Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Good morning, everyone. Welcome. I don't know if you can hear me. Can you hear me? Raise your hand. I've never needed a mic, but what the heck. That's for the video recording. Okay, so we do not have a quorum, but I know we have our first author. So Mr. Alanis, come on down.

And while you're doing that, I just want to read just sort of a General statement to ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today. This hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website and Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 444.

We've got a long agenda today. So what we anticipate is going to happen is that we will take a recess around noon and Then return back 5:30-6:00 in this room so that we can complete the agenda. So that makes for a long but very fun day, I am sure.

I ask my colleagues and witnesses be as concise as possible given our agenda today. I know that's difficult, but I would appreciate it. Brevity is always welcome. Also, as noted on the agenda, we will have a special order of business beginning at 11:00am for AB 1086 Hadwick.

All right, so given the long agenda, the Committee will be limiting testimony as follows. For each Bill, the Committee will allow two primary witnesses of support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each primary witness would be limited to two minutes, so talk fast or a total of four minutes per side following the primary witnesses.

Remaining witnesses are asked to limit their testimony to name, organization and position on the Bill. Otherwise known as MeToo. I thank everyone for their cooperation. We have three bills on the consent calendar which we'll take up when we get a quorum. Welcome Assembly Member Macedo and my Vice Chair Gonzalez. And without further ado, Mr. Alanis, I'm going to have you start.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, I do miss you guys. What'd you say? I do miss you guys. I'm not sitting up there anymore and we miss you. So I want to start by saying that I will be taking the Committee amendments. And I appreciate the chair and the Committee for working with me in my office.

Thank you guys very much. AB430 aims to provide farmers and water consumers with information on state authorized water curtailments by requiring the State Water Resources Control Board to conduct and publicly release an economic and environmental impact study of non-fee emergency regulations. Economic and environmental data is important to the operations and decisions of the state.

We need concrete data of that impacts emergency regulations have on agricultural products. On cattle products, on fisheries and wildlife conservation efforts. This bill is not intended to overwhelm the State Water Resources Control Board. And I look forward to continuing to work on this issue to create a fair, more balanced approach to water management.

With me is Alex Biering and she will be giving her testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Is this on? Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Alex Biering from the California Farm Bureau, and I'm here to speak in support of AB430, a Bill that brings transparency and accountability when emergency water regulations are used for more than one year consecutively.

Under current law, emergency regulations are supposed to be adopted quickly and with really little public input. That's intentional because they're usually adopted during urgent situations where you don't have the luxury of doing a very thorough and robust public participation process, nor the amount of study that you would typically do for a rulemaking at a regulatory agency.

But we've also seen a trend recently where the State Water Board is using emergency regulations as a water management tool even when there is no longer a drought in place. The most obvious case is of course, in the Scott and Shasta river watersheds where there's been an emergency regulation readopted for four years running.

But even in 2021 and 22 for the Sacramento, San Joaquin watershed and other watersheds throughout the state, there were emergency regulations that were adopted for curtailments in those watersheds as well, consecutively over two years. So it's important to understand that AB430 doesn't change the State Water Board's authority to address emergencies or respond in any way.

It simply requires that if emergency regulations are extended over multiple years, the board has that sort of analysis that the Assemblyman was speaking about and release that to the public.

Much like the after action reports that state and local agencies release following disaster and emergency response situations, these analyses are important to document what was accomplished and at what cost.

When a state agency responds to an emergency, the information will better inform the public, the regulated community, and any future permanent water management regulations or decisions, such as permanent in stream flow regulations on the Scott and Shasta that the Water Board is already working on.

AB430 is a common sense step towards greater openness and accountability without tying the hands of the Water Board in a true emergency. We respectfully urge your support for AB430.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And no other witnesses, correct?

No other.

Okay. Do we have any me toos from the crowd in support? This is in support.

Khris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Ivy Brittain with the Northern California Water Association in support.

Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Lee Kamerick with the Rural Counties in support.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Gail Delihant, Western Growers in support. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Certainly not to Mr. Alanis' bill. Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Okay. Would you like to close Senator?

Great. When we get a quorum, we will go ahead and take a vote. Thank you so much for being here early. Appreciate it. Have a great day. Okay.

Okay, Rogers is on deck.

Well, first of all, good morning everybody. I'm here to present AB 1139. This Bill would make a modest addition to the existing exemption from the California Environmental Quality act, allowing park agencies, county park agencies to be among the specified entities that may open existing roads and trails for non motorized recreational use without requiring additional CEQA analysis.

The Bill allows greater access to the outdoors and helps Californians connect with nature. As an example of why the Bill is needed, Sonoma County, which I help represent, has recently acquired thousands of acres of open space parkland that border existing regional parks. Open spaces or regional trails also exist Currently.

Most of these newly acquired parklands have roads or trails that connect to existing roads and trails sharing a border with existing public parks. Communities deserve greater access to recreation and nature. Exploration opportunities in AB 1139 underpins a core tenant of both the Governor's 30 by 30 and outdoor for all initiatives to get more residents outdoors.

I firmly believe if we get more people out in nature, they'll fall in love with it and conservation will continue. It's important to remember that AB 1139 would have no impact on existing land covenants such as grant agreements, conservation easements or long term management plans.

If enacted and projects are implemented pursuant to the Bill, properties subject to AB 1139 would realize a higher standard of care through county enforcement and management practices that require protection of species, habitat and tribal cultural resources. The Bill has received some opposition. We have met with the opposition and will continue to engage with them.

Some concerns have been raised about the introduction of humans into natural settings and migration disruption. We are committed to continuing to work with those folks.

I want to remind you all that parks are not preserves or habitats and wildlife sanctuaries and studies equally show that natural surface trails and roads often serve as corridors that allow wildlife to traverse lands more freely.

In summary, it is the intent of AB 1139 to sensibly and judicially promote access opportunities in a fashion that is sensitive to the research values of our lands and meet the growing needs of responsible recreation to enjoy our beautiful landscapes. With me today is Doug Houston on behalf of Sonoma County Regional Parks.

Yeah, Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Doug Houston, the Assembly Member, stole a lot of my thunder, so I'll try not to be too repetitive, but we are the sponsors of this Bill and I think it's important to remind this Committee that a much broader iteration of this Bill went through.

This Committee was unanimously approved last year, as it was in this House. The Bill was returned In a much more narrow iteration that benefited three regional park agencies. This Sonoma County Parks is a functional equivalent of these regional park agencies. And we're looking for some consistency in the application of this Bill, this law.

So we're urging your support. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Any me too, from the audience?

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing none. Are there opposition witnesses? I see somebody coming forward.

Good morning, Chair Assembly Members. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. We've spoken with the proponents and the author. There's commitment to work here. Since I voiced our concerns the last hearing. We have it with the hectic April, we haven't had a chance to really dive into that yet. But I think that the commitment is there.

But I am compelled to voice our concerns. I mean, we care very much about open access and improving access and making sure that's done in a streamlined and timely manner. But when you open lands to public access, you know, there are impacts and sometimes significant impacts. You can have endangered species questions, sensitive riparian areas to deal with.

You could have historic or tribal resources to account for. You could have certainly, you know, fire, ignition risk to consider. Our point is that you have to have a plan in place and the resources to manage those potential impacts.

And we think that CEQA would be a perfectly appropriate process that we have in place to do that accounting. But if there is reason to bypass the CEQA process, we just think that the jurisdiction has to have that management plan in place and the resources dedicated to do that ongoing management of these potential impacts.

Again, we are committed to working with the author to try to thread this needle to make sure this is constrained to those jurisdictions that have that. Those resources in place. But unfortunately for the Bill in front of you, I would have to respectfully ask for, no.

No, thank you so much. Any other. No other witnesses in opposition. Any me toos from the audience? Okay. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Do we have a motion?

We don't even have a quorum. Anybody going to second? Macedo anyway? All right. When we have a quorum, would you like to close?

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. And again, the Bill relies on taking in lands that already have existing roads, whether they're old timber roads, whether they're hiking trails. So it's not a zero. There's been some contemplation of human interaction in this natural resource.

What we're trying to do is make sure that we utilize the work that's already been done to get people out in Nature faster.

Thank you so much. Assembly Rogers. Do we have a quorum now? Okay, well, hang tight. Let's call roll first.

[Roll Call]

Okay, great. With that, let's take a vote on Assembly Member Rogers. AB 1139. Okay.

Item number 13. AB 1139. Motion is do pass to Appropriations.

I think we had a motion or a second already.

Papan, aye. Papan, aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alvarez. Avila Farias. Bains. Bennett, aye. Bennett, aye. Boerner. Caloza. Hart, aye. Hart, aye. Macedo, aye. Macedo, aye. Celeste Rodriguez, aye. Celeste Rodriguez, aye. Rogers. aye. Rogers, aye. Tongipa.

Okay, great. You have that will pass and we will leave it open for add ons later. Thank you. Senator Rogers, can I get to Connolly and then you, Assemblymember Bennett. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Connolly. And let's do the consent calendar while Assemblymember Connolly is getting situated.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that'll pass out. We'll leave it open for others. Assembly Connolly, you take it away.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members would like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their work and input on this bill. We will be accepting the Committee's amendment.

There can be no doubt as to the incredible impact that the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SGMA, as we'll call it, is having on all water users in California's overdrafted basins. It also cannot be understated just how much small rural communities and natural conservation areas have suffered because of decades of unregulated over pumping.

