Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

All right, folks, the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. We do not have quorum. Today is a very busy day in the Capitol, so Members will be coming in and out. We believe that the majority of Members are actually in other committees running around.

So I just want to give everybody a heads up on that. As such, we're going to begin as a Subcommitee because we cannot begin as a regular Committee until we have quorum, until we establish quorum. We have 19 bills on the agenda for today. Eight bills are proposed.

Consent bills will be heard in file order and if necessary, this Committee will recess at 11:45 and reconvene at 1:30. If we are not done by 11:45. We also have a special order of business today, and we will begin with the special order. And the special order is going to begin with SB746, then SB818.

The consent items for today are file item number two, SB223, Alvarado-Gil, file item five, SB599, Caballero, file item eight, SB326, Becker file item nine, SB563, Valladares, file item 12, SB718, Dahle, file item 13, SB727, Mcguire, file item 17, SB90, Salarto, and file item 19, SB856, which is a Senate Natural Resources Committee Bill.

So with that, we're going to start with SB 746 for Senator Alvarado-Gil. You can begin as a Subcommitee when you're ready.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am pleased to join you this morning to present Senate Bill 746. This Bill establishes two targeted programs, the Urban Water Community Drought Relief Program and the Small Community Drought Relief Program.

And this will be to support communities across California that are experiencing or are on the verge of devastating drought conditions. But this is about more than drought relief. It's about fire prevention, infrastructure resilience, and protecting lives and livelihoods in communities that have already borne the worst of the state's climate challenges.

Senate Bill 746 equips the Department of Water Resources to provide grants for interim and emergency drought relief specifically directed to communities in high and very high flow fire hazard severity zones as designated by the state fire marshal or local governments.

Some of these eligible projects include water system upgrades for fire suppression, emergency deliveries like hauled water, new wells, water entities and permanent infrastructure, and community based conservation efforts such as turf replacement and public education. Importantly, this Bill creates a dual track framework, one for urban suppliers and one for rural and underserved communities.

And this ensures that resources are going to go where they are needed most. These grants can support water delivery system improvements, emergency water delivery, including tanks, hauled water, bottled water infrastructure, like emergency entities, new wells or rehabilitated Systems. Senate Bill 746 is about being ready before disaster strikes.

And it recognizes that fire prevention starts with water and water to fight fires, water to support healthy ecosystems, and water to keep communities viable in times of crisis. Thank you so much for the opportunity to present and I respectfully ask for your aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you very much. Senator Alvarado-Gil, we do not have any main witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in the room in support who wish to just testify? Otherwise, we have no lead witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition in the room who wish to testify? All right. Seeing no witnesses in opposition or in support.

We are starting not with the Mountain light one, but all right, we're going to bring it back to the dais. All right. Any comments, questions? Seeing none. We will entertain a motion once we have quorum. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Chair. I just respectfully asked for an aye vote when appropriate.

Great. Thank you. And we could. You can stay here.You could stay here.

Yes, Respectfully, I'll be presenting from the microphone to help.

Perfect. Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Thank you. All right, folks, so we are going to go ahead and we're going to transition to SB818 by Alvarado-Gil. The Senator is going to present from the stand standing microphone and allow witnesses in support to please come forward. All right, Senator Alvarado-Gil, you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, today I'm presenting Senate Bill 818, Talen and Wyatt's Law, which will establish the mountain lion tree and free program within the County of El Dorado, located within my Senate district. Today we have two witnesses that will be testifying.

But because of the sensitive nature of today's testimony, we have asked for some support from the family present. The first thing that I'd like to say is that this Bill is not about hunting lions. This is about finding a middle ground of coexistence with wildlife and with human life.

This is not an open season call to hunt mountain lions. This is a call of action to our government, both local and state, to address the rising issues of changes in behavior of mountain lions and encroachment and public safety that has resulted in a tragic death in my community.

So we are talking about mountain lions or puma concolor. They go by A variety of names, some of which you're familiar with. Like cougar, puma and panther. These majestic animals have been living throughout north and South America a lot longer than we have.

These mountain lions have a widest range of any terrestrial land mammal in the Western hemisphere and have the ability to adapt to various environments. These long range predators require large territories to meet both their dietary and reproductive needs. With males typically having larger territories than females.

These are solitary animals and contrary to being large mammal of the feline categories, they are not big cats. They do not move in prides or groups. Their General habitat must include closed canopy forest with stocking coverage around the edges such as shrubs, and should include forest quarters to allow for movement between open and and human dominated landscapes.

Over the last decades, California has invested millions of dollars to ensure that we protect those habitats and that we allow for the prolific reproduction of these majestic animals throughout California. Because they are solitary predators, they tend to be nocturnal in nature.

