water Foundation and National Parks Conservation Association, in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and members: on behalf of Sierra Club California, Molly Culton in support of this bill. Thank you.

Morning Chair and members of the committee. Frank Molina, on behalf of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians; and strong support.

Okay, are there any witnesses that are going to testify in opposition? No. First, we'll have witnesses testify and then we'll have the me-toos from the thing if, if you're going to come testify. Oh, we want support. Excuse me, sir.

No worries: Frankie Myers here to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Please.

All right. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Chelsea Haines with the Association of California Water Agencies, and we respectfully have an opposed unless amended position on AB 362. ACWA represents approximately 470 public water agencies that deliver 90% of water throughout California and ACWA appreciates the recent amendments made by the author and sponsors of the bill.

We also appreciate the assembly member and sponsors willingness to meet with ACWA to discuss concerns. We support the stated intent of the bill to create a seat at the table for tribes and this bill does a couple of positive things. Of note, it would establish tribal water use as a beneficial use.

However, this bill has other substantive provisions that create uncertainty for existing regulatory efforts and collaborative processes underway and it could require substantial redistribution of statewide consequence for water. The state water board is charged with protecting public trust resources and balancing beneficial uses such as municipal water use, fish and wildlife, recreation and agriculture.

And again, we support recognizing tribal water use as a beneficial use. But this bill includes language that tribal water use should be a primary factor in determining the highest water quality in all regulatory decisions. And we have expressed concern that this language should place tribal water tribal beneficial use above all other beneficial uses.

This provision should be deleted. Additionally, this bill places new requirements on the state water board's update to the Bay Delta Plan by 2027. The board's update has included engagement with tribes and is considering tribal beneficial uses. However, the requirements of this provision are unclear, and we're concerned could result in legal challenges and delays.

This provision should also be deleted. We really appreciate conversations with the author and sponsor but do continue to need significant changes to remove our opposition to the bill. Absent changes, we do request a no vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Bob Reeb, with Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition, El Dorado Irrigation District, and Solano County Water Agency.

Concur with my colleague's comments about the appreciation for the amendments, for the work of the author to consult with us, and also that we don't object to requirement that tribal water uses be considered as beneficial uses. So, I'll cover some other points of the bill that we have concerns about.

Bill would add to applicative language regarding CEQA analysis to the Water Code and introduces a requirement that both quantitative and qualitative information regarding the impacts on tribal water uses be described. As the committee members know, CEQA is already fraught with litigation risk and the legislature should refrain from adding to it with provisions such as this.

Next, the bill exempts the adoption of tribal water uses within a water quality control plan from CEQA review, setting such uses apart from everything else in the process, that is that is subject to CEQA. Not only is this bad public policy, it's likely untenable for the state water board.

I will note that as the author has deleted language in Section 2 of the bill relating to tribal water uses and public disclosure; section 9 of the bill is no longer needed regarding the public's right of access within the meaning of the constitution. And we'll hope that the next committee deals with that correction.

Finally, existing law requires a regional board to consider several listed factors when establishing water quality objectives. This bill would add consultations with California tribal communities, which is not a factor, but a process component that is already required under existing law. We would ask for a no vote on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have witnesses in - members of the public in opposition, please.

Morning, Madam Chair. Kris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Morning Madam Chair and members. Don Gilbert for the California Municipal Utility Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no others, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions. Any questions from the committee? No. Okay. So - I'm sorry? Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Thank the author for this very considerate legislation. For far too long, tribal nations have not had a seat at the table, and this is a great step in doing this. It's imperative that we recognize the sovereignty of these nations and their voice at the table, not only for my ancestors, but those of others as well.

I believe that there are some pieces that I need a little bit of clarity from, so that way I can understand this a little bit better. As I was reading this legislation, a couple questions came. A few questions came to mind: number one, are there valid alternatives to emergency regulations for supporting - sorry, one second.

I pressed my wrong buttons. That's why you get a team. Right. There we go.

In the meantime, I'll move the bill.

Yeah, sorry.

So my question is in this, it sounds like there's some, some pieces to this puzzle that some conversations were already took place and there is a willingness for, for more conversations to take place. As, as you've just heard the opposition.

Is there anything that you can, that you can look to, to say we're going to continue to have these conversations to make sure that not only this legislation keeps on meeting the collaborative effort.

So, Mr. Assemblymember, meetings have been established, mutual respect on both sides. We conducted the first meeting. We anticipate having several more meetings to work out any differences that might be there, but also allowing for the voices to actually be heard from both sides of the equation. So those discussions are ongoing.

I think we had a meeting trying to get today, but we have the hearing.

Thank you. And I appreciate that. I think especially with this vital piece, not only the water, but the religious values associated with this, it's imperative that we continue to have these conversations with open dialogue so that we can reach a mutually beneficial outcome. Thank you to the author.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ramos. Assemblymember Ramos. I appreciate the spirit of this Bill.

You know, I too, as a Committee Member, have received a lot of calls in regards to wanting to have more dialogue on the merits of this Bill and trying to fine tune, and some of them even expressed not being able to actually sit down and have that done.

That's really concerning giving public policy in regards to water rights and, you know, revising, which you know is an outdated policy that has had incremental change over the last several decades.

But as we all recognize, not only is it a sacred source for Californians and for the tribal community, but also we are an water crisis in California and it has a lot of interconnected prongs to other pieces of California around development and housing.

And I appreciate this Bill and supportive in, you know, anything that improves water quality and obviously the rights of water in the State of California. But I am concerned that we have not brought all the stakeholders to the table and have had meaningful discussion, and I would encourage that that happen.

And I don't know if there's a pause that we can do until the individuals that have reached out to my office have had an opportunity to sit down, because I think it would only be fair.

We all like to be heard on both sides, and I think that's the fundamentals of good public policy, is that we are able, you know, you know, we can disagree, but we all have to be listened to so that we can push forward the best public policy. So I would love to see that happen.

And I hope that you're amicable to sitting down with those individuals who have expressed concern and have not had the opportunity to sit down and chat with you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And early on in the testimony from opposition, it was stated that we have had meetings and continue to have meetings. I'm not sure if you were here to hear that testimony.

I was listening to the hearing, yes.

Those are ongoing. We have reached out and we are having meetings. So I'm not sure if you could share with our office who specifically you're talking about. We would more than be willing to contact them. But we do have ongoing and meetings planned with ACWA moving forward on this Bill.

I do want to thank the authority for bringing this forward. You know, I'm one of the newer Members that was added to the Water Parks Wildlife Committee. And so I look forward to expanding some more on my knowledge and working with a lot of the communities to understand what are the goals and direction.

And so I hope we haven't had a meeting yet, so I hope that we can sit down and I can, you know, deep dive into this more. I want to meet with some of the other community partners as well. So that way we can't really focus on a mutually benefit agreement.

But I think for me, still being the newest Member on this Committee, I'm not abstained from this vote so I can learn more.

So anybody else? Oh, excuse me.

I just would briefly like to say that at this stage in the process, this is the First Committee hearing, the authors obviously done a significant amount of work in terms of trying to reach out. I think it's certainly appropriate for this Bill to continue to move so that the author can continue to work on this Bill.

But it would be a shame for it not to move out of the first Committee and have further conversations. Thank you.

Senator Rogers.

Yeah, I appreciate it. I was going to say the exact same thing, is that conversations like this are far too important to have them bogged down in their first Committee hearing. Certainly I hear a willingness from the, from the author to be able to work with folks who have opposition, but it is complicated and it is.

There's a long history around water rights and particularly for tribal communities. And I'm more than happy to give you the latitude to continue to work on this because it is an important conversation that won't happen unless there's a piece of legislation that's in front of us to be able to talk about.

Going once, going twice. Anybody else? Assemblymember Boerner.

Yes. I appreciate the author's work on this. I know he has demonstrated over the last six plus years that I've served with him that he is willing to work on this. So with that, I'll move the Bill if it hasn't already been moved.

Thank you so much. Yeah, so, okay. I think that covers everyone, so I'm gonna take a foray into this. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the author for taking the amendments.

And I think that this Bill has gotten to a place where a compromise has been reached and most importantly to me was where was the forum in which tribal uses were going to be considered. And I think what this Bill says is they got to be considered.

We're not going to put it in statute, but they're going to be considered along with all the stakeholders. And I think you as a witness mentioned we're going to the table.

And I wish you godspeed at the table and I thank you for the amendments because that's where this should take place among the various stakeholders and that's where the most robust discussion can happen. And I've long felt that. So I wish you godspeed in that regard.

I do want to make one comment about the Bay Delta and that is I found that the language as modified this time was a little bit more, I was comfortable with it because it said you should propose and solicit tribal constituencies with public input. I think that's pretty reasonable. Nothing's being mandated there.