There's been significant work done by groundwater sustainability agencies, local water users and the Department of Water Resources to design and implement SGMA. However, groundwater sustainability plans in some cases did not do a thorough job identifying managed wetlands and small community water systems in their basins and how GSP management will adversely affect them.

Managed wetlands are a critical natural resource for our state. They provide significant habitat for endangered species, migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, and many other native wildlife and fish populations. Managed wetlands also improve local water quality, aid in flood protection, provide recreation, and offer opportunities for scientific research. Unfortunately, only 5% of California's historic wetlands remain.

These important public trust resources continue to face numerous threats, including water availability. Nearly 85% of Californians depend in whole or in part on groundwater for their public water supply. That percentage increases even more for small water systems, which have fewer than 3,000 connections, and service communities whose access to clean water is most at risk.

These disadvantaged communities usually depend on a single source for their water supply, leaving them vulnerable to drought or over pumping by their neighbors. They also face affordability challenges and lack the local economy needed to address financial and technical issues that often come when running a public water system.

This bill offers a modest and reasonable step toward protecting safe and clean water accessibility for our communities. The bill temporarily exempts small community water systems and managed wetlands, which make up less than 2% of the groundwater use in the Central Valley, from pumping reductions and fines under SGMA

To ensure that vulnerable communities and wildlife have safe and affordable water supplies, the bill only exempts the amount of groundwater historically required to support small community water systems or to annually flood managed wetlands. Any increase over that historical amount is subject to regulation by GSAs.

Going forward, AB929 will require GSPs to include the plan's impacts on water supplies for wetlands and small communities and to ensure their needs are met. With the amendments, the bill will sunset in three years. Thank you, Chair. Last year as well as this year, the opposition has raised concerns that this bill violates Prop 26 and Prop 218.

I will highlight again that our Legislative Council has stated this bill does not violate either, and I'm happy to share that opinion with your offices. With me to testify today is Mike Lynos with Audubon California and Matteo Kishner with the Community Water Center.

Good morning. I'm Mike Lyons, I'm the Director of Public Policy for Ottawa and California. We've worked for over 10 years to support the implementation of SGMA, providing technical assistance, science and community engagement to successfully implement the bill.

Through our work, it became clear that managed wetlands were not adequately considered by GSPs and that state agencies felt that they lacked the necessary direction and authority to protect them. California only has 250,000 acres of wetlands left in the Central Valley, less than 5% of what once existed in drought years.

There's even less often only the managed wetlands or the wet areas on the landscape in overdrafted basins. Managed wetlands generally make up less than 1% of the irrigated lands. All of this has resulted in significant declines in bird populations in California, which have matched bird declines across the entire country.

And many of these wetland dependent species continue to decline and are especially vulnerable to climate change. 929 also puts commitments from the Legislature and the Governor to achieve 30 by 30 goals and no net loss of wetlands into action. The most cost efficient way to meet these goals is to protect the habitat we already have.

These protections are needed now more than ever. The US Supreme Court has significantly reduced protections for wetlands in recent years, and the Trump administration's policies are cutting essential federal staff and funding for wetlands while increasing water flows for farms. These policies will reduce wetlands in California and further threaten bird populations and other wildlife.

We therefore respectfully ask for your support.

Morning Chair and Members I'm Matteo Kushner. I'm a policy advocate at Community Water Center. Our organization has worked for over 18 years to improve access to safe, affordable drinking water for California's most vulnerable communities.

Community Water center, along with the groundwater dependent communities we partner with, were heavily engaged with the passage and implementation of the Human Right to Water in 2012 and SGMA in 2014.

We've worked with California Audubon and other environmental organizations to develop a rigorous process to evaluate every groundwater plan created under sgma, provided feedback to both local groundwater sustainability agencies and the DWR.

What we found is that most groundwater sustainability agencies fail to meaningfully engage vulnerable communities, with the result that these communities were not consulted or considered in decisions that impact their access to safe drinking water.

As of this February, DWR has found plans in seven of the 21 basins to be inadequate and has referred them to the Water Board for further action. Many of these overdrafted basins must reduce groundwater pumping by as much as 40 to 60%. With decisions about groundwater allocations being made now.

For low income communities, a large reduction in water supply is not feasible from the perspective of public health and safety or affordability. If they fail to meet reductions, they'll be charged fees for excess water use. Affordability and access are already significant issues for these communities.

Small disadvantaged communities lack the resources to access alternative water supplies and offer water conservation services to their customers. They're at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to negotiating for their communities.

AB929 would provide a very narrow exemption that would account for a tiny percentage of water use in the basins not setting SGMA sustainability goals back in any way. If their water use increases, these additional amounts would be subject to fines and fees imposed by the gsa.

These communities are an essential part of the social, cultural and economic lives of these regions. AB929 will help them remain so. Additionally, both the DWR and the Water Board have determined that this will not create costs for them. We respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you so much.

Do we have me toos from the audience?

Good morning. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife in support thank you.

Good morning, Sarah Nocito on behalf of the California Water File Association and Grassland Water District in support thank you.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning again. Good morning Assemblyman, Madam Chair and Committee Members, I'm here on behalf I'm Alex Biering. I'm here on behalf of 30,000 California Farm Bureau Members, most of whom operate small to medium sized farms and many of whom are entirely groundwater dependent.

As with AB929's predecessor last year, for Farm Bureau believes that this bill is well intentioned, but still ultimately sets up over-grafted groundwater basins to fail, which is why Farm Bureau is opposed unless amended. Supporters say this bill is necessary because certain groundwater needs have gone unaddressed in gsps.

But every Groundwater Sustainability Plan or GSP is required to consider and account for all pumping uses, including those this bill exempts from fees or reduced pumping. Further impacts to drinking water supplies and community well systems are among the undesirable effects SGMA specifically seeks to avoid.

If a plan falls short in those areas, the State Water Board will intervene and force GSAs to fix it, which is why this bill is unnecessary.

Notably, of the seven basins in the San Joaquin Valley that are currently in or facing probation, none of them were referred to the State Water Board for intervent intervention because of lack of consideration for needs of managed wetlands.

When it was passed 10 years ago, the core tenant of SGMA was that everybody gets regulated except for the very smallest pumpers. That means domestic well owners, minimus users. When you prioritize supply for some pumpers and not others, you move the bar higher for everybody else in the basin who must further reduce their own pumping.

As a result, all landowners who pump groundwater and apply it to the surface of the land should remain subject to SGMA. It doesn't matter whether landowners are doing it to grow food or to attract Waterfowl and GSA is not.

The state should be the ones that can make the decisions about how to manage groundwater in their basins to achieve the sustainability goals under SGMA. Between 500 and 1 million acres of land in the valley will go out of production under SGMA and with them tens of thousands of jobs.

Not a month goes by that we don't see news reports of folks who are going bankrupt in the Valley because of lack of supply under AB99. Those numbers and the resulting pain for many communities will surely increase. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm Bob Reed with Reed Government Relations on behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition. So this Bill exempts two classes of groundwater extractors from GSA regulation and fees relied on by groundwater sustainability agencies to implement SGMA.

Just two weeks ago, this Committee passed legislation by the chair that the analysis pointed out the state and local agencies. I'm quoting from the analysis. The state and local agencies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and more than a decade in SGMA implementation to make California more resilient to climate change.

SGMA is a landmark law that embodies a collaborative approach to groundwater management and mandates the inclusion of all actors and groundwater pumpers in GSP development and implementation. This Committee also at that time passed legislation by Assembly Member Hart that seeks to preserve the work of GSAs by shifting the burden of proof for certain challenges to groundwater pumpers.

This legislation weakens GSAs by protecting two classes of groundwater pumpers from GS regulation and fees. Our client, the Valley Ag Water Coalition Members cover virtually all of the GSAs in the San Joaquin Valley. We ask for consistency in protecting the work of GSAs.

This bill make it more challenging to implement SGMA and shift the cost burdens more heavily to the people who produce food and fiber. We ask for a no vote.

Thank you so much. Any me toos from the audience? In opposition.

Sorry, it was really loud outside, support just to clarify, I'm support and there's one other MeToo support. Can we just squeeze in? Okay. Isabella Gonzalez, partner with the Nature Conservancy, in support. Thank you.

No problem.

As you just said, my apologies is really loud in the hallway. Chris Hoon, on behalf of Delta Waterfowl, in support. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association, opposed unless amended.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition and Mission Springs Water District, in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies, respectfully opposed.

Good Morning. Kris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully opposed unless amended.

Gail Delihant, with Western Growers. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions. Senator Macedo.

The opposition really laid out my concerns from an agricultural perspective. But even if this makes it through today, I looked at the governor's veto message on this bill, similar bill last year, and it said excluding some groundwater extractors from GSAs does not align with the goals of SGMA to ensure future long term sustainability.

Since the Governor made his stance on this so clear, why run this legislation again? Or why do you think you'll have a different outcome if this makes it to the governor's desk?

Yeah, that's a great question. We have had productive conversations with the Governor's office since the veto, as well as with the Department. I can assure everyone we have only reintroduced this bill with an understanding that those conversations are likely to be productive.

You mentioned a lot about the Central Valley. I live there and I can tell you that our GSAs did engage with very vulnerable communities. And there's many other factors at play of why we don't have clean drinking water, but this does not help that.