Mountain lions are ambush predators, which means as carnivores, when they attack their prey, they strategically position themselves to unarm and to pounce.

When they are ready, they take their bodies of sometimes up to 200 pounds, making a short fast sprint to leap onto the backs of their prey, to knock them helpless, oftentimes to the ground and they administer strategic bite to the throat. That calculated strategic predatory movement oftentimes debilitates their prey almost immediately.

For larger prey, they use their body size and weight to attack from behind, locking their jaws on the neck and jugular arteries of their prey and using their large claws to rip at the flesh and muscles to bring their prey down.

After making a kill, they drag their prey to a hidden or seldom spot where they can stay a few days or weeks, feeding from their prey, covering up their prey with dirt and rocks and sticks so that they may return to that same spot.

How long that they remain depends on the size of the prey and whether other predators like wolves or bears show up to steal the cached food. This is a behavior that we know as kleptoparasitism. Now I want to talk about Talen Brooks.

In March of 2024, Taylor and Wyatt Brooks were out during the day on a regular hike to gather antler sheds when they were attacked unprovoked by a young male mountain lion. Now, if you would have known Taylin and know Wyatt. These two young men grew up in El Dorado County.

They know the woods and the rural communities like the back of their hands. They are experienced in predatory animals. They are experienced in tracking these Young men were in their element in their home where they've been raised.

And on this particular instance, they were walking through El Dorado county mountains, unarmed, without a gun, without a knife, just two brothers enjoying the outdoors wilderness of California. On this day, they were attacked unprovoked. And this attack of a mountain lion severely injured Wyatt and fatally injured Taylon.

This attack occurred in the broad daylight, which is highly unusual for the generally elusive nocturnal mountain lion. What we know about this incident is that mountain lion was later caught. The response of the Eldorado county sheriff was swift, humane, and helped protect the public safety of that community. Now, this young male mountain lion was not sick.

He was not emaciated. He was a healthy young lion just doing what mountain lions do. But Taylor and Wyatt Brooks, two young men, two Californians just doing what two young men do, enjoying the outdoor rural communities of California. Over the past several years, El Dorado county has become a hotspot for mountain lion activity.

So we have to ask ourselves why? Because this has now become a public health issue. This has put both humans and animals at risk for serious injury or death. There have been upwards of 200 domestic animals killed by mountain lions in 2024, as well as several accounts of livestock lost.

These attacks have occurred after residents have implemented many safety measures, such as securing animals at night, fencing property, adding motion sensor lights, and guard dogs. And the mountain lions still persist in death of many animals, and in some cases, even the guard dogs have been tasked with protecting. The livestock have also been injured or killed.

So we have to ask ourselves why this is happening in El Dorado County. And we have the science. The science is telling us that as we look at mountain lion behavior and we look at devastating wildfires, particularly in El Dorado county, the natural habitat of these mountain lions has been destroyed, oftentimes devastated with burn scars, for decades.

So a naturally occurring animal in the California ecosystem is being impacted by these wildfires and is looking for other areas to set up its territory and to access prey. Between 2019 and 2024, there were over 160 depredation permits issued within the County of El Dorado alone. That equates to one permit for every 1,151 residents.

The numbers are staggering. Many of these attacks also happen during the daytime. There have also been attacks where multiple lions are working together, which is abnormal for adult lions. These behaviors are uncharacteristic, indicating that there has been a clear shift in behavior.

There's been multiple sightings of mountain lions out during the day near schools, businesses, and Even a local movie theater in downtown El Dorado Hills, a hotspot for families to shop, recreate, eat and participate in festivals. We have to ask ourselves why.

Since Prop117 passed in 1990, the use of non lethal treeing of mountain lions has largely been absent. In certain cases, the Department of Fish and Wildlife can use this tactic. However, it has not been utilized much in the past three decades.

This has had an effect on the subsequent generations of mountain lions who no longer show an inherent fear of humans or dogs. These are adaptive behaviors because mountain lions are doing what mountain lions do.

And when humans are introduced to the habitat of mountain lions and dogs are introduced into the habitat of mountain lions, there's going to be either a fear response or a predatory response because that's what mountain lions do.

Washington State conducted a study that enacted a tree and free program to proactively haze problem mountain lions out of populated areas with sound success. And currently there is a Utah study being conducted in seven California counties utilizing non lethal means to haze problem lions, including the use of hounds persons.

One of the counties that is being studied is El Dorado County. El Dorado county is located 15 miles from Sacramento in the Sierra Nevada region and it's home to approximately 192,000 residents. 15 miles from Sacramento, not far at all for a mountain lion to travel to look for a new habitat.