It just allows the discussion to go forward in a place where all stakeholders can have a robust discussion. So I think we've gotten to a place. I welcome further discussions as the author may have to take on whatever they may entail. I've spent a lot of time with this Bill. We've gone round and round.

I think we've gotten to a place where the voices can be heard in a way that is, A, you're at the table. So let's make clear when we're talking about tribal uses, you're at the table. And B, those discussions can take place in a very robust fashion, which may not necessarily be the case if you're prescribing it in statute.

So can I just respond to the section that the chair cites has a date it has on or before January 1st of 2027, which will interfere with the current process at the State Board. They anticipate this year wrapping up phase two, which will include the water quality objectives that this Bill seeks to include.

Our fear is it's going to delay an already nine year process unnecessarily.

Fair enough. But people need to be heard. So when it comes to time or being heard, I'm going to pick being heard every time. So. But fair enough. And I appreciate you raising the, the, the point. So with that, we've got a motion, we've got a second. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

Item number four.

Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. And sometimes going back in history is always tough to correct, especially when truth has not been addressed or even acknowledged in the past. We continue to work together to make sure that both voices are being heard, as we already started those meetings and we anticipate more to come.

But we are also here to ensure a voice, a voice is present at the discussion that has been left out where resources were taken from California's first people, and voices weren't there in the beginning. Now, in 2025, we're asking the Legislature to ensure that the voices of California's first people are at the table.

I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. We'll go ahead and take a vote.

Item number four, AB362. Motion is do pass to environmental safety and toxics materials. Papan.

Aye.

Papan, aye. Jeff Gonzalez. Alvarez. Avila Farias.

Yes.

Avila Farias, aye. Bains. Bennett. Bennett, aye. Boerner.

Aye.

Boerner, aye. Caloza. Hart. Hart, aye. Macedo. Celeste Rodriguez. Rogers.

Rogers. Aye. Tangipa. Tangipa, not voting.

Aye.

So we'll need one more, but we'll leave it on call for people to come place your vote. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Okay. Assembly Member Carillo, we see you. You were here. Where are you? Come on down whenever you're ready. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me to present AB 1089. I would like to thank Committee Chair and her staff for their work on this bill. Members, those of you who were in this Committee last year will recognize this proposal.

It is an identical version of the bill passed out of this Committee with no no votes last year. Unfortunately, we had to amend the bill last year to deal with another local issue in my district. So we're back today asking for your support again to finish what we started. Let me be clear.

My intent in this bill is not to undo any of the hard work that went through into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. In fact, I believe I'm the only Member in the Legislature in the Joshua Tree Ranch that supported the trailer bill.

And that is, in part, why I feel so much responsibility to make sure that it works well. The Western Joshua Tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecologically and culturally important. Western Joshua Trees span across a large portion of California's desert.

I believe it is critical that we conserve such a unique and beautiful part of my district. In my hometown of Palmdale, where I served as a city planner and later as a Council Member, we have been requiring developers to mitigate and preserve Joshua Trees for decades. But my district is a disadvantage, left behind, and in desperate need of housing and economic development. We need this conservation program to work.

The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the Department to enter into an agreement within a county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Western Joshua Tree associated with single family residences, multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects. This bill simply adds commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. This will help us achieve economic development in my region, and this is a win win for everybody involved.

The Department, which has been chronically understaffed for decades, can pass on the responsibility to local governments, again, some of those that have already been doing that for decades. The developer can use City Hall as a one stop shop and won't need to deal with the state for their Joshua Tree permits.

And local governments will have more control over the timing and efficiency of delivering this desperately needed economic development projects. Colleagues, this is relatively minor change that we hope will unlock real opportunities while maintaining the hard fought balance that was struck in 2023. With me to testify in support is John Feliz for the City of Adelanto.

Madam Chair and Members, my name is John Feliz, and I'm a consultant for the City of Adelanto. Adelanto has a population of a little under 40,000. We are the fastest growing city in San Bernardino County, which is the largest county of the lower 48 states.

However, we are constantly facing barriers, directly or indirectly, by the state that are costing our residents and our city. The Western Joshua Tree Take Permit is a major issue. The High Desert has an estimated 4 to 6 million Joshua Trees in just the areas that the county controls, notwithstanding the area that the federal government controls.

While the Joshua Tree mitigation was aimed at long term environmental worries, the city is facing immediate housing and economic issues. The City of Adelanto supports the minor changes of Assemblyman Carrillo's AB 1089. In the beginning, the Joshua Tree regulatory process in the city and the Inland Empire were recovering from the economic fallout associated with the COVID pandemic.

In the initial stages of the Conservation Act's development, the city had large numbers of projects in the pipeline, 20 or more. Adelanto tried unsuccessfully to obtain clear guidance from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As a result, the city has witnessed a significant drop in developmental applications. AB 1089 will be an improvement in the regulatory framework.

Adelanto believes that the timely regulation guidance will improve the economic perspective of the city and is thankful for Assemblyman Carrillo's 1089 support for local permitting. Adelanto is an economically disadvantaged community. It has been identified as a primary zone for new housing.

With its open land and relatively affordable real estate and a growing population, it's a key area for future development. Yet the state has created a bottleneck. With the Joshua Tree permit requirements, builders can't move fast enough to meet demand. And not because of material shortages, but because of the bureaucratic red tape. With 6,000 housing units needed in Adelanto, this is not just inefficient, it's counterproductive.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Sure thing. Jose Atilio Hernandez. I am the City of Adelanto's energy and infrastructure consultant. And just here to attest that the city is is facing unprecedented growth. We're having lots of hardworking families escape those prices from that small little LA area. And we welcome outside the box solutions that really include local government, so we thank the author.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the audience that wish to express their support? Come on down. That's not you. Okay, then we will call upon witnesses in opposition.

Good morning. I'm Zeynep Graves, here on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and our more than 100,000 members and supporters in California. We strongly oppose AB 1089. The bill is a premature attempt to amend the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act and undermines both the core protections for the iconic species and the carefully negotiated compromise that led to the act's passage. AB 1089 is simply too much too soon.

Current law already allows local governments to permit Take for a limited set of projects, such as the single family homes, multifamily residents, and public works projects. But no jurisdiction has yet entered into a delegation agreement to exercise that authority. Without any data or experience to evaluate whether the current system works, this bill would prematurely and significantly expand local authority to issue Take permits for commercial and industrial development.

Pushing sweeping changes before we've seen how the current framework functions threatens not only the iconic Western Joshua Tree, but the integrity of California's broader environmental protections, particularly that rely those that rely on the regional conservation planning through laws like the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.

The Center welcomes the opportunity to meet with Assembly Member Carrillo to discuss his constituents' concerns and explore more effective ways to address them while strengthening the act's implementation and ensuring robust protections for the Western Joshua Tree. We respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1089. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have members of the audience in opposition?

Alex Leumer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, and the Mojave Desert Land Trust. Also welcome further discussions with the author to respond to his constituents' concerns. Thank you.

Matthew Baker, Planning and Conservation League, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Michael Chen with Audubon California in respectful opposition.

Thank you so much. Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Assembly Member Bennett.

I have one question. It authorizes, for the author, and that is it authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to enter into an agreement with any city. Does it require the Department of Fish and Wildlife? I'd like to make sure we understand the Department of Fish and Wildlife have the authority to decide whether they want to enter into that agreement. And if they don't, that would be important to me that Department of Fish and Wildlife has the flexibility to make sure the agreement meets the the concerns of Department of Fish and Wildlife. Can you help me with...

Yes, there is a process to go through the Fish and Wildlife for local jurisdictions to do that, but the local jurisdiction is limited to a certain number of trees depending on the type of development. If it's residential or multifamily, single family, multifamily, or a public works project or solar project. It's limited to a certain number of trees that local jurisdictions can do the permitting process for them. After that number of trees is exceeded, then the Department would be the one to do the permitting process.

But the agreement that the Department of Fish and Wildlife enters into with the city, is that the discretion of the Department of Fish and Wildlife?

I believe so, yeah. It's part of their jurisdiction.

So as this bill moves forward, that will be important to me. In terms of that, I think the Department of Fish and Wildlife, you know, was active player and I think very convincing, made some very convincing points about the value of the plan that they came forward with that your bill supported last year. And I just want to make sure they're not being undercut in any way in terms of they that they have to making sure that we have the appropriate plan in place. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you, Assembly Member. Thank you.

Assembly Member Bennett, the bill says may enter into an agreement. I just want to make sure. I didn't know myself, but I want you to know. We confirmed it for you.

I saw the may. I just wanted to try to make sure that sort of stays as.... That that's clear. Thanks.

Okay. Anyone else? Yes.