So I will be opposing the bill today, but look forward to conversations in the future of how we can get clean drinking water to rural areas like mine. Thank you.

Anyone else? Do we have a motion?

Second.

Would you like to close?

Yeah. Just to reiterate the two kind of categories we're talking about. Managed wetlands and small disadvantaged communities face unique challenges as California works toward achieving water sustainability statewide. AB929 will help ensure that the groundwater needs of these vulnerable users are better accounted for in the GSPs and SGMA is further improved and implemented.

That's really the impetus behind this bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Connolly. This is enjoys an I reckon so. Let's go ahead and take roll, shall we?

[Roll Call]

Okay, the bill is out. We'll leave it open for add ons later. Thank you, Senator Connolly. Thank you, Assembler Bennett. Oh, we stand corrected. Assembly Member Connolly. You'll need one more vote, I think, to get it out. We'll leave it open for you. Good morning, Assembly Member Bennett. Good morning.

If it's all right with the chair, I'll start with the Gillnet bills. AB1056. Great.

1056.

Oh, disability. I have my witnesses for disability here. I'll take the disability witnesses first. Thank you. All right, great.

So you're gonna do 1225 first? Is. That's the one we were worried about?

Okay.

Yes.

All right, I'll do. Yeah, I'll do 101025 first.

Yes, I'll do. Yes, I'll do that first.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you. Great.

So for the, for the committee, this is item number 15, AB 1225.

Madam Chair, Madam Chair and members, I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments. California's first state park was created in 1862. The state park system was established in 1927. Since then, we've acquired 280 parks, 1.6 million acres, 280 miles of coastland.

75 million people visit California state parks, but many still face barriers that limit their ability to enjoy these parks. AB 1225 establishes the accessibility Advisory Committee within the Department of Parks and Recreation to assess current challenges and recommend improvements, ensuring our public lands meet the needs of all the visitors.

By making sure individuals with lived experiences have a dedicated seat at the table, we can ensure all Californians have equal opportunity. With me today, in support, are Eric Harris from Disability Rights Coalition and Jennifer Bright from the Nature Collective.

Move the Bill.

Second.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Eric Harris and I am with Disability Rights California here as a sponsor of AB 1225. Many of California's state parks were designed before modern accessibility standards, leaving individuals with disabilities facing significant barriers to outdoor recreation and education.

While some improvements have been made since the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990, there are still gaps and many lack input from the disability community and disability advocacy groups like Disability Rights California in park accessibility projects. Inconsistent funding for accessibility improvements and maintenance, and no centralized list of accessible amenities or inclusive items such as beach wheelchairs.

This bill, AB 1225, establishes an Accessibility Advisory Committee to guide the Department of Parks and Recreation on accessible issues, ensuring individuals with disabilities have a voice in shaping park policies and improvements, and promotes inclusive outdoor recreation enhancements such as hiking trails. AB 1225 is a vital step toward advancing equity and inclusion in California State Parks.

By establishing a dedicated Advisory Committee, this bill guarantees that individuals with disabilities have a direct voice in shaping a future of outdoor accessibility and conservation.

And as a person who is a wheelchair user, I've had many positive and negative experiences at state parks and state beaches, and having an Advisory Committee to give advice on how to make improvements would make a huge difference on not just my life, but all of people with disabilities throughout the state and our families and loved ones. So we appreciate your time on this bill and we urge your aye vote.

I'm here today representing Nature Collective, a conservation and science education focused nonprofit established in 1987. We believe in the profound power to connect, heal, and inspire, and provide ourselves on building bridges, literally and figuratively, within our communities, fostering a sense of belonging and ensuring everyone has the opportunity to experience the wonder and rejuvenation of our natural world.

Simply put, we believe in nature for all. Spending time in nature reduces stress, it boosts our mood, and even improves our physical health. At Nature Collective, we have successfully planned and implemented projects with access for all and conservation at top of mind.

For example, we recently expanded a Southern California Ecological Reserve trail system in collaboration with Caltrans, creating three accessible bridges over sensitive wetland habitat. Today, over 300,000 children, adults and families a year experience the precious wetland habitat and the wildlife it supports.

From above, this offers a different perspective than the various, excuse me, than the previous viewing areas of narrow and uneven sidelines, so further enhancing everyone's opportunity to connect with the natural world. Another example of an access for all project we were involved with was intentionally designing accessible discovery zones.

These zones allow children to access wild areas of nature where they can heighten their connections to the natural world and learn science standards outside of the traditional classroom. Another example of an access for all project we led, involved saving land in a Southern California area.

As an accredited land trust, we intentionally designed the trails on this land as part of land acquisition and conservation easement establishment, designing them to connect to the city's coastal rail trail. We deeply support the creation of this Advisory Committee to help start that important conversation about nature accessibility for all.

When we open the doors to nature for everyone, we not only benefit ourselves, but our planet.

Thank you so much. Me too's from the audience? Seeing none. Do we have witnesses in opposition? There's no way there can be opposition to this one. Thank you.

Sorry. Been moved.

We have a second. Oh, it was moved in. Oh, excuse me. All right. And we have a second. Assembly Member Caloza, please.

Thank you. Madam Chair. I just want to thank the author and the bill sponsors for coming up with this. When I read it, I thought, why didn't we have this before? So, thank you so much for bringing it forth and making sure that all of our parks are accessible to everyone in the community. So appreciate it and would love to be a co author, if you'll have me. Thank you.

Vice Chair Gonzalez.

I'd like to thank the author, as a wheelchair pusher. My son is 32 and he doesn't have the ability to use his hands. And we've attempted to go to multiple parks and it's just not, not even with me pushing. It can't even happen. So I thank you for this. It's common sense. Why haven't we done this before? I absolutely support this and I'd love to be a co author.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? So I too, would like to be a co author. I thank you for doing the work. I remember going to a national park with my mother, who's not well, and I was so grateful for a paved road. And it was such time well spent.

It was limited time, so I thank you for bringing it and I wish you Godspeed. With that, let's take a vote. We're trying to work on our mics. Madam Secretary.

[ROLL CALL]

Certainly the bill is out, and we'll leave it open for co authors. Thank you so much.

The Bill is out and we'll leave it open for co authors. Thank you so much. I'm going to have to go to Assemblymember Gallagher. Assembly Bennett, we'll get back to you on ..., I promise. I'm going to postpone ... and take Assembly Member Gallagher. Okay, got it. Thank you so much. And while Mr. Gallagher is coming forward, can we get a motion on Alanis's Bill? And we have a second. Okay, great. And we'll take a vote on that. That was heard prior to having a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you so much. And we'll leave the roll open on the on Assembly Member Alanis's Bill. Good morning, Assembly Gallagher. Thanks for the wait.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for accommodating me this morning. And thank you members for the opportunity to present AB 975, which provides small bridges and culverts in Sutter County with a narrow exemption from the stream bed alteration agreement requirement.

I'd like to thank the committee for working with me on this bill, and I will be accepting the proposed amendments that have been proposed by committee. Sutter County is an area that's prone to high storms and flooding, and this flooding often leaves roads, bridges and culverts damaged.

After those flood events in the last few years, Sutter County has experienced several small bridge and culvert failures, and the aging infrastructure that makes up many of these structures threatens to make this an ongoing problem in- in my district and in Sutter County in particular.

Currently, any construction like this requires a stream bed alteration agreement from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Documentation must be submitted and approved by the department before any construction can begin.

After multiple culverts and bridges broke in 2023, Sutter county was only able to complete and submit the LSAAs in late 2024, and the unfixed culverts and bridges led to localized flooding in the meantime. AB 975 would help Sutter County catch up on repairing these damaged structures without needing to submit an LSAA.

Many of these bridges and culverts are in rural areas, and people rely on them as their sole or primary way to access their homes, farms, schools. And I can tell you from my own personal experience, it does cause a lot of inconvenience on those- on those farm and rural roads.

In order to ensure the bill achieves its targeted goal, it comes with several guidelines. Only bridges and culverts damaged in- in, or after 2021 are granted this exemption, and the bill does sunset on January 1st, 2027. The bill also, the bridges can be no longer than 30ft.

So we're not talking about big, you know, very large, you know, landscape bridges here. And it exempts culverts. They must be no longer than 70ft. Lastly, they must be in the County of Sutter and have been damaged by a natural disaster.

So pretty limited exemption here that really helps, you know, our county get back on its feet and get these roads, bridges, culverts repaired. So with me today, I have a couple folks from Sutter County to testify with me, Sutter County Supervisor Jeff Stevens and Sutter County Administrators- Administrator Stephen Smith.

Second.

Okay, I'll go first. Hello, my name is Jeff Stevens, as you just heard. I am here today as a newly elected Sutter County 5th District supervisor. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today. A little history on myself. I farmed in Sutter County for 40 years and I am a lifelong resident.

In 2019, out of frustration for what was happening in our rural area, I created a movement that became a nonprofit called SAYLove. We bring out hundreds of volunteers monthly to clean up and support the Yuba Sutter area. A few years back, the assembly recognized- recognized it as a Nonprofit of the Year. Thank you very much for that.

The reason I'm telling you this is that it is why I was elected and continue to try to bring help and solutions to our area. We have had culverts and bridges out for years. We have had over thou- a thou- we have over a thousand that need to be replaced due to age and failing conditions.