El Dorado county has a total area of 1786 square miles which the majority of them is land and 78 square miles is water. Popular destination South Lake Tahoe, where many families go to vacation. These are habitats for mountain lions.

By creating the Tree and free pilot program within El Dorado county, this will allow the Department of Fish and Wildlife to collect the data to study the efficacy of authorizing permits to private houndsmen trained permitted houndsmen to proactively haze mountain lions deemed to be a threat to livestock, other domestic animals or public safety risk by the Department, animal control agencies and local government.

This is not an open season to hunt mountain lions. This is not an open permit to allow people from out of areas and out of state and throughout the world to come to El Dorado county to hunt mountain lions.

This is a step to study the abnormal behavior of mountain lions in El Dorado that has led to a fatal kill of one of our beloved community Members, a young man whose future was made uncertain that day and to his brother who so courageously is here with us today to relive this incident.

As we advocate for more government intervention, the Department will be required to collaborate with federal state and county trapper experts to develop their criteria and procedure for registering authorized or permitted houndspersons to purchase a permit. Now, I am not a hunter. I don't use hounds persons.

Therefore, in this Bill, I am not putting specifics and details about how the permit process should be conducted.

Instead, I am allowing the experts of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine that program and to ensure that these permits are being given to qualified applicants who are looking to public service and looking to assist in local governments to identify problem lions and to protect human life.

By allowing the Department, in conjunction with their team of experts to implement this program, they will be able to encourage these problem lions to seek higher ground in unpopulated areas. For humans. This has been the potential for saving lives not only for humans, but also for mountain lions.

They will begin to regain their fear of humans and dogs, which should keep them in the higher elevations where their natural habitats are. Senate Bill 818 is looking at coexistence. That is the key of both humans and. And lions.

By allowing the Department of Fish and Wildlife, who we have entrusted to protect public safety from wildlife in California, to establish the use of permitted hounds persons and to move these lions out of unpopulated areas. I'm sorry, out to unpopulated areas. And then doing this will save them from depredation, thus saving mountain lion lives.

It will be protecting human life. It will be giving us that necessary data to study the why in El Dorado county that we have more depredation permits, more population of lions, and very uncharacteristic behavior of mountain lions where they are attacking unprovoked humans as prey. I have with me today to testify Malcolm Brooks.

He is the uncle of Taylor and Wyatt. And with him is Wyatt Brooks, brother of Taylon Brooks and father Aaron Brooks. At this time, I know we only have two minutes to hear from our witnesses and I just ask that you listen. That you hear the story from a family that has lived this terror and tragic incident. Malcolm, thank you for being here. I pass the microphone to you.

Is this on? Okay, I'm going to read fast. California lion management has been seriously hampered.

Before you begin, just to the author Senator Alvarado Gil. Do you only have one witness speaking? Because it's a total of four minutes and I just don't know if you're going to have it split that in two or.

My apologies. We do have a second witness. Due to the limitation of the table, we'll just kind of switch people. Our second witness is Leanne Leanne here. Okay. All right.

Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry about that. You may proceed. Okay.

California lion management has been seriously hampered since 1990, when Proposition 117 outlawed the effective tools and strategies that kept the species in balance with the overall ecology and also ensured the natural tendency to be wary of and avoid humans. Mountain lion hunting, on the other hand, has been effectively banned since 1972.

But prior to 1990 and 117, there were very few annual livestock losses and virtually no dangerous encounters with humans. Why?

Between 1972 and 1990, Hound handlers with tracking dogs were licensed and permitted to pursue, tree and release mountain lions, which reinforced the lions evolved natural wariness of both canines and humans in exactly the way mountain lions in Wolf and grizzly country evade, escape and avoid those creatures as well.

After non lethal hound pursuit was forbidden by 117, lion behavior quickly and observably began to change. The lions became visibly bolder with daylight sightings and encounters once non existent becoming increasingly common. Livestock depredation skyrocketed and attacks on humans, including fatalities, began to occur for the first time in a century.

In response, the state began to kill on average more than 100 problem lions per year, an unintended consequence of 117's excessive special protections. However, attacks on humans again became much less frequently. In 2020, the Department of Fish and Wildlife changed depredation permitting policy and drastically reduced the number of lethal removals.

And again, this change in policy resulted in a rapid escalation of attacks on humans and the first fatality in 20 years. Wyatt's brother, my brother Aaron's son Talon, the boldly aggressive lion that attacked Taylor and Wyatt, did not behave the way lions once did relative to human encounters.