Assemblyman Carillo, I always appreciate bills, you know, I'm not shy of revisiting bills that have already been on the books because sometimes there's certain tweaks that, you know, practice and theory don't, you know, coincide. So I can appreciate you wanting to fine tune and would encourage that you meet. I know you have been.

But it seems like there's still concern as it goes through the process. But. And you know, I'd love to hear offline, you know, some of the concerns of, you know, examples of how the bill initially hindered the ability of things moving forward. So. But I appreciate the spirit of, you know, fixing something that was already there.

Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else? Assembly Member Hart.

Yeah, I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I know last year the bill that we heard in this Committee, I think, was narrowly focused on Victorville, Lancaster, and Palmdale, and that this more expansive this time and want to encourage the dialogue with the folks that are in opposition to try and find a way to land a place that works for everybody.

Well, last year's bill, it was not only a district bill, not only the cities that you mentioned, but the Joshua Trees present outside of those cities, District 39. So the cities that are in District 39 are Palmdale, Lancaster, Victorville, Adelanto, two counties, LA County and San Bernardino County. There's presence outside of those boundaries of District 39.

However, District 39, the one that I represent, where the most concentration of the trees are. And that is why I'm asking here that commercial and industrial development be included in the permitting process through an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Department if they wish to enter with a local jurisdiction.

It's statewide, but obviously we don't have Joshua Trees in Northern California. It's just within the high desert and the low desert with the Coachella Valley. But it primarily is within Southern California where Joshua Tree is present.

Thanks for clarification.

Okay with that, do we have a motion? Okay, let's go ahead and take a vote. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have so many... Closing, that's just not in my brain.

Thank you. My office has been working with the opposition on this, and we will continue to do so. Last year, we took amendments actually in this Committee that resolve opposition concerns, but we'll continue to work with opposition. And that agreement is reflected on the bill as is presented today. Obviously, we still have work to do. You have my commitment that we will continue to work together to make sure that we make this right. Members, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Carrillo. Let's take a vote.

Item number 12, AB 1089. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, you got enough votes. And we'll keep it open for more should there be. Thank you. Thank you so much Assemblymember Carrillo. Some of them are Harabedian and bears. Come on down.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Here to talk about the very important issues facing the state, like black bears. And I'll just kick this off by saying I had the honor of serving on the Sierra Madre City Council, which is in the heart of the San Gabriel Mountains.

I grew up in that community, and here with me today is the current mayor of Sierra Madre and the city manager of Sierra Madre. And it's really a pleasure to have my friends here with me, but the discussion that we're having is quite serious, I will say.

Growing up in the San Gabriel Valley Mountains, bears were quite plentiful. When I was a kid, you'd have bears occasionally in the community. When I was a new Council Member In 2012, it was happening more often.

And I would say that it was becoming more of an issue for us as council Members and leaders of the community, to try to get it under control. Fast forward to today, 12, 13 years later, and we now have bear, human-bear interactions on average on a daily basis.

And that is in a town of 11,000 people and just under 4,000 homes. And that is not only happening in Sierra Madre, it's happening in Monrovia, Azusa, La Verne, and a lot of our neighboring communities.

And the problem with this is that we have asked for years, local governments have asked for years for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to help. And I will say, to their credit, they have done a lot of great work with the local communities.

They have worked with all of us to try to come up with some semblance of a plan.

But frankly, where we are today is local law enforcement essentially coming up with bear repellent plans, trying to come with some expertise and working with residents to bang pots, make noise, and do all the things that you can look up on the Internet to make sure that bears don't actually get to a point where they kill or seriously injure someone.

And that is becoming more of a problem because now, just last year, we had just under 50 cases of black bears actually forcing their way into homes. And so this is becoming more and more of a problem.

And I would say in the grand scheme of things, it's probably in the mayor and the city manager can speak to this. It is probably top of mind for many of these foothill communities. In the grand scheme of things, I think with these fires, it's become even worse.

The black bear population now, in many ways, has nowhere to go, and it's becoming more accustomed to coming lower and lower into the foothills.

So what this Bill really does, AB 1024, is it asks the Department of Fish and Wildlife to come up with a plan, and it asks them to actually work with local communities to do the work, such as tracking the bears that are entering our communities, making sure that they know where they are, and frankly, helping local governments who don't really have the resources to do this, actually protect their communities.

Because not to be fatalistic or dramatic, I think it's only a matter of time before this leads to a fatality. And the San Gabriel Valley mountains are the hotspot for black bear activity with human bear conflicts. And also the Tahoe Basin. The Tahoe Basin has approached it in a very good way.

We're asking for a similar same approach in the San Gabriel Valley mountains. And it is perfect timing because in April 2024, Department of Fish and Wildlife came up with what they call a black bear conservation plan. Unfortunately, the plan doesn't actually have steps to manage the problem. It kind of just lays out the problem.

It's a good, you know, if you go to the Doctor, it'd be a good diagnosis of what the problem is. We don't have medicine, so this Bill really is trying to give us the medicine and a pathway forward to keep people safe.

I will now allow my colleague, Mayor Robert Parkhurst from Sierra Madre, to opine on it as well. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. My name is Robert Parkhurst and I have the honor of serving as mayor of City of Sierra Madre.

And I'm here to express my strong support for Assembly Bill 1024, which takes a critical step towards addressing the escalating human wildlife conflicts we are experiencing, not just in Sierra Madre but across the San Gabriel Valley over the past four years, Sierra Madre has experienced a dramatic increase in black bear activity within our neighborhoods.

In 2021, we received approximately 20 bear related calls each year. Now we have an average of 370 bear related service calls per year over the past two years in a City of only 11,000. And let me just say we got this results down this morning. We've got 36 bear calls in the month of March alone.

That's a five fold increase of the year before. More troubling than that though, in 2023, we documented 54 bear home intrusions. In 2024, while it dipped slightly to 41, there were an additional 27 attempts.

So bears trying to get into people's homes, trying the locks, trying the windows, trying to get in, these numbers are not normal nor are they sustainable. But we're not standing still. In partnership with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sierra Madre implemented the first regional wildlife management plan focused on black bears back in 2021.

We enacted a local ordinance in 2022 banning wildlife feeding. We spent extensive time conducting workshops, educating our publics. We're the only community in the San Gabriel Valley that has distributed bear resistance trash cans to every single family residents and educated every household in our city about reducing bear and wildlife tractants. Nevertheless, bear encounters persist.

As a similar Mayor Harbin said, the situation has been made worse by the Eaton fire which has denuded the mountain range above Sierra Madre, Pasadena and Altadena, destroying natural bear habitat and forcing wildlife into our neighborhoods. AB 1024 is not just a Bill, it's a lifeline.

It'll mandate the development of a regional mitigation plan, recognizing that this is not just a Sierra Madre issue. It will require tagging and tracking of problem bears, allowing intervention before the property is destroyed or lives are put at risk. It'll include measurable performance metrics, ensuring state accountability and real world results.

Our communities are on the front lines of climate driven wildlife migration and habitat loss. We are asking for the state to stand with us not only in prevention, but in protection. I want to thank Assembly Member Harabedian for his leadership on this issue. And thank you all for the opportunity to testify to today.

And I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Next please. Thank you. Madam Chair. My name is Jose Reynoso. I'm the City Manager for the City of Sierra Madre. I'm here to support our mayor and to help answer any questions. Thank you.

As any good city manager will tell you, leave it to the elected and you get out. Okay. Do we have members of the audience that would like to come forward to express support? Seeing none. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Oh, look at that. The bears are in trouble. Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee.

Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you so much. Chair, I'll move the Bill. And I just want to say it's unfortunate that you've been told to grin and bear it, and we're happy to help you find a solution. That's right.

Well played.

I think we had Boerner before you, Tongapa. So we've got a second. Yeah, I'd happy.

Happy to second this. I actually went to grad school in the San Gabriel Valley, and I actually remember back in the 90s, we were worried about the bears coming down the hills. So really appreciate you bringing this forward. I love your analogy. It's like going to the doctor, getting a diagnosis, but no medicine.

And you're trying to create the medicine. So with that, I don't have a witty pun like my colleague next to me. Oh, but somebody else on the other side may have you. Okay.

It's. It's a polarizing issue. Is that what you said? It's not. It's not a polarizing issue. I'm getting. Getting, like, puns by osmosis here. So there you go. Second in the motion.

Anyone else? I would just like to say that Assemblymember Rogers apparently has no shame when it comes to the puns, but I do want to say I appreciate the Bill coming forward. You know, as with water, some things just know no boundaries.

So I can appreciate you wanting to do sort of a regional plan and because we know that the bears may not just be in Sierra Madre. So, anyway, I appreciate that. We've got a motion, a second. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Chair, respectfully ask for an aye vote and appreciate your time.