We have people in rural areas who cannot get to their homes without having to detour around large distances. Farmers cannot get to their fields on the other side. We have evacuation routes and access to levee- levees for repair in high water events that cannot get access because culverts and bridges are out.

AB 975 is designed to expedite and give our county some of the tools and relief to get to these culverts and bridges repaired in a timely manner. One of my favorite sayings since taking office is we used to build things like roads and bridges. Now we can't even fix them.

Think about this about the local residents who can't turn down their roads to go to work, school or store for years because their road is washed out. Or think about, heaven forbid, needing to evacuate in a high water event and the loss of life. We can do better than this.

I urge you to support this bill and bring some relief to the regulatory process for repairing these problems. Thank you for your time.

Thank you and good morning. Steve Smith, County Administrator for Sutter County In Sutter County, approximately 88% of our 608 square miles of land is dedicated to agriculture, which requires a system of canals, ditches, culverts and bridges to carry the irrigation water to our fields and convey the drainage water to the Sutter Bypass in the Sacramento River.

Our leading crop is rice with almost 200 square miles dedicated to it, which is water intensive during the growing season and the decomposition period. Prior to the damaging storms of 2023, the county had invested the time to identify all the crossings between waterways and roadways

in our county. We found 1179 crossings with only 94 federal aid eligible bridges that are greater than 20ft in span. The remaining 1085 crossings are a combination of culverts and bridges less than 20ft.

In January 2023, we identified nine failed culvert locations within existing right of way and following an emergency declaration by our Board of Supervisors sought assistance through FEMA to replace them. Some of the failed pipes affected levee access roadways.

The replacement process required environmental permits, including a stream bed alteration agreement through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Due to the required studies and the necessary DFW staff time for review. The agreement for the initial nine failed culverts took two years to be approved, and in the meantime, six more culverts failed and require replacement.

Sutter County is seeing ongoing culvert failures as they collapse from rust deterioration. And unfortunately, we expect to experience culvert failures for at least the next decade. Thank you for your consideration of AB 975 and the temporary relief that it will provide to us so that we can address our failing infrastructure.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have me toos from the audience in support? Okay. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? With that- We'll seeing none. Any me toos in opposition? None. Okay, Bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Okay. Do we have a motion? We already had a motion, did we not? Okay.

And a second. Alright, well, we wish you luck with repairing. And would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present on this. And I again thank the committee for, I think, coming up with a good solution here. So ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we'll take a vote.

Okay. Item number nine, AB 975. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [VOTE IS CALLED]

Okay, the bill is out. We'll leave it open for additions. Thank you Assemblymember Gallagher. I think we've got Assemblymember Petrie Norris.

Okay. Welcome. Whenever you're ready.

Hello, chair and Committee Members. Pleasure to be here today to present two measures. I'm going to begin with file item number two, AB514. AB514 would declare that it is state policy to encourage the development of emergency water supplies by local water suppliers and to support their use during times of drought or unplanned service or supply interruption.

California's climate is naturally variable, but climate change, as we know, is intensifying weather extremes. We are experiencing more rain and less snow, earlier snow melt, more intense storms and longer periods of drought.

While water efficiency remains absolutely vital, building future resilience will require California to adopt new strategies to ensure reliable water for ecosystems, cities and agriculture during both surplus and shortage. AB514 provides an important policy foundation to strengthen local preparedness, protect natural systems and ensure water reliability for all Californians.

With me today to provide testimony is Christine Compton with the Irvine Ranch Water District. Move the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, chair and Members. I'm Christine Compton. I'm the Director of strategic communications and advocacy and the Deputy General Counsel at Irvine Ranch Water District. We thank you so much for your consideration of this bill. The whole idea behind this bill is like your personal savings account, right?

You put aside an emergency fund for your rainy day. In this case, the policy is aimed at encouraging water suppliers to put aside water for that non-rainy day. So that way we are adapting and responding to the weather California experiences.

IRWD has taken the steps to do this and as we've talked to many suppliers around the state about this concept, they want some assurance that this is recognized by the state, which is why 514 is before you. So I'm more than happy to answer any questions and certainly would appreciate your support today.

Thank you so much. Do we have metoos from the audience in support?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Alfredo Redondo on behalf of the San Diego County Water Authority, in support.

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

Catherine Freeman with the California State Associations, in support.

Sarah Starr with the City of Roseville in support.

Krista Olson Kate, on behalf of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in support.

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

Good morning. Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robeson and Smith on behalf of the Rancho California Water District in support.

Good morning. Karen Borja with the Coachella Valley Water District in support.

Julia hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. We missed the letter deadline, but we are in support. Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nasimin here on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District and Levenheim, Municipal Water District in support.

Beth Olhasso on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency in support.

Good morning. Dawn Koepke with Mchugh, Kepke, Padrone, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. In strong support.

Good morning. Brian Sanders of the City of Sacramento in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

George Kavinta, on behalf of the California Pool and Spa Association in support.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair. Members. Glenn Farrell, on behalf of the Southern California Water Coalition in support.

Okay. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? All righty. Seeing then anybody from the audience in opposition? No. Okay. And do you accept the Committee's amendments?

Oh, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your work and your Committee's work on the bill. We will be accepting the Committee.

My pleasure. Okay. Anybody? Comments, Questions? Do we. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second from Assembly Member Caloza. Okay, so with that, would you like to close?

I will simply request an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Absolutely.

Can I make one comment.

Great. I appreciate the author, appreciate the bill, appreciate the amendments from the Committee.

The one thing I'd just like to highlight that I have a concern with that I just hope we watch in the future is going to make sure that we don't use the scientific research as a loophole to frustrate sort of the goals that you have here of making sure that that's appropriate.

So just wanted to get that out there on record that that's a little bit unusual for us to use scientific research as one of the justifications and just hope that we can watch that carefully. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Assembly Member. You're done closing? Yeah. Thank you to our sponsors, Irvine Ranch. Thank you to all of the other local water districts who've been working with us on this measure. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Excellent. And thank you for your comments about planning for a dry day. Let's take a vote, please.

[Roll Call]

All right. Okay. That bill will get out and we'll leave it open for add ons or co-authors should somebody come forward. Okay, next bill. Good morning.

Good morning. Thanks for being here. Well, thank you again. Madam Chair and Members, pleased to be here to present AB 550. This measure will accelerate the development of critical energy and infrastructure projects while maintaining key protections under the California Endangered Species Act. I'd first like to thank the Committee staff and accept the Committee amendments. A little bit of background.

The California Endangered Species Act has successfully protected endangered and threatened species over the years by ensuring that impacts from development are both minimized and mitigated. When a developer identifies an endangered species on the site of a project as part of a CEQA review, they apply to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for an incidental take permit.

This permit protects the developer from liability and spells out mitigations that a developer must make in order to ensure the viability of that species. Unfortunately, there is a rather confounding gap in that process.

There is currently no way to apply for a take permit for a species that is not yet listed, but could be listed, has been proposed to be listed at some future point.

What we've found is that clean energy projects such as solar and wind farms can be severely delayed if its species is discovered on site, is petitioned to be listed while construction is underway. Some projects can be delayed by up to a year and can face liquidated damages of $100,000 per day.

AB 550 will reduce these disruptions and provide needed clarity by allowing developers to apply for a permit as soon as a species is under consideration for being listed. To be clear, we're not taking any shortcuts. We are just removing this sort of bizarre limbo that many projects currently find themselves in.

As we all know, in order to deliver on California's ambitious clean energy and climate goals, we have got to build clean energy projects in a way that balances our priorities for conservation as well as our priorities to deliver for California.

With me today to provide testimony is Marissa Mitchell, the head of environmental and permitting at Intersect Power, as well as Lillian Mirviss. Yes. Hi.

With the Large-scale Solar Association. Thank you. Of course. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name's Lillian Mirviss, with the Large-scale Solar Association, or LSA, here in strong support of AB550.

LSA's Member companies are responsible for developing much of California's existing solar and energy storage capacity and the future projects that will be necessary to meet the state's ambitious climate and energy goals. Developers of critical decarbonization infrastructure in the state are subjected to a constantly shifting policy landscape.

Under current law for the California Endangered Species Act, a project can go from being in compliance with state law one day to being held criminally liable the next, with the only change being that a species was a petition for listing and and the Fish and Game Commission found the application for petition to be complete.

When these projects, which represent billions of dollars of investment, are subject to such uncertainty, it only serves to increase cost to ratepayers. These projects may be midway through financing or even in construction, and suddenly they're required to stop everything to get an incidental take permit before they can proceed.

We support AB 550 because it updates the California Endangered Species Act to better protect species and Incur Habitat enhancing activities without compromising clean energy development or making it unnecessarily risky.

Specifically, AB 550 helps to ameliorate this uncertainty and associated costs by allowing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to accept an application and issue a petition, a permit for petition species, something it cannot do today. Additionally, because of the petition phase, very little is known about the species.

There is an elevated value in performing important scientific research to better characterize the life history of the species, its vulnerabilities, its population status, and its interaction with human development activities.

To address this, AB 550 creates an incentive, but not an obligation, for the Department and a product developer to jointly develop a research program that significantly advances society's understanding of the species and for that work to apply toward a project's mitigation obligations and shield the project from criminal liability and uncertainty.