Okay. Madam Clerk.

item number 10. AB 1024. Motion is do pass to appropriations.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. Well, some of them are beating. Looks like you're getting out of Committee. And we'll leave it open for additional. Thank you. Okay, so next up. Assemblymember Connolly. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Proud to present AB846 which will provide a clear process to accelerate wildfire preparedness and vegetation management activities for local agencies and local responsibility areas or LRAs. Local agencies, and that means cities, counties and special districts are responsible for vegetation management and wildfire preparedness efforts in the LRA within their respective boundaries.

LRAs are typically the areas most adjacent to communities and homes in the wildland urban interface. There are currently long delays for local agencies when trying to seek necessary environmental permits to conduct wildfire preparedness activities on LRA lands located in fire hazard severity zones that are adjacent to urban areas.

These delays increase the potential risk of wildfire on communities and homeowners in the wildland urban interface. AB846 strikes a balance between environmental protections and reducing wildfire risks in three ways.

One, this Bill allows local agencies, subject to a fee to submit a wildfire preparedness plan to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for review within 90 days to determine if an incidental take permit or other permits are needed. This speeds up the timeline for these permits by weeks and months.

Two, it allows for five year permits for approved incidental take permits and three requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to work with the State Fire Marshal to combine critical habitat maps with fire hazard severity zone maps, making the process easier and clearer for all involved.

This is a common sense measure and one that will help our communities respond faster to wildfire risks while protecting vulnerable ecosystems. With me to testify today is Melissa Sparks-Kranz, Legislative Advocate for the League of California Cities and Chief Chris Nigg, Fire Chief of the City of La Verne. Welcome.

Okay, thank you so much. Good morning. Chair Papan and Committee Members Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities. We're pleased to work with Assembly member Connolly as the sponsors of AB846.

The size and severity of wildfires in California is increasing due to climate extremes, as the world witnessed in January of this year with the Eaton and Palisades fires now in the top three most destructive wildfires in California's recorded history.

Cities are responsible for fire protection and vegetation management in the local responsibility areas within their jurisdiction and identify these fire hazard severity zones consistent with the state's ranking moderate, high and very high.

Local agencies have faced difficulty in discerning if take permits are needed for these planned wildfire preparedness activities and then navigating the permitting process in a timely manner to ensure that vegetation management activities can occur as quickly as possible.

To improve this communication and to expedite the permitting while maintaining the standards of the California Endangered Species Act, the Bill would authorize local agencies, as mentioned, cities, counties and special districts with fire protection authority to submit their projects to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and to streamline that the ability to receive a permit to be able to do the wildfire preparedness activities in their fire hazard severity zones.

We believe this also allows the ability for the local agencies to avoid, minimize and fully mitigate any potential impacts on wildlife.

The bill's intent is to protect communities from the threat of wildfire through vegetative management practices that to the maximum extent possible to avoid and minimize that take of listed species and as well as to provide sufficient flexibility in the participation in this voluntary pathway to gain the maximum protections to life and property from the threat of wildfire again without compromising wildlife benefit and upholding the permitting process at the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

If this sounds familiar, AB846 is a reintroduction of AB2330 last year that received strong bipartisan support from the Legislature but ultimately faced a veto by the Governor. We believe we have addressed the cost concerns in this year's Bill. We appreciate the opportunity to present AB846 today with Assemblymember Connolly and respectfully request your aye vote.

We are pleased to have the City of La Verne Fire Chief here today to testify. He's also the President of the League California City's Fire Chiefs Department. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Good morning Chair Papan, Good to see you again and Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Nigg. As Melissa stated, I am the Fire Chief for the City of La Verne, which is located in the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles County.

La Verne is a Member City of the League of California Cities and I'm the current President of the League of Cities Fire Chiefs. I also serve as Vice President of the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association, LAFKA Chair of the LAFKA Regional Training Group, and as the California Fire Chiefs Association Deputy Legislative Director.

As we've recently seen and continue to see, it is critically important for our municipal jurisdiction to reduce the public's vulnerability to the destructive forces of California's wildfires, specifically those communities who make up the state's wildland urban interface.

More now than ever, it falls upon me and my colleague fire chiefs across the state to enforce and conduct fuel management activities in the name of defensible space. As professional firefighters, we are trained in predicting how a wildfire will turn and travel based on topography and diurnal weather patterns.

However, as wildfire impacts have exacerbated in the recent years, it's become increasingly clear that these fires are not as easily extinguished as they once were. Large scale wind driven conflagrations have become almost impossible to keep up with when the conditions align. Firefighting resources are finite.

And although those resources are outstanding, what they do, they can't be everywhere all at once. And we saw that this January. Research and data continue to objectively demonstrate the benefits of providing a minimum of 100ft of defensible space between a structure and fuel bed continuity.

In fact, it is for those reasons the California Fire Code requires it with even more restrictive zone 0 defensible space requirements on the horizon. That said, professional fire departments throughout our state are charged with ensuring wildfire prone landscape adjacent to our communities are proactively cleared in order to reduce the impact of wildfire to life and property.

AB846 is poised to help our jurisdictions by better defining the process of obtaining the necessary permits needed to move our fuel management projects forward without unnecessary delay.

We believe the Bill balance is improving our ability to communicate with Department of Fish and Wildlife while providing for a defined timeline, publicly accessible transparency and readily available references to environmental species areas within the CAL FIRE hazard severity zones.

The mapping component of the Bill alone will be a tremendous resource to have from both the state and local agencies perspective.

Let me if I could ask you to wrap up.

Sure. Ultimately alleviating confusion between local jurisdictions and cdfw, we see this as a benefit that is complementary to the process outlined in this Bill. Thank you for having me at your hearing. We appreciate your Committee's consideration of the Bill and respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay. Do we have witnesses in the audience in favor?

Good morning. Staci Heaton with the Rural Country Representatives of California in support.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors of Council Members in support.

Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support.

Good morning. Noel Kramers with Wine Institute in support.

Is it? zero, there we go. Thank you. Alex Bering and California Farm Bureau in support.

Good morning. Kylie Wright, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, in support.

Excellent. Thanks so much. Will there be witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing them. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Assemblymember Hart.

I just want to thank the author for a really careful, thoughtful Bill that navigates the space and provides streamlining authority for local governments and trying to do wildfire preparedness. It's a huge issue in the state, but you've done it very thoughtfully and carefully, protecting environmental regulations that are really important as well. So thank you. Thank you.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Very common sense. Completely appreciate this motion to move the Bill.

Getting beat. Okay.

Some of Tonga expedited permitting and protecting. Taking on wildfire management. I love it. And thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

All right, I just want to comment on. The. The whole time you're talking, all I can think of is if we have extraordinary wildfires, there is no wildlife to manage. So I do appreciate you're trying to strike a balance here. Would you like to close the. Senator Connolly.

No. Really appreciate the sentiments. As it was noted, the Bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, great. Let's go ahead and take roll.

[Roll call]

Great. And we'll leave it open if folks want to add on.

Thank you.

Which I'm sure they will, seeing how things are going for you. Okay. I don't see anybody else here. Perfect timing. Assembly Member Rogers.

I'm sorry. I'm not supposed to do that. I resent it.

Okay. I'm assuming you got some witnesses.

I think they're in the hallway, so we're getting them right now.

Okay. You want to start with Adam?

Sure. I can do that. If that works for folks. Chair Members. I'm here today to present AB263. First, I want to appreciate the chair and the staff's work on the Bill. We will be accepting the amendments that are detailed in the analysis.

AB263 would allow the emergency regulations that are currently in place on the Scott and Shasta river watersheds to remain in effect for the next five years or upon adoption of permanent Water Board regulations, whichever occurs sooner.

The Klamath River is a major watershed in 82 that is in the midst of a historic transformation back to a more natural state. After decades of activism and countless studies, the hydroelectric dams have been taken down and restoration efforts are underway.

Dam removal improves main stem water quality, dramatically, reduces fish diseases caused by parasitic organisms and offers hundreds of miles of new spawning and rearing habitat. But despite this exciting new chapter, the river is still in serious peril.

The two tributary streams that currently produce most of the Klamaths Wild Chinook, the Shasta, or wild coho, the Scott, are under constant strain from increased water diversions. These rivers once sustained large salmon runs that have almost completely disappeared. Put simply, salmon is the lifeblood of the north coast. More salmon in the river means healthier forests and watersheds.

More salmon in the river means tribal residents have basic sustenance and also are able to maintain important cultural and spiritual practices. More water means more fish can survive in the watersheds.

The salmon fishing industry was once a major economic force in our district and up and down the California coast, but has almost completely shuttered as fish populations have plummeted. Fishing boats in my district would normally be getting ready this time of year to start the six month salmon fishing season.