Such research is expected to pay dividends for the Department and being able to craft appropriate mitigation to protect the declining or vulnerable species should it eventually be listed as threatened or endangered. Thank you to Assemblymember P.G. Norris for leadership, and I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Marisa Mitchell. I'm an environmental scientist and head of Environmental Implementing with Intersect Power. Which is one of California's largest solar and battery energy storage developers, owners and operators.

So when the western burrowing owl was petitioned for listing in March of last year, many industries, including ours, began scrambling. LSA Members worked with the best burrowing owl experts and field biologists in the state to develop a comprehensive conservation strategy specific to our industry.

Also, because we knew the Department would not be able to accept applications for or issue permits for the species until it officially became a candidate, we worked to prioritize as an industry. The projects at highest risk of delay and financial implications by not having a permit in hand so the Department could prioritize their workload.

We also began designing and funding several scientific research studies that will yield results to be published in peer reviewed scientific journals at the end of this year. The Fishing Game Commission voted to advance the species to candidacy in October of last year.

And despite our proactive initiative, the first projects did not receive permits until late January of this year. One of my projects received an owl permit in late February and another one is still outstanding. It's an untenable burden to suddenly be thrust on these critically important grid decarbonizing projects.

To go from everything is cool to stop everything or you're going to jail with no ability to remedy the risk. AB 550 closes this gap, makes it possible to keep projects on track while providing all the same protections for species that we all care so much about.

In the work that we do, though not currently in this amended version of the Bill, we're very much looking forward to working with our conservation partners on creating an incentive program and a future amendment that would take advantage of an incredible conservation opportunity we have in front of us on about half a million acres of retiring agricultural lands in the state, lands that are intensively cultivated with irrigated agriculture, that are retiring south of the delta because of groundwater pumping restrictions, are the final frontier for solar energy development.

Most species do not thrive amongst intensive agriculture. They persist only in fragments of habitat around farm fields. When solar comes in to repurpose these declining lands, we obviously should be restoring these landscapes underneath and adjacent to solar panels.

But right now, CISA is unfortunately a better stick than it is a carrot and it discourages and penalizes this work. So I think we can prioritize outcomes over process if we're creative more to come on this. In the meantime, I respectfully request your support for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And we have metoos from the audience.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and support.

Okay. Any witnesses in opposition?

Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association in support.

Good morning. My name is Kim Delfino and I'm here to provide testimony on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California and the California Native Plant Society. These organizations have taken opposed unless amended position on this Bill, even with the Committee amendments. And let me start by saying that the three organizations support the rapid transition to clean energy.

And while we understand the purpose of the Bill is to provide a mechanism to take at risk species and then convert that permit into a permit to comply with the state ESA, if that species is subsequently listed. The Bill has two issues that we believe must be corrected.

First, the Bill needs to be amended to clarify what the standard is for the Department to issue the permit. Currently there isn't a standard in the Bill.

I think that might be a drafting issue, but we would like to make sure that it's clear that in order to receive the permit, you have to meet the fully mitigated standard under the California Endangered Species Act.

Second, the Bill needs to be amended to make it clear that scientific research cannot be used to mitigate for the loss of habitat or the death of a species. Scientific research which we do support can be included in a permit, but not as compensation for loss of habitat.

Allowing the destruction of Habitat of an at risk species and then not mitigating it with conserved Habitat would lead to an overall net loss of Habitat, which is exactly what we don't want for species that are at risk and we're trying to keep them from going on the endangered species list.

Finally, we would suggest that the Bill include a fee provision to allow the Department of Fish and Wildlife to conduct collect a fee to include at risk species in their permits. According to the service based budget review by the Legislature, CDFW is able to meet only 40% of their mandated permitting requirements due to a lack of funding.

It would be a mistake to add to their mandates without providing for them to be able to charge a fee to conduct this additional work. We look forward to working with Assemblymember Petrie Norris and the other supporters of the Bill to address these concerns as this Bill moves forward.

But until these issues are addressed, we must respectfully remain in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

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

Good morning again. Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League. We share the concerns expressed by Kim Delfino now and respectfully opposed unless amended.

Hey, good morning. Michael Chen, with Audubon California. Also opposed unless amended.

Scott Webb, at the resource from the Institute, also echoing the concerns of defenders.

Thank you so much. Okay with that. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. Comments. Senator Bennett.

I was premature with my comments last time. It's the comments about research as I came up from unfortunately reading some other.

But I really appreciate the fact that it appears that you're working cooperatively and I hope you would carefully consider the research modifications and see if you can work that out and then of course, the standard that they came up with. So I'll be supporting the Bill, but encourage that you continue to try to work that out.

Yes. Well. And thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. And you absolutely have my commitment that we will continue to work together to land this Bill in a very good place.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it, Chair. I was just going to give the author an opportunity to respond back to the Sanders comment.

Great. Senator Rogers.

We are continuing to have conversations about that. I think that what I'll say is that we are, I think we share a commitment to ensuring that we can accelerate the pace of clean energy deployment without taking shortcuts. And so I think part of the legislative process is getting that feedback.

I think sometimes when you articulate an intention and sometimes what actually gets written down on the paper either is insufficiently clear for some stakeholders. And so I think we have an opportunity to continue to refine that language as we move forward. And as I said, I'm absolutely committed to doing that. I think this was an issue.

I was honestly shocked to learn was an issue. Right. It's this sort of bizarre no man's land limbo. And so we gotta fix that. And committed to doing that in a way that certainly protects our environment and protects the tenets of CISO, which has been so important.

For sure. I appreciate that. I think there was a motion, so I'm happy to second.

Thank you. Okay. Vice Chair Gonzalez.

I'd like to thank the author on this Bill. The foresight to be able to say let's do something before it becomes a. Becomes an issue is absolutely important. And for those reasons, I will be supporting this Bill. Thank you.

Anyone else. Assembly Member Caloza.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author. Thank you to everyone who testified. I just wanted to echo what Assembly Member Bennett said, you know, but I will be supporting this today, but also hear the concerns from the other side and would love to see some of those concerns addressed. So thank you so much for your commitment to that.

Thank you, AssemblyMember.

Anyone else? Okay. Thank you for bringing the Bill. And it is, you know, sometimes in our attempt to preserve, we end up in a very ambiguous situation.

And given how difficult it is to do clean energy projects, I appreciate the effort of trying to at least quantify in the universe what we might be dealing with and then how do we deal with it. So with that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really a pivotal moment for California. We have incredibly ambitious and incredibly important climate goals. We're not on track to deliver on those goals. And if we want to deliver, we have to dramatically accelerate the pace of clean energy deployment across the State of California.

I am a big believer that we can do that without taking shortcuts and without compromising our strong environmental standards. That is absolutely the goal of this Bill. So thank you for your partnership and your work on this. Along with your Committee. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you so much. With that, we'll take a vote. We have a motion in a second?

Yes. Item number 3. AB 550. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Papan, aye. Papan, sye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alvarez, Avila Farias, aye. Avila Farias, aye. Bains. Bennett, aye. Bennett, aye. Boerner. Caloza, aye. Caloza, aye. Hart, aye. Hart, aye. Macedo, aye. Macedo, Aye. Celeste Rodriguez, aye. Celeste Rodriguez aye. Rogers, aye. Rogers, aye. Tangipa.

Okay, measure it out. We'll leave it open for future votes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. AssemblyMember Wilson. Thank you for your patience. Good morning.

All right. Good morning. Thank you. I had time to go get a little snack real quick while I wait, which is extremely important. Let's see one of you guys. So you guys can be at a mic.

Chair, I normally don't need a mic.

I can relate.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, today I'm pleased to present AB697, a Bill that will help facilitate mobility improvements for the residents of Solano County and the Larger Bay Area. I appreciate the work of Committee staff on the amendments and I'm happy to accept them.

Many of us in this room are familiar with the Highway 37 corridor which runs from Vallejo in Solano County to Highway 101 in Marin County. Today, Sr 37 has two lanes in each direction except for a 10 mile stretch where it narrows to one lane, creating a major bottleneck.

That bottleneck between Mare island just outside of Vallejo and Sonoma Raceway. Sears Point regularly adds an hour and a half to round trip commutes. It is so unreliable that North Bay transit operators won't even run buses on the corridor because it would be impossible to stick to a regular schedule. Let me emphasize that point.

We can't even use transit on this road. Getting people who don't make a lot of money to places where there are job jobs because of the unreliable, inconsistent schedule that would be created. That doesn't help people of low income and it definitely doesn't help our environment.

The roadway is in constant need of repair as it deals with commuters. 25% of the North Bay's freight traffic and weekend travelers, many with RVs headed to coastal campgrounds, are impacted. Additionally, the highway bisects the biologically rich San Pablo Bayland's habitat restoration.

For years, the four counties along the 37 corridor have worked collaboratively with the state and regional partners to provide options for improving the corridor. In fact, when I served on the Solano Transportation Authority Board, I was involved in many local discussions on how to best move forward with corridor improvements.

What evolved from this local process is a plan to improve the corridor in phases, starting with a near term project providing relief and then a much more ambitious long term project.

Now my witnesses will expand on the history and the details of these plans, but in the short the long term project is decades from construction and will cost over $10 billion. It is important that we have relief now. So in the meantime, this near term project will deliver time sensitive mobility, quality of life and restoration improvements.

Buying more time for the long term plan AB697 will authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue an incidental take permit for the near term project between Mare island and Sears Point for four species subject to specific conservation, species monitoring and management requirements.

The issue of the issuance of this permit will limit the near term project's impact on habitat and the public while facilitating vital improvements to the 37 corridor.

Before I go to my witnesses, I would just like to note that we have had discussions with several tribes who are concerned, some have given an opposition letter, some who are just watching to see how this plays out. And I want you to know that I absolutely value tribal consultation and have personally met with these tribes.

And so Caltrans and MTC have set up regular consultation meetings and ensuring that they're invited to the broader range of project discussions. And I'm also open to when we're talking through potentially adding language to ensure that this engagement is meaningful. And I'm committed to ensuring that regular consultation continues.

And so with me today to speak in support of this bill are Stephanie Moulton Peters, Marin County Supervisor and also from my my district and my County Supervisor, Solano County Supervisor and Chair of the Solano Transportation Authority, which is the bill sponsors. Mitch Mashburn.

Thank you. You can go ahead.

Great. Good morning Chair Papen and Members. I'm Stephanie Moulton Peters. I'm Marin County Supervisor and Vice Chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. State Route 37 is a vital North Bay corridor, especially for Solano and Napa residents commuting to jobs in Marin.

Members of our own Marin County staff and many people working in Marin County, live in Solano County and spend 90 extra minutes each day commuting time lost with their families and their communities. AB697 would help deliver improvements that finally address this bottleneck and advance 1200 acres of habitat improvements in ecologically rich San Pablo Baylands.

These efforts include preserving critical habitat for species in this bill. Without this near term intervention, the area faces irreversible ecological decline. This bill is urgent, the restoration work is time sensitive and we risk losing $70 million, most of it tied to restoration, if the bill doesn't pass this year.

We owe it to residents to deliver long overdue improvements. We've been working on this project for more than a decade, collaborating and reimaginating. The very concept of this bill allowing for incidental intake under the California Endangered Species Act came out of monthly meetings between the Department of Fish and Wildl, the Water Board, mtc, Caltrans and others.

Without the bill, construction would be limited to just 10 to 12 weeks per year, leading to longer delays, higher costs and ironically, more disruption to the very species we are trying to protect. AB697 doesn't lower standards. It creates a practical path for fully mitigated restoration and mobility benefits.

We shouldn't let another generation sit in traffic or let wetlands restoration opportunities slip away. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Madam Chair VISTA Members, thank you for having me here today. My name is Mitch Mashburn and I'm the chair of the Solano Transportation Authority. I'm a Commissioner at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and I'm chair of the board of Solano County.

And I'm here today to speak in support of the interim project and to highlight the benefits that it brings to State Route 37 corridor and the broader Bay Area region and the residents of Solano, Napa, Sonoma and Marin counties. While the long term vision for this corridor is necessary, it also is decades away.

Section 7 of that long term project, which would ultimately replace the interim project, is currently estimated to cost between 2.9 and $5.2 billion. That's in 2022 dollars and it'll take 20 years to deliver.

In contrast, the interim project is an estimated $500 million and can be phased for a more efficient construction schedule that would begin in less than five years. If funding is secured, the entire State Route 37 corridor long term solution is expected to exceed $10 billion.

In the meantime, the State Route 37 Interim Project, or as we like to call it the Preferred Project, offers real and immediate benefits that we simply can't afford to delay. And these include a reduction in vehicle miles traveled and introduction of new transit services in a corridor that currently has none.

Delivery of four critical environmental restoration efforts aligned with the Bay Land strategy. Specifically strip marched east dredging and lengthening of the Tolle Creek Bridge upstream, Tolle Creek restoration and Sonoma Creek restoration. And importantly, ongoing coordination with resource agencies to ensure successful and timely permit issuance.

Beyond the numbers and technical details, this is about people, the residents of Solano County predominantly, who sit in daily congestion with no short term relief in sight. The interim project is the most effective way to provide that relief while also advancing key environmental and mobility goals over 20 years ahead of the long term project.

I respectfully urge your support for advancing this project to deliver on its promise for our communities and for our environment. Thank you for having me here today.

Thank you so much. Do we have me toos from the audience?

Good morning, Chair Members. Chris Lee, on behalf of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Regional Climate Protection Authority in support. I've also been asked to share the support from my colleagues at Transportation California. Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Martin Vindola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Bay Area Council in support.

Excellent. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Good morning. Right here is great.

All right. Good morning, Chair and Members. Jeanie Ward-Waller representing Transform. Transform works to reshape housing and transportation decisions that center community needs and combat the climate crisis. With all due respect to Assembly Member Wilson, we have an opposed position on this bill along with 20 other environmental and community groups.

Two primary concerns we are concerned with fast tracking the development of the interim State Route 37 project at the expense of fully protected species. This bill proposes to use a streamlining provision established in SB147 from the governor's 2023 infrastructure package that was explicitly not to be used for highway widening projects.

Although this allowing this highway widening project to take advantage of this provision sets a dangerous precedent for future climate damaging highway expansion projects. Second, we have concerns about the purpose and need for the interim State Route 37 project.

The interim project will cost roughly half $1.0 billion to widen the roadway at the current level, which is projected to be underwater due to sea level rise as soon as 2040. Accounting for the time it will take for construction, the interim project is unlikely to be completed until 2030.

That means the expanded roadway may only be used for 10 years before it is permanently underwater. Federal transportation funds require at least a 20 year design life for major roadways and structures. Further, adding lanes to the roadway will significantly increase driving and emissions which will accelerate the timeline for putting the project underwater.

We appreciate that the interim project proposes to improve tidal flow at Tully Creek. However, greater ecological benefits would be achieved by moving forward sooner with the ultimate project. We believe the interim project will actually delay and undermine a long term climate resilience solution for travel across the North Bay.

We are committed to working with the author and sponsor to advance truly climate resilient solutions that address the travel and ecological needs of the quarter. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have Members of the audience for me too in opposition?

Good morning again. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. We share the concerns as expressed by transform, respectfully oppose.

Madam Chair Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates, we represent the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria, were opposed to the bill. It impacts tribal cultural resources significantly. This is Grayton's area and we're opposed to the bill.

However, we have met with the author and hopefully we might have some language that will make us okay with the bill. But right now we're opposed to the bill and language is included. Thank you.

Ruth Mcdonald, volunteer with Climate Action California. Respectful opposition and also on behalf of 350 Bay Area Action and the Climate Plan. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay with that. Seeing no other opposition, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments. We have a motion. You have question.

Yeah. Thank you so much Chair. So in another life, I spent two years as the chair of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority and Regional Climate Protection Authority. I think I've sat in more meetings on Highway 37 than any other policy. I actually kind of chuckled when somebody mentioned fast tracking.

When you're talking about a project that was started or at least conceived before you were born and then now you're in a position to vote on a bill like this and somebody's calling it fast tracking, it just doesn't track. Right? I know how important that this project is to the region.

In particular, when we start to talk about equity issues and folks who are crossing Highway 37 and sitting in traffic for almost two hours, as you cited, when you talk about the ecological damage that having idling cars sit there is doing and contributes to the area, there is no such thing as fast tracking.

The project should have been done already. And I understand some of the opposition from folks about let's just build the permanent project I think we all agree. I think that the issue is there's no funding for the permanent project yet.

And the longer that we continue to delay, the more it impacts people's lives, the more that it impacts the environment. And we've reached a fever point where we need to do something.

Especially when you start to consider you can't even put public transit across Highway 37 and that this ultimately leads towards other accessible routes for folks, there is going to be a trade off from the environmental. From the personal, I tend to think that there's also added benefits on the environmental side as well.

I will also note that in some of the opposition letters it said, well, why don't you just toll the road? And so my question really for the author is my understanding or my memory from being the chair is that you cannot toll on a road that's previously been built.

That actually state and federal law prevents you from being able to put a toll on a road that was already built with taxpayer dollars if there is no extension or expansion of the road that the tolling is paying for and that they could build a new one and toll it.

But that still doesn't explain what to do in the interim before you have the toll in place. And I want to give you a chance to respond.

Yes, that is correct. That is stay a lot, you can't do it. So if we had an opportunity to toll and get resources in advance to be able to pay for the future project that is desperately needed, we would. But you're absolutely correct. Thank you for bringing that up.

Yeah. And I think therein lies the problem with 37 is there's and a good idea and a good idea and we talk about what's ideal and then you got a 37 year old Council or Assembly Member who's been listening to these meetings his entire life and nothing happens. Right.

I do want to thank the author for taking the concerns of the tribe seriously and continuing to work with them. I think that that is something that I know is in your heart is not to run roughshod over tribal consultation and to make sure that there's access for folks.

I want to thank the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria for being at the table for those discussions as well. And with that I will move the bill.

You'll second it. Thank you. Anyone else? Senator Hart?

Yeah. I appreciate the comments from our colleague and the author and the complexity of this issue. Any project that takes that long to gestate and get to the stage is obviously complex.

I think think I will not vote on this bill at this time because I'm looking forward to continuing conversations with the stakeholders to see if we can refine it just a little bit more too.

Thank you. Anyone else? I would just like to say coming out of local government. First of all, Senator Rogers, thank you for the history adding into it. Thank you for all the witnesses for being here. And as we often know, and I know some Wilson, you served in local government.