Instead, those boats will likely stay docked for a third season in a row. In other words, no one here has probably eaten a California wild caught salmon in at least the last two years because all the fresh salmon on your plates is imported from out of states and raised on farms.

Unfortunately, the State Water Board in 2021 stepped in to implement or, excuse me, fortunately, the State Water Board in 2021 stepped in to implement emergency regulations that guaranteed minimum water flows in the Scott and the Shasta River.

The Karuk and allies from fishing and conservation communities used the Governor's drought declaration to successfully petition the State Water Board to set those minimum flows. And without these emergency regulations, salmon population would be even more on the brink of extinction.

The Administration has continued to support salmon recovery through Governor Newsom's California Salmon Strategy for a hotter, drier future. That support is very much appreciated by my constituents. And while these emergency regulations have provided an important stopgap, they have been renewed several times. We need a longer term solution to further help restore the health of the watershed.

If the drought declaration is lifted, we may have long summers where these rivers are completely dry while permanent flow rules are being made. I have two witnesses today. With us, one is Frankie Myers, my friend and the former Vice Chair of the Yurok Tribe. We also have Sean Bothwell, the Executive Director of California Coastkeeper Alliance.

And I really just want to appreciate the chair and staff's work with us on this Bill.

[Speaking Yurok]. Thank you all for taking time today to hear us talk about this incredibly important Bill for our people. For our [Speaking Yurok]. I spent the last 25 years of my life fighting for dam removal on the Klamath River, fighting to remove the lower four dams.

But I often tell people it wasn't the goal. Dam removal was not the goal of the Undam the Klamath campaign. What was the goal was to provide an opportunity. An opportunity to restore our once abundant and thriving salmon populations. An abundant and thriving salmon population that sustained us since time immemorial for tens of thousands of years.

We care took the land to provide for abundant runs of Coho and Chinook salmon that our people subsisted on and thrived on and built an economy on. An economy that our people were able to participate in for 100 years.

However, for the last nine years, we have not been able to participate in that part of our economy that we have had been able to for decades.

Because of decreasing salmon numbers and more importantly than not just being able to provide an economic opportunity for our tribal Members, we have also had to close our subsistence fishery as well. A subsistence fishery that is vital to our communities. The upper end of the Yurok Reservation has a medium income of $11,000.

Our people are directly connected to the land and the water around us. It's how we have always participated in this world, with the belief that we as human beings belong here on Earth. That we are connected to this land and we are connected to the land and the waters around us.

Our TEK teaches us if there ever comes a time when there's no more salmon in the river, there'll be no more need for our people to exist.

Thank you so much. Mr. Bothwell.

Good morning, Chair Committee Members. My name is Sean Bothwell. On behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance, I want to touch on three things. Data, process, and this being a very unique situation. So first, data. These emergency regulations are based on extensive data that we've had for years. The Shasta River has two stream gauges.

Two of the oldest stream gauges in the state that has collected data for about 100 years on average. One dates back from to 1911. The other one dates back to 1933. Been collecting data ever since then.

And that data has shown that in summer months, if you average the two out over 70% of those years, there is insufficient amount of flows for salmon survival in those two watersheds.

So regardless of the year, whether it's a wet year, dry year, or over 70% of those years, there's not enough flow in the river because of the diversions. Let me talk about process. So the Governor declared the emergency drought back in May 2021. Following that CDFW, our Fish and Wildlife experts submitted a flow study.

They've been studying those rivers for years to determine what is the minimum amount during drought times to allow salmon to survive. Following that, the State Water Board adopted the emergency regulations. After public comment and a workshop and a hearing, those emergency flows were readopted a year later.

And then in 2023 and recently in 2025, those emergency regulations were adopted. Each of those adoptions came with written public comment opportunities, workshops. In fact, the last one had multiple comment periods and biweekly meetings with stakeholders so that everyone understood what was taking place. There was a lot of process. This wasn't something that was rushed into.

Lastly, the Scott and Shasta is a very unique situation. It's actually worse when we have a wet year. The rivers have less water in them because of the diversions. It's only when there's an emergency situation that just minimal amount of flows are left in the river. And let me say, we don't love these regulations.

They are literally called belly scraping flows because it is the bare minimum that salmon need to survive to make it through the river. So we don't want to see this process need to be repeated in the future. This is an emergency stopgap situation until we get those long term regulations in place.

And ultimately what this Bill does is it saves permittee money and taxpayer money so that we're not doing these year by year and also allows staff to concentrate on the long term regulations, which I think everyone wants to get to. This is a stopgap measure. Thank you.

I didn't mean to cut you off, not immediately. Thank you, I appreciate that. Okay, so we will have Members of the audience who wish to express support.

Alex Loomer on behalf of the Karuk Tribe is a proud co-sponsor. Also on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, Resource Renewal Institute, San Diego Coastkeeper, Shasta Waterkeeper, LA Waterkeeper and the Inland Empire Waterkeeper as well. Thank you.

Anybody else? Alex? That's it.

Hi, good morning. Michael Chen with Audubon California in support.

Good morning again. Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League and strong support.

Good morning. Marissa Hagerman with TrattenPrice Consulting on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Water Foundation and strong support.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union. Of Concerned Scientists and support thank you.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters in support and also on behalf of OC Coastkeeper, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Monterey Waterkeeper, Russian Riverkeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper and Ubert Riverkeeper. Thanks.

Abraham Mendoza on behalf of Community Water Center and support.

Good morning. Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Lauren Bernadett with Trout Unlimited in support.

Nathaniel Kane with Environmental Law Foundation in support and also on behalf of California Sport Fishing Protection alliance and the Amamutsun Tribal Band in support.

Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in strong support.

Okay, with that we will have the witnesses in opposition. Please come forward.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair and Members. I'm Alex Biering from the California Farm Bureau and I want to highlight some of the concerns with AB263 that are shared by other statewide organizations.

AB263 would set a troubling precedent for interest in other watersheds to use emergency regulations through legislation to force a specific outcome that extends beyond the scope and life of the emergency.

Emergency regs are to address urgent conditions like a drought and their Shorter lifespan and annual renewal process are designed to reflect this permanent or longer term regulations that are developed by the Water Board are scientifically based, subject to CEQA and include a robust public and stakeholder participation process under the APA.

AB263 effectively creates a long term regulation without those critical components and processes. This novel precedent would pave the way for any party to seek their preferred regulatory outcome legislatively.

AB263 normalizes a tactic that undermines the Water Board's authority and strips public involvement in critical decision making processes to balance beneficial uses, which is why we remain respectfully opposed to the Bill.

I'm going to cede the rest of my time to Brandon Fawaz and also point out that Ryan Walker from Siskiyou County Farm Bureau is back here who can help answer technical questions if they go beyond what we can. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Brandon Fawaz and I am a past State Farm Bureau Board Member and current Officer at Siskiyou County Farm Bureau. I make my sole living farming in the Scott and Shasta Valleys. Our valleys are made up of family farms.

Up until now our farmers have enjoyed the same due process protections of all Californians. The California Administrative Procedure act protects the residents of California from regulatory action taken without a thorough review of the intended and unintended impacts of regulation.

The act provides a very narrow exception during a case of declared drought emergency where the State Water Board may only use an emergency regulation for one year.

AB263 would entirely wipe out these due process protections and could easily be exposed expanded to include any watershed in the state. As written, the rest of the state would continue to enjoy the protections of the Administrative Procedure Act.

We believe this is to be a violation of California's constitutional equal protection provisions and of any normal sense of fairness. The impact of this regulation carries consequences. The ending of family farms and breaking working landscapes will be the legacy of emergency curtailments.

Families live in financial fear, farmers lose hope, the next generation abandons the desired return to the farm and historic ranches are broken into ranchets and marijuana grows. The suicide rate of farmers now exceeds those of combat veterans.

Supporting AB263 is currently written would allow the state to continue to destroy my community by allowing a wealthy neighboring Assembly District to direct policy that further diminishes my socio-disadvantaged and poverty stricken community. This is all done without even minimum due process or compensation.

You might hear that no farms have gone out of business or the price of cattle is high. I would challenge you that gone out of business does not mean one would see nothing but dry fallow fields.

That gone out of business looks like a legacy cow herd dispersed or a once smaller hay farm now farmed by a larger commercial operator. But from a drive down the highway our valleys will still look very similar to the untrained eye. Contrary to what you have heard today, much less water is diverted today than yesteryear.

As a solution, Siskiyou County Farm Bureau has tried to present a compensation package for our growers that mimics our current Fish and Wildlife Water leasing grant. This method would still keep our communities whole as farmers would still be farming, but just farming a crop that uses less water.