It is a lot of balancing of competing interests and this one seems to really fall into the category are we going to let perfection be the enemy of the good? To a large degree. And I always sort of hated that phrase, but sometimes it is just so appropriate. So I appreciate the effort. I hope the discussions continue.

You were very compelling as well. But at some point we got to move forward. So thank you for your fortitude and taking it on. Thank you, all of you for being here and continuing the dialogue with that. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues and support and those who are still waiting and watching to see what we do with this.

I appreciate my witnesses who come from quite a ways, not Southern California like some of my colleagues have to bring up, but still having to deal with commute and as well as opposition, both from our environmentalist community as well as the tribes, both of which happy to work with not only on this bill, but as chair of transportation, they know I always have an open door to have these type of conversations to find the right and perfect balance.

And I would like to note that we're in this conversation in the Legislature around affordability. And my colleague brought up the equity issue. A lot of these jobs that people are going from Solano county to Sonoma county for our minimum wage job, $16.50 is right now the minimum wage in the State of California.

But when you factor in the commute, they're automatically down to $13.89. And that is real. That is real. That's what they're being paid per hour when they factor in a minimum of 90 minutes commute that's unpredictable, that sometimes I was stated from the supervisor as a witness to two hours.

And I remember one time it took me two and a half hours for leisure, not a commute in terms of work. And so it's a real issue that we have to address. And as you said it, Madam Chair, is we cannot let perfection be the enemy of good.

And it's with my hope that this gets out of Committee so we can continue to work on it. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. With that we'll take a vote.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for Mr. Bennett, would you like to take up the gill nut? You ready? Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Absolutely. We're ready whenever you are assigned. Member Bennett, thank you for being so flexible.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments noted in the analysis and I genuinely want to thank the committee and staff. I know we've worked hard with you on this bill, so thank you. As amended, AB 1056 is a simple bill.

The bill allows for the transfer of any gillnet fishing permit from a permit holder to any party until 2027. A one-time family transfer to a family member is permissible after 2027, after which the permit will become permanently non-transferable.

Allowing a one-time family transfer recognizes the importance of family-run fishing businesses and gives permit holders a final opportunity to pass on their livelihood. This bill will allow any current gillnet fisherman to continue to fish for as long as they want, but restricts the further expansion of the industry.

This fishery has a history of significant wildlife and bycatch concerns in California, and that's prompted bans up and down the coast. Previous prohibitions have set gillnet fish--gillnets due to bycatch concerns. Once they did that, there were major rebounds of the vulnerable fish populations and marine mammals in the region.

It's important to note that the only place in California where set gillnets are currently still allowed by law is off the coast of my district and Assembly Member Hart's district. Every place else they have been banned because of the problems. We're talking about one mile long nets weighted, put down into the ocean for 48 hours.

The amount of bycatch can be significant in those situations. Since 2002, gillnets have been prohibited in the rest of the state after the passage of Prop 132 in 1994 and prohibition in Central California soon after. This is a common sense, gradual reform. It blends fairness with conservation, aligning with established best practices in California fisheries management focused on long-term sustainability of California's marine resources.

So again, I want to emphasize: it allows the people who are fishing now to continue and even to pass it on to a family member. But it gradually phases out, a practice that has been identified as inappropriate in all of the rest of the State of California. With me today are Caitlynn Birch from Oceana and Scott Webb from the Resource Renewal Institute. I appreciate them being here.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Scott Webb, and I'm here with the Resourceful Institute. Give a little more context on the ban of set gillnets in California. It's an interesting story. It's actually been banned as early as up to 1915 in Northern California. They're identifying this gear type as problematic over 100 years ago back where I'm from up in Northern California.

They're banned in the Bay Area due to bycatch concerns. In 1986 and 1990 there was a proposition, Prop 132, across the state, where statewide Californians voted to ban this gear type.

Despite this progress, this limited set gillnet fishery does exist and it operates in federal waters in Southern California, and funny enough, in some of the spiderwort waters we have in California within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.

Over the past three years, myself and my colleague, Caitlynn Birch, have been very involved in the California Fish and Game Commission, which undertook a major public process to improve management of the set gillnet fishery. They adopted management reforms, but ultimately discovered a key legal gap. The commission does not have the authority to regulate or change permit authorities.

This is something up to the Legislature. AB 1056 directly responds to that finding. It builds on rather than bypasses the commission's work. The bill provides the Legislature's necessary statute of authority to ensure the fishery is managed responsibly into the future while at the same time not taking away any jobs and allowing this gear type to be passed on to the next generation. It maintains the commission's regulatory role while closing a gap that only the Legislature can address.

California has a proud tradition of taking decisive, science-based action to protect our oceans and the long-term ecosystem health and resources held in the public trust. AB 1056 continues that tradition carefully, responsibly, and consistently with commission's finding. Thank you so much for your time and we urge you for an aye vote.

Good morning, Chair Papan and members of the committee. My name is Caitlynn Birch, marine scientist for Oceana, co-sponsor of AB 1056, and I'm here to respectfully urge support. Oceana has been long committed to protecting coastal and offshore ecosystems in Southern California, from cold water coral and seafloor habitat to fishery related wildlife protections.

This work both safeguards public resources and ensures sustainable fishing into the future. The Southern California Bight is ecologically unique. It sits at the intersection of cold and warm ocean currents, creating a rich transition zone that supports exceptional biodiversity.

Its varied habitat, from kelp forest to deep sea canyons to offshore islands, serve as critical breeding/feeding/nursery grounds for a wide range of endemic and migratory marine species. We continue to be concerned about the non-target animals caught and killed in gillnet fishing in Southern California, as do many Californians.

AB 1056 is about balance. With the thoughtful amendments proposed by the chair, it takes considerate--it takes a considerate approach to managing California set gillnet fishery, maintaining fishing rights for the current fleet and their family while protecting ocean ecosystems. If passed, set gillnet permits remain fully transferable up until January 1, 2027.

Fishermen are given time to make business decisions, transfer permits, or plan for succession. There's no sudden disruption, only a clear, predictable path forward. After permits become non-transferable, there is still an opportunity for the permit to be transferred to a family member. This respects the deep importance of family-run fishing operations.

Fishing permits are ultimately not private property. They are privileges to use and access public resources. AB 1056 carefully protects both the public trust and the real-world investments of working fishermen.

Rather than imposing abrupt change, this policy offers practical gradual reform identified through the Fish and Game Commission process, protecting today's fishing community, safeguarding marine life, and giving the next generation a healthier ocean. Thank you. Respectfully urge your aye vote for this, AB 1056.

Thank you so much. You were right on the dot. #MeToos in favor, please.

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair. Jennifer Fearing, here to share the support for AB 1056 of Azul, NRDC, the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, and Ocean Defenders. We urge your support.

Good morning. Here to urge support for the bill on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Sports Fishing Conservancy, and Fish on. I'm Kim Delfino.

Thank you very much. Do we have witnesses in opposition?

Chair, Members of the Committee, Andrew Govenar here on behalf of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, respectfully in opposition, even as amended, also in opposition, but late opposition is the San Diego Fishermen's Association, the Ventura Fishermen Association and San Luis Obispo Fishermen Association, which is in this fishery.

Unfortunately, my client couldn't be here today because she actually had an issue with her fishing business and so she couldn't make it.

She told me last night. We're still opposed to this because ultimately we don't believe the amendments address our concerns and ultimately they still achieve what the proponents want to do, which is to arbitrarily take away permits from this fishing industry.

The Fish and Game Commission has recognized, looked at the fishery and actually instituted new technologies to ensure and try and manage the fisheries so they don't have any bycatch. We believe arbitrarily taking away permits and they're not even affecting the catch is unfair to these individuals that have invested for years in the fishery.

The bill simply allows you to have one generation of a transfer. These family businesses which have been doing this for 100 years should be able to transfer it if they want to. And even though they can't, it's 15 out of 20 is already current law.

We believe that if my client right now wants to transfer it to her grandchildren, she should be able to. Fish and Game uses science and data to manage this industry and continually updates the code to ensure that they reduce any bycatch and try and manage the fishery.

California has the most well managed fishery in the world and we should be supporting the jobs and the millions of dollars that go to supporting our ports and California's appetite for fish. We are certified by the- the entire fishery in terms of a precedent.

Is worried that what this will do is this will start to create the battles that we have tried to avoid by going to Fish and Game Commission which to use the legislature as a tool to manage our fishery. We should all be going to Fish and Game Commission and if there's a problem, they can fix it.

I know they want to take away the permits, thinking that the permits will somehow help. But in fact the existing permits can still fish for the exact catch they could before, regardless of the number of permits that are available.

So we believe we should all go to Fish and Game Commission and if there's a problem, they should be the ones that manage it. But the precedent that this sets for every fishery is devastating from the Oregon border to Mexico.

We just had the commercial rock crab industry just opened up a couple days ago, which has been out of existence for over 10 years. So under this bill, this would be a problem because then they can simply come back at some point and say we should be removing permits from that industry. Salmon, Dungeness crab.

So for these reasons, all of the fisheries up and down the coast don't like the precedent of circumventing Fish and Game and simply coming to the legislature, which is why Fish and Game set up a system in place to ensure and manage our fisheries.

And in this day and age, we should be using science and data to manage the industry, not have the legislature come in and mitigate our battles. So for those reasons, we're opposed.

Thank you very much. Do we have metoos in the audience in opposition? They're out fishing.

Exactly.

Okay, let me bring it back to the committee. Assemblymember Hart.

Yeah, I appreciate the author bringing this bill forward and understand the opposition of the fishing industry as a whole and wanting to stand solidarity with each other. But the gillnet fishing bycatch issue is something that's had real significant impact over a very long period of time.

And this legislation attempts to- to manage that problem over a very long period of time by allowing fishermen and and fishers to transfer these permits to their relatives and gives a long term solution to a vexing problem that has persisted for a very long time.

Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you so much.

So reading through the opposition letters, one of the things that I did want to know is if you have contemplated the issue around canceled seasons, so permits perhaps going dormant because you've had different seasons canceled year after year after year, whether it's crab, whether it's salmon.

Have you contemplated how those permits would be deemed active or inactive based on what the conditions of the ocean are at the time?

I think that, you know, I- I- I- I appreciate the question. I think it's obviously pretty technical in terms of each one of those canceled seasons. But we've worked closely with the gillnet fishermen. We've had lots of conversations with them.

I think my staff has done a tremendous job and the focus has not been on, oh, there are some people out there that they'd be doing this if it wasn't for some of these canceled seasons. What they've been asking for is exactly what I think this bill is coming for.

Recognition that this is a fishing technique that has been banned in the rest of California for good reason and it has a mile long fishing net you just, you're going to have by catch and it's going to be significant.

And they've been asking for a recognition that we phased this out so that they, we don't go cold turkey and they lose their investment in their equipment, et cetera. I- I would call it a two generation.

The opposition would say it's one, but there's a generation that's doing it now and then that can be passed on to that generation's, you know, the direct descendants. That's a two generation phase out. That's a pretty darn generous phase out of a technique that's already been banned in the rest of- of the State of California.

And I just don't think that it's- it's theoretically an issue, but it- it has never been raised by the gilded fishermen with us as a significant concern. Their signi- The issue they raise with us is they've invested, this is the money that they need for retirement. They were planning on retiring and being able to sell their permit and their boat.

And if we just ban this. And so this gives them that phase out. But the next generation needs to know that they shouldn't count on the fish in the boat to be part of their retirement because they've been given plenty of notice of that in advance.

So appreciate the question, but I don't think that that's been the issue that's been germane for us at all in the last two years that we've been working on this.

No, I- I could appreciate that. It- It is in pretty much all of the fishermen's opposition letters. So just something for your office to contemplate. I think that what they're trying to get at is permits going dormant for things that are out of their own control.

Sure.

Anyone else? Okay. Do we have a motion?

Any second?

I'll second.

Okay. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Oh. Would you like to close?

I- I would. I also noticed that my witnesses, I think, had something they wanted to add if it was- if it was possible. In response to Assemblymember Rogers comments.

Sure. Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you for the question, Assemblymember Rogers. I believe as amended AB 1056 no longer defines active versus inactive permits. It just allows any fisherman who holds a permit to fish as long as they would like to until they would transfer to a family member.

Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. I think this is a- I think this is as- as common sense of a way to phase out an inappropriate fishing technique as we possibly could come up with.

It's- It is modest, long term phasing and I appreciate all the gillnet fishermen that we've worked with who have appreciated the- the movement that we've made and the movement that the committee helped us make in terms of the bill. So thank you very much.

Okay. With that, we'll take a vote. Thank you.

Item number 11, AB 1056. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [VOTE IS CALLED]

We'll leave that on call. Thank you so much.

I think I should go. Yeah, I'm gonna go.

Who else? Is there anybody?

Madam Chair, you can begin whenever you'd like.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Vice Chair and members of the committee. I'm pleased to present AB 1146, a bill that will bring the use of our precious water resources as a political prop. I label this the "You Don't Have to Be a Victim" bill. Okay.

So, I'm sure many of you, like me, watched in anger as President Trump ginned up a reason to waste over 2 billion gallons of water three months ago when he ordered federal water managers on the Tule and Kauai Rivers to release water from Success Lake and Kawaii Lake to ostensibly fight Southern California wildfires.

The water never went anywhere near Southern California and instead flowed into the dry Tulare Lake bed, where some of it evaporated and some of it sank into the ground. I refuse to stand by and let California be victimized by political stunts like this.

In the future, AB 1146 will prevent these games by equipping the State Water Board with interim relief authority to stop releases of water under false pretenses and impose significant penalties for doing so. I accept the committee amendments that will tighten this bill and prevent unintended consequences. I respectfully ask for your I vote. I don't have a witness.

No witnesses. Any in support.

Good morning again. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League in strong support.

Good morning. Michael Chan with Audubon California in support.

Any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Chelsea Haines with the Association of California Water Agencies, and we respectfully have an opposed position. ACWA in no way condones the release of water that occurred in January which undermined the management of California's vital water resources and public safety.

That said, this bill would create a new precedent of an enforcement program in response to a singular event. First, we have significant concerns with Interim Relief Authority. Interim Relief would authorize the State Water Board based on its own motion and its own determination.

Absent a hearing due process, third party arbitrator to require reservoir operator to immediately comply with an order. When talking about a resource and a property right as important as water, and when directing immediate enforcement actions, a neutral arbitrator is essential. The state has existing enforcement tools to stop unlawful activity.

A court can issue a temporary restraining order within 24 to 48 hours to urgently stop immediate harm. And we believe a TRO is adequate. And we're unclear how an interim relief order would have resulted in a different outcome with this incident. Second, this bill would grant the board interim relief authority when water is released under false pretense.

The definition of false pretense is circular. Essentially, it is a release of water that is false or fraudulent and doesn't define the condition. In California, given the complex nature of water management decisions, releases happen constantly and for many reasons.

And we're worried that with this definition and the unclear evidentiary standard that would be applied to reservoir operations, this would lead to uncertainty for water managers. Finally, as my colleague will describe in greater detail, unfortunately this bill would fail to safeguard California from federal operations.

Instead, this bill would create a precedent that would fall squarely on local and state reservoir operators, including fines. We really appreciate the conversations with the author's office and some of the recent amendments, but with the inclusion of interim relief, this creates significant concerns and we request a no vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members, My name is Alex Biering and I represent California Farm Bureau, including some members who lost water last year, earlier this year during those Army Corps of Engineers releases. Like many others, I share the chair's frustration with that incident. It was egregious. There's really no other way to put it, and it was.

But we do also share the concerns voiced by ACWA because we believe that had the provisions of AB 1146 been in place last January, it still wouldn't have stopped that or held anyone really accountable for it. In almost all cases, federal agencies are not subject to state law and decisions on water and water management under the U.S.

Constitution Supremacy Clause. The exception is of course, the McCarran Amendment, which Congress passed in 1952 and which waives the federal government's sovereign immunity when it comes to adjudications of general adjudications of stream systems only.

This is the only way the McCarran amendment actually requires the federal government to comply with state level decisions is when it's in a court in an adjudication that was a tough one. It doesn't force the board, it doesn't force any federal agency to comply with any order or fine imposed by the board, including those proposed in 1146.

That means that it can only apply, as Chelsea said, to state or local operations and not to the federal operations that cause farmers in the San Joaquin Valley to lose 5 to 10,000 acre feet of water supplies on January 30th and 31st.

Perhaps with that in mind, the committee's proposed amendments would shift penalties to water contractors if the federal government won't pay the fines. But those provisions also probably wouldn't have stopped would not have stopped those releases on January 30th and 31st, primarily because both of those lakes, Lake Kaui and Lake Success, are Army Corps of Engineers dams.

They don't have any federal contractors. They don't supply water. They just hold water for flood control purposes.

Given all of this, perhaps the most acute effect of AB 1146 would be to unfairly punish water districts and small rural communities who rely on CV, the Central Valley Project, and will doubly be injured first by the loss of their water supplies and second by the fines that that loss triggers. Thank you.

Any me too. Me toos in opposition.

Good morning. Kris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Adam Quinones, California Advocates, on behalf of the California Bean Shippers Association, California Grade and Feed Association, California Pear Growers Association. California Seed Association, and the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, opposed.

This is Gail Delihant with Western Growers Association. We grow fresh produce all throughout California and we are in opposition.

George Kavint, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, respectfully opposed.

We'll go back to the committee for any questions.

I would just like to compliment the author and move the bill.

We got a motion and a second.

Would you like to close?

I would. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I would just like to make a couple closing arguments. First of all, this is a very unusual circumstance. And so this bill comes out of a very unusual circumstance.

And it is unusual in many ways, not the least of which is what happened in January, as was noted, concerned a federal receptacle, but a California asset. So I would submit to you that this is not a traditional federal preemption situation. And I don't believe that we would be preempted from for that very reason.

The second thing is I don't think quartz are as nimble as the Water Board is going to be.

And we have tried to make it such that the Water Board would be issuing an interim relief order for a very short period of time and the reason for that urgency and the need for the nimbleness is you can't get the water back. It's just too precious of a resource for us to not treated as such.

So with that, I respect the request an I vote and thank you for the time.

Let's take on the vote.

Item number 14, AB 1146. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations.

[roll call]

On call. We'll leave it open.

I think I'm gonna go hibernate during

going to be. It's going to be.

You got to call. You got to call back that comment.