Furthermore, the cost of reducing our water in excess of the emergency regs can be had for a mere four, a mere four-and-a-half to five million per year. I end with asking you to not take our due process from us, but work with us to provide some compensation to accomplish the goals we all desire.

And as always, you're all welcome to come visit and learn more about our watershed up on the ground. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have folks from the audience in opposition? Please come down be heard.

Thank you Madam Chair Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition and opposition.

Chelsea Haines with the Association of California Water Agencies. Respectfully in opposition.

Chris Anderson, California Chamber Of Commerce, respectfully opposed.

Gail Delihant, Western Growers, respectfully opposed.

Madam Chair and Members Don Gilbert for the California Municipal Utility Association and San Francisco PUC, in opposition. Thanks.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Assemblymember Boerner.

I want to thank you for bringing this forward and move the Bill.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you. Thank you for your time. This is a, a complicated issue. To just look at it for its superficial level would mean that we didn't take time to understand the nuances of all of this. We're talking about religious liberties here, cultural impact, but we're also talking about, from an agricultural perspective, an impact on farming.

So this is not a singular issue. This is a, this is gonna, this is gonna hurt. So because of that, I have, I wanna make sure that I look at this from a very holistic purpose and have, and I have some questions just to gain more clarity.

Are there valid alternatives to emergency regulations for supporting desired flows in the Scott and Shasta.

So I think one of the things that's really unique about this situation, and you heard it a little bit, is we're not just talking about emergency regulations that are going to disappear. They will at a certain point, but it's in a river watershed that already is undergoing permanent long term regulations.

And so when we talk about the lifespan of fish, we're talking in three year increments. That's the way that the lifespan for salmon works.

And the current minimum flows, as you heard, feel inadequate to everybody, whether it's farmers who can't take as much water, or the fish literally as they're coming up on their belly, have their backs exposed to the sun. And to quote one of my friends, fish require water.

When you have fish covered in water, they tend to do better than fish that are half covered in water. And so this is already a delicate balance that's been struck in the short term. If there were no long term regulations that were coming, it'd be a completely different conversation.

What we are saying is that because it's such a delicate ecosystem and because you frankly, as a taxpayer, have put so much investment in the restoration of the Klamath that it makes no sense for us to upset that apple cart, apple cart for one or two years until these permanent regulations come in if those drought declarations go away.

So, yes, it's about the tribe, it's about the farmers. It's also about the fishermen and that's the one that I think keeps getting lost in this as well is you have an entire fishing industry that's been dependent on this, that's been hurt. So there is a limited resource, there is a current balance.

There is a current certainty, if that's the word to put it, that everybody is going to be unhappy. And we are taking no position on what the long term permanent regulations should be.

What we are saying is that what we have right now, we don't want to undo the progress that we have made until those permanent regulations get there. And we added in a sunset of five years into the Bill to continue to push the Department to do those permanent regulations faster.

If 263 passes, could the emergency regulations be amended to take into account new information and understanding of watershed hydrology?

It could, but like I said, right now you're now three years in on updates where it's taken a lot of staff time.

You already have to the point some of the most understood watershed in the entire state and you have those permanent regulations that have that data that's coming in and that science that's coming into it as well. And how would they change all the. Permanent regulations when the permanent regulations come in?

Yeah, this Bill does not dictate at all what the permanent regulations need to say.

Do you mind if we add a little bit on the question about alternatives to the EREG?

I'm fine with that. We'll find. Okay, please. I'd like to add real quickly, I would point out from a farmer standpoint that the emergency regs have not always accomplished the Water Board's goals.

And we have thought that we have a much better way to accomplish those by continuing to mimic the Farm Bureau grant that we have with CDFW. And that would convert, you know, four and a half to five million dollars, would take out, you know, probably half of the irrigation late season in our valleys.

And we've traveled, my colleague And I, over 16 hours to be afforded basically 15 to 20 minutes earlier with the assemblymember and 4 minutes today, our voices aren't being heard and we think we could do this in a much better manner. But we're really struggling to get any traction on that. So I ask for help on that.

Yeah, you know, I agree with, with the chair. You, you mentioned something earlier about being heard. I think, you know, we all want to make sure that people are heard. That's like you said, priority. And have you attempted to work with the opposition to find any amendments that would make 263 accessible?

Yeah. And Just to dive into that a little bit. I do have a policy of making sure that folks have an opportunity to speak. And we did have a meeting that was set, that then was changed, pushed back by a half hour at 10pm the night before when the meeting was supposed to start at 9:00.

And I told folks I was already going to Committee late. So that was not on me, that was not on my office. We were not the ones that changed that meeting. And my office has continued to meet with them as well. They have had a chance to be heard.

In fact, they've had a chance to propose amendments to the Bill that were akin to extortion. Put in $50 million into the Bill and we won't oppose your Bill. They've already received 10 million from CDFW. We're certainly happy to work with them in a budget process to talk about what that looks like.

But putting it in this Bill, we're not doing that.

Does. Is this area in your district?

The Klamath, is. Yes.

Okay. And have you worked with the Assemblymember from this area to collaborate in this.

Yeah, she and I have had conversations. We are not going to see eye to eye on this.

Okay. And to the. To the tribes. Are you currently in a drought right now?

Currently this year. I'm not 100% aware of what the hydrologic estimate say, but I will add that we are working with our neighbors in the Scott and the Shasta on many restoration projects. We'll continue to work on those.

I think there is a shared interest in making sure we're creating a better future for our children and our grandchildren. We have much more in common than we have difference.

What we're trying to get accomplished with AB263 is get to a point where we can talk about the solutions that have been presented by our neighbors in the Scott and Shasta river. And those are very, very exciting for us. We think those are opportunities where we can build a sustainable coalition.

But we've got to be able to get to that point to have those discussions.

So is. Is there a solution at the, at the county level rather than legislation? And could the county maintain the emergency regulations on its own?

Not currently.

Could I add on just a little bit on that I would agree with Mr. Myers about the collaboration that's happening at the watershed level. And one thing that hasn't really come out in any of the testimony today is the fact that these are small watersheds. All these people know each other.

They've already been working on this stuff for years in conversation, he's laughing because it's true. I've been in those calls. I've been in those meetings. Brandon's been there, Ryan's been there. And there's been really good progress, I think, in those relationships.

And I think a lot of us are just very concerned that that good forward momentum would stop with something like this. A lot of those conversations have stopped after this Bill was introduced. So that, I mean, that's an ongoing concern because there are good relationships that are being developed there.

Does this Bill do anything to impact existing water rights?

No, not really.

Can anyone answer? Is there a technical person? Not really.

The answer is no. It just maintains the minimum flow. Right.

It doesn't change. You want to say anything, Ryan, go for it.

Yeah, it doesn't touch the water rights at all. Well, just.

That's demonstrably untrue. It absolutely affects water rights. We are curtailed from using our adjudicated water rights under the emergency regulations. That curtailment is allowed under the emergency reg rules, but there's been no CEQA to look at the impact of that. We don't know the economic impact of that. And we have an adjudication that we can't use.

So those are water rights that are most certainly affected by the emergency regs.

So how will crop yields be impacted in future years?

In order to comply with emergency regs, we have to reduce our water by 30% to use an LCS. That's how we get out of the curtailments.

So you can try to grow your garden with 30% less water and see what your crop yields look like. We make our profit on the last cutting, not the first cutting. So when you take 30% off the top, that's a 60% cut in your profits.

And my last question to the tribes. Have the tribes had issues getting the emergency regulations that they need to support their cultural practices? In the years past.

When water rights were established in the State of California in 1914, tribal people weren't citizens of this country. We weren't citizens of the United States of America.

There is a reason when we're talking about water rights in the Scott and the Shasta that tribes aren't included in that conversation because when they were doled out, we were not allowed to be in line. We were not allowed to receive water rights.

So as we have these ongoing discussions about whether or not tribes have been afforded our rights to maintain our culture and our well being, not one single drop of water has ever flown from the Scott or the Shasta river down the Klamath in the name of a tribal water right.

People who have been here for thousands of years in a system that's supposed to be based on first in time, first in line. So no, no, we haven't.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to go to Assemblymember Bains and then Assemblymember Bennett.

I have to echo some of the comments that are being made by my colleague Assemblymember Gonzalez. I, I'm, I'm really concerned. I'm from the valley. This is going to impact crop yields. Kern County has the highest food insecurities in the country. I'm worried about my kids today.

I'm worried about making sure that we prepare and meet the demands for crop yields today. This is a real problem and I don't find the solution in this Bill and I encourage you to continue working with the opposition. But today I cannot support this Bill.

I didn't know for sure who you're recognizing there. The. This is a delicate balance as was stated by the author. And the question is we need a long term solution. The question is what are we going to do in the interim period.

And every one of these water issues is extremely complicated as we see and oftentimes here in this Committee. I think the author has very articulately expressed the rationale for this Bill and this moving forward.

And I think that given the options that are out there, this is the most appropriate step to try to protect the long term interest while we get these long term permanent regulations in place. So I think we can probably go back and forth on this quite a bit.

But I think that was a pretty convincing explanation after carefully listening to the concerns of the opposition there and stuff.

So I will be supporting this effort to move forward in the interest of trying to protect as much as possible what is being preserved right now, recognizing that this will be a battle that will continue for a long period of time in this region.

Assembly Avila Farias.

I appreciate the author and the witness coming forward and all here for testimony as we've heard throughout today. And you know, water is an ongoing problem, but I can't be, you know, I would be remiss not to acknowledge that, you know, the fundamental water rights that were started over 100 years were not fair and equitable.

And when you set up a system that is unfair and unequitable, we're going to run into policy problems every corner we turn.

And I think this is just one step in so many spaces that we have to occupy to rectify and we all have to just be cognizant as we sit at the table, that the table was set up unfairly to begin with. And now we're dealing with all these environmental and water issues throughout the state, State of California.

I'm hopeful that the author will work with opposition and find some middle of the ground in this very complex space. But I will also note the inequity and injustice in this public policy space.

But one thing I do have confidence is in the author that he prides himself in addressing economic issues around poverty and, and very confident that the Bill will make sure that we are not marginalizing anyone in the process. And so I can't think of someone to be this good steward of this Bill.

So I'm going to be supportive of this Bill.

Assemblymember Hart.

Yeah, I want to move the Bill and thank the author for getting into this very complicated space. And your Bill is very simple. The emergency drought declarations have set a minimum stream level in the, in the rivers, and those are critical to maintaining salmon, and we need to maintain those until there's a permanent solution.

The dialogue that's going on at the local level to try and find better ways to do that is critical as well. And I would urge everybody who's not at the table to get at the table because this problem's not going away, it's getting worse.

And we need everybody's creative thoughts to make this be successful in the long run.

I think we already had a motion to second. All right, so anybody else? All right, so first of all, I want to thank you for taking the Committee amendments. I want to be very clear.

I don't think this is the way to go, but the reason why we're doing it in this instance is, number one, we're going to do it for five years because we've been at it for a while.

And I appreciate Mr. Bothwell's remarks because that's partly why I'm supporting the Bill as well, because there has been input all along from both sides. You may not be entirely happy with it, but I know that these emergency flows have been tweaked along the way. So what is not a good situation has had all stakeholders.

You talk about wanting to be heard. It has had all stakeholders at the table trying to get this right. So I don't think this sets a good precedent. I want to be very clear.

When people go back and look at five years and they say, oh, let's remove this sunset, I want them to hear my words, because I don't think this is the way to go.

I think five years is a reasonable length of time, given how much we've been at it and we've heard from stakeholders along the way to try to keep making this work, not only for the salmon, but for our farmers along the way.

And I'm hearing you, and I very much appreciate the comments that these parties are small and they've been talking for a long time. And I think that's what gives the Bill merit at this point, because we have been talking for so long not to get repetitive and we've been tweaking things along the way.

So it is because the process has come so far that we're going to do it in this instance. But hear me out. I don't expect other watersheds to come forward and say, oh my God you did it over here. So let's just keep legislating about these things. We got to get a permanent fix in place.

You all know the process to get that done. You are. I hold your process out as a beacon, really. So with that, let me be very clear. This is not setting precedent. This is a very special statute given the fact that these people have been capable of communicating with one another.

So with that, Madam Secretary, let's have you, let's have the Member close. Would you believe I actually put up a sign to remind myself and I'm still not doing it. So, Assemblymember Rogers, please close and then we'll take a vote.

No, I appreciate that, Chair. And I do want to be very clear, I'm not indifferent to the impacts that this does have, and I do hear from folks about that impact. To Mr. Bennett's point, we're talking about the interim. I am taking no position on what the regulations, the permanent regulations should look like.

People who are much more invested in the watershed, who have the science background, should be the ones that make that decision. What our Bill is saying is that progress has been made for restoring the fish population, for returning some basic water rights to the tribe, for supporting our fishing industry.

Yes, I understand that that's been an impact to farmers as well. But what our Bill says is we've all made this investment. We're all so far into this process, don't allow the next couple of years to erase that progress and make that worthless.

Let's get to those permanent regulations while everybody knows what the playing field looks like for the next few years. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I want to thank everybody for testifying both in support and opposition.

I appreciate that. Okay. With that, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Thank you all for your, for your efforts in this one. It is very much typifies what happens up and down this state. And you are to be applauded with your ability to communicate with one another. It doesn't always happen, you know. Anyway, thank you so much.

We'll take a vote.

Item number two. AB263. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay. It will get out. We'll leave it open for those that have an interest in adding on in one way, shape or form or another.

We'll have Assembly Member Macedo come forward. Macedo. Sorry.

Thank you for being here.

The roosters brought everybody out. Good morning, Madam Chair, and Members of one of the best committees, if I do say so myself. Thank you for the. Thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1044 on behalf of my home county, Tulare County. The sign behind you.

AB 1044 establishes a new groundwater Sustainability agency for Tulare county after other cities and irrigation districts broke off. AB 1044 is necessary for the county to comply with state law. In 2014, the Legislature passed a Sustainable Groundwater Management act to manage groundwater by requiring local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies.

Since SGMA's implementation, communities throughout the state have been making every effort to comply. In the Central Valley, we do not have access to adequate surface water to recharge our groundwater. Many communities are without clean and reliable drinking water. This Bill helps the County of Tulare comply with SGMA in hopes of obtaining more access to water.

I respectfully ask for your support of AB 1044 and I'm pleased to be joined by Denise England, the Grants and Resource Manager for Tulare County, who can speak more to the need for this measure and answer technical questions.

Motion to move the bill second.

Thank you. We'll have your witness. Go. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I've been Tulare County's water expert for the past 15 years. SGMA allowed any public agency to become a GSA. In 2014, at the passage of SGMA, there were nearly 30 eligible public agencies in Tulare county that would have been able to become a GSA.

SGMA required GSAs to be formed by 2017, and in an effort to work collaboratively and promote coordinated groundwater management, I worked diligently with our local public agencies to form the GSAs so we did not end up with 30. Tulare county is a Member of five GSAs in three critically overdrafted basins.

At the GSA formation deadline in the Thule Sub basin, there were four public agencies that were functioning as standalone GSAs and two joint power authorities functioning as GSAs. The Eastern Thule GSA was one such JPA and encompassed almost all of the undistricted land in the Tule sub basin.

During the probationary hearings In September of 2024, the state board chose to enact the Good actor provision for two GSAs in the Thule sub basin.

This triggered this decision by the State Board triggered a mass exodus of other GSA eligible public agencies to leave the Eastern Thule jpa, become their own GSA in hopes of also enjoying The Good Actor provision.

This move resulted in Tulare county as the only remaining public agency in a jpa, which obviously you can't be a JPA of one. And so the county does not have the capacity or the resources to function as a standalone gsa.

The county is a Member of the Kings River East GSA, which was formed by SB 37 in 2016. And that SB 37 model has been working very well in the Kings sub basin. AB 1044 forms a functioning GSA to cover the undistricted lands and. Ooh. In the Thule sub basin.

And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much. Members of the audience, who wish to express support. Mr. Reeb.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Bob Reed, still with Reeb Government Relations, I think, on behalf of Valley Aguirre Coalition and support.

Okay, thank you so much.

Are there any witnesses in opposition who could oppose Larry county for God?

Best place.

Yes, it is. We'll go back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? Okay. Something Merceda. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your support of AB 1044. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. You're very welcome. Okay, let's. We have. Do we have a motion? Yes, and we have a second. Let's go ahead and vote, people.

[Roll call]

You got enough to get out and we'll leave it open. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Denise. Thank you. Sorry.

Assembly Member Cara. Well, well, well. Come on down. The roles have reversed since about 9:00 this morning. Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, first, I would like to accept the Committee's amendments. And thank you for working with me and my staff to develop this language. AB 1426 will establish the Diablo Range Conservation Program, creating a dedicated entity to approve and Fund preservation, restoration and enhancement projects in and around the Diablo Mountain Range.

Spanning from Counterchasa county to Kern, county, the Diavolo Mountain Range defines the geography, ecology and climate of much of northern and Central California.

Aside from providing flood control, carbon sequestration, groundwater recharge and other natural infrastructural benefits, the range supplies critical habitat for hundreds of vulnerable and culturally significant species, including the mountain lion, California tiger, salamander, California Condor and Mount Diablo buckwheat.

It also links together numerous other natural lands, creating wildlife corridors that allow animal and plant species to spread, migrate, and maintain their genetic diversity through interactions with other breeding populations. While the range's impact is apparent, existing protections do not reflect its importance. Currently, only a quarter of the range possesses any level of protection.

While many local land stewards have worked tirelessly to address this issue, their efforts are limited without the aid and support of a dedicated Diablo range program. AB 1426 addresses this issue by establishing the Diablo Range Conservation Program within the Wildlife Conservation Board.

The program will allow the WCBCB to approve projects to acquire, preserve, restore and enhance habitat within the Diablo Range.

It will also give the WCB the authority to offer grants to local agencies, nonprofits and tribes for projects that sustain and improve the habitat, natural resources, public recreational opportunities, educational facilities, and invasive invasive species management practices of the range. With me to provide supporting testimony is Ted Clement, Executive Director of SAVE Mount Diablo.

Good morning Chair Papin and Members. My name is Ted Clement, Executive Director for SAVE Mount Diablo. SAVE Mount Diablo is a nationally accredited, not for profit land Trust founded in 1971. Our organization has a mission focused on Mount Diablo and its entire mountain range that it is a part of and sustained by the Diablo Range.

Our organization respectfully requests your favorable consideration of AB 1426, which creates a new Diablo Range program within the California Wildlife Conservation Board.

It has been said that the road to succeeding with California's landmark 30x30 initiative goes straight through the Diablo Range due to several factors, but none is notable as the fact that only about 25% of the lands within the range are protected.

The Diablo range is 200 miles long and it runs through 12 counties with Mount Diablo in its northernmost County of Contra Costa. The Diablo Range is an incredible wildlife habitat corridor supporting species like the California Condor. The Diablo Range is comprised of over three and a half million acres of which again, only about 25% is currently protected.

In addition to the rich biodiversity characteristics associated with the landscape, the range has also been identified as a new and untapped recreational resource to serve the growing Diablo adjacent populations.

This program is to be housed within the Wildlife Conservation Board in partnership with the Department of Fish and Game and is intended to elevate the biological and recreation importance of the range in meeting 30 by 30 outdoors for all and associated stewardship and fire risk reduction efforts advancing in the state.

As the sponsor of this Bill say, Mount Diablo thanks you for your important work supporting conservation and we respectfully request your support of AB 1420. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. I'm Doug Houston, representing the . Absent a statewide conservancy presence in the Central Valley, which this area, at least on the east slope of the Diablo Range, there is no conservancy presence there.

1426 really represents an opportunity to invest in creating a new recreational playground for the folks in the Central Valley. And we're. We're very anxious to see this bill approved so that we can see that come to reality. Thank you.

Excellent. Do we have folks from the audience in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Landgraaf, in strong support.

Excellent. Okay. Witnesses in opposition. Nobody's going to oppose the devil. I bring it back to the Committee. I know Montiablo as someone who sees it from afar. Okay. Vice Chair Gonzalez.

How. Sorry, the chair cracks me up sometimes. How will this impact future infrastructure development in the area?

It actually would. Would help to facilitate the development of recreational opportunities as well as wildfire mitigation and a number of other needs for this mountain range. The mountain range is not zoned or developable for homes or other types of infrastructure. But as mentioned, much of it is unprotected.

And what that really means is not being maintained, and there isn't resources to maintain it. This is not land that was considered otherwise developable. However, it is land that could be usable by our residents, as mentioned, especially Central Valley side. On the Santa Clara County side of it.

There's a little bit more activity there and recreation, but on the eastern side, not as much. I think this will help facilitate appropriate infrastructure to allow for the use of the range in a way that's respectful of the environment.

Anyone else? Anyone else? Okay. I just want to thank you for bringing the Bill. You know, I brought one yesterday in natural resources that deals with this very issue. You know, it's one thing to have land set aside, it's another thing to be able to conserve it and make it, as you say, usable.

So I appreciate the effort from my side of the bay. I look at Mount Diablo quite regularly and admire when it's snow capped and all those good things. So I wish you the best in the. In the conservation Department. Would you like to close?

Assembly Member caller Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your work in tandem in the work that you're doing. Mount Diablo is a treasure in one of the most significant ranges, certainly in Northern California. And I do want to thank my joint author, Senator Bauer Cahan.

Mount Diablo actually sits in her district, but the range, as mentioned, spans many, many counties. And so I respect the Astro and I. But thank you so much. With that, we'll take a vote.

[Roll call]

We'll leave the. We'll leave the vote open. Assembly Member KRA all righty. Summer Member Hart Waiting patiently.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 1466. California's groundwater is a critical resource for communities, agricultural, and ecosystems. Years of persistent droughts and overpumping have resulted in basins being overdrafted. In 2014, the state passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to bring high and medium-priority basins into balance by 2040.

Local groundwater sustainability agencies reformed to develop and implement sustainability plans, requiring reductions in groundwater pumping to protect long-term water supplies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act implementation progresses. Legal disputes over groundwater cutbacks have led to costly litigation and delays in sustainability efforts. This leaves many disadvantaged communities vulnerable to future water shortages.

AB 1466 will require parties seeking adjudication to have a higher burden of proof. The bill ensures that parties challenging actions taken by the groundwater sustainability agencies must present strong evidence to support their claims. AB 1466 will also require the GSAs to provide a technical report that quantifies and describes all water users to the courts.

This ensures all water users, especially small farms and community members without the financial means to litigate are represented. Testifying in support with me today are Scott Hayman, Chairman of the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, Gene West, Chairman of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, and Kyle Blades is also here to help answer any technical questions.

Chair Papan, members of the committee, my name is Scott Hayman, Chairman of the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority, representing our critically overdrafted basin--excuse me--that overlies portions of Inyo, Kern, and San Bernardino Counties. The basin's GSP was adopted in 2020 and approved in 2021.

We have invested $7.6 million in state funds, $2.7 million in federal funds, and collected millions in local funds investing in our--or implementing in our GSP. Our primary project is an imported water pipeline project connecting our isolated critically overdrafted basin to the state water contractors.

Four years into implementation, the authority's involved in a adjudication. A retail water agency is basically asking the courts to throw out years of hard work, scientific research, and millions of dollars invested. They use a decades-long adjudication process to delay implementation of sustainability measures and delay progress.

In 2025, it's estimated that $5 million will be spent litigating the GSP in a basin that has approximately 13,000 connections. That equates to about $385 per customer or connection per year. As a small business owner and a resident, I own two of those connections.

In 2023, I testified before the legislation on the appalling attempt of litigants trying to take away the water rights of small farmers, de minimis users, and disadvantaged community members. With the passage of AB 779, we believe that the courts would hear the concerns of these classes.

But litigants being--or I'm sorry--the litigants or the attorneys being good at finding loopholes, they continue to attempt to default these small farmers, de minimis users, and disadvantaged community members who can't afford the cost of the litigation. These litigants would like to see the pool of the water in the adjudication increased, so there's more to be divided because they alone can afford to pay for the litigation.

If I could ask you to, to conclude?

Yes. AB 1466 addresses these issues by applying the substantial evidence standards. It requires the groundwater agency to provide a report to the court allowing presentation of evidence in support of these de minimis users. Thank you, and I urge your support on this bill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Papan, members. My name is Gene West. I'm the Chair of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. I'm pleased to recall that Member Bennett sat on that committee with me for-- with me for six years, about 20 years total on his own.

Fox Canyon overlies four basins, three of which are critically overdrafted, all of which have adopted GSPs, approved GSPs, and all of which were subsequently then dragged into unwelcome adjudications, and it would be difficult in two minutes to give you a history of the five years of litigation that has passed and that continues for each of those basins.

Fair to say, the amounts expended in litigation that Scott mentioned are small compared to the litigations in all three basins that we confront. And I'm here to urge support for 1466 because I think it fundamentally does two things; one: it will improve the fairness of adjudication proceedings, and two: make the validation proceedings under SGMA more efficient.

The fairness issue right now under--in adjudications, underprivileged communities, de minimis water users; small farmers have an awful choice. They can participate in the litigation, spend money and time they don't have to defend their small water use, and if they don't, they will lose that water right.

That's exactly what has happened in the litigation in one of the basins, and it's what's threatened in the other two basins at the time. This bill allows a mechanism that protects those users from that loss and effectively making that process much more fair and more efficient because in the validation process, there is always a dispute anytime a court entertains a validation process as an argument about what the standard of review is.

As you might imagine, the agencies want the most strict standard of review possible, the litigants want the most liberal standard of review possible, and what this bill proposes is sort of a Goldilocks approach. It adopts a middle approach, a substantial evidence approach. And that lets the judges know that when you're deciding this issue, you look for the presence of substantial evidence as your guiding scope of review.