After observing similar patterns of shifting lion behavior in response to curtailed hound pursuit in Oregon and Washington, several formal studies have been conducted to test the effectiveness of preemptive hound hazing on reinforcing lion aversion to humans. The results thus far strongly indicate that it does indeed work. In fact, it's the only known method.

Along with that, there's a precedent for Talon Wyatt's law policy wise as well. The the State of Washington backpedaled and restored tree and free hound pursuit in the wake of increasing depredations and attacks on humans. It's working. The standard non invasive measures recommend

2 Minutes and 30 seconds.

Okay, I have 30 seconds.

Over 30 seconds, so it's going to take away time from the other speaker.

Okay, I can be done.

Wrap up.

Okay. No, I, I, I, I've gotten there. I'm okay. Yeah.

All right. We're going to welcome the second speaker.

All right, you may begin. That one went 2 minutes and 30 seconds. So you'll have about a minute and a half.

Good morning. LeeAnne Mila, Agricultural Commissioner for El Dorado County. I am the department that has the wildlife specialist who responds to mountain lion problems. I want to point out that we are not asking for mountain lion slaughtering. We are not asking for herding mountain lions.

I believe that this will be a way to proactively protect the mountain lions. What's happening right now in El Dorado county. And we're special. She alluded to the fact that we have the most depredation permits from 2019-23 in the State of California. We had 160, whereas the next closest was Nevada at 80.

Most of them were 1,115 requests per population. Most other counties are a million per population. So we, there's something different going on in El Dorado County. We have two forks, the American, a fork of the consummates. It's perfect mountain lion habitat.

But what we're seeing now in 2020, there was a policy that was put in by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that you had to have two kills on one parcel within 11 days. And that made our populations grow dramatically, I believe, because we started to see we would normally be kind of managing our populations.

We never had any problems. You didn't have human encounters. And now we'd normally have 30 livestock killed a year. And it stayed that way. And as things got higher, we'd take a few more mountain lions with the Fish and Wildlife's depredation permit process. But after 2020, it went up precipitately.

And I had, in 2024, we had 230 animals killed. We had full size horses killed. We had dogs killed. We had mountain lions coming in the middle of the day taking a 60 pound German Shepherd and taking it over a fence. We just now in 2025, we're up to 50 wildlife that have been killed.

So we're still over that limit. And we've had a mountain lion put their head through a dog door in Shingle Springs. This is proactive hazing. That will help. We already haze mountain lions, but we haze mountain lions. And this all works with Fish and Wildlife. We're never out there rogue doing crazy stuff.

But my wildlife specialist has hounds. They're specifically trained only to track mountain lions. They do not attack the mountain lions. They chase the mountain lions into a tree. We've had issues. They're on our bike trails. You know, they're supposed to be in isolated habitat.

But last year the sheriff had to deal with two of them that were right next to our middle school on the bike trail. 160 pound males, literally within the territory of each other. We had a problem one week and we had to deal with it the next week.

I believe that this is going to give us another tool. I have one man with three dogs out there able to haze mountain lions after the fact. This would allow us to have a very limited amount of dogs that are specifically trained just to haze mountain lions. They're not going to attack the mountain lions.

They are going to chase them into trees and get them out of our areas and hopefully allow the other mountain lions to now move out a little bit. It'll be one more tool that we'll be able to utilize and dovetail onto the University of Utah's study. I'm hopeful that everybody understands we are not wanting this.

Thank you. So, all right. So we have, so thank you. We have given you a total of six minutes. So we're going to give also those in opposition six minutes just to be clear.

I'm so intrigued. You are now at 3 minutes and 30 seconds. I apologize. So I need to cut you off. All right.

Thank you for the opportunity.

But thank you very much for your feedback and your testimony. We're now going to call. There's no more witnesses. So if folks would like to come and state your name and your position and affiliation, you can do so at the microphone, but we will not have any additional testimony.

So in support, if you are in support and would like to state your name, your position, you can come and do so at the microphone. We're going to start a line. Just your name and your position and your affiliation.

Marie Brooks, I'm the grandmother of the boys and I'm in support.

Thank you very much for being here. And we can have a line. We're going to form a line to move this forward. So I'd like, if, I'd like to invite you, if you would like to state your name to please stand and form a line. Thank you so much.

I'm Travis Merrill. I'm the uncle and I'm in support.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

My name is Haley Molzahn I'm a carnivore conflict researcher for El Dorado County Carnivore Project and I support SB 818.

Thank you for your being here today and thank you for your support.

Bill Gaines here, on behalf of about 35 wildlife conservation organizations, sent you a letter on that, all in support of Senate Bill 818. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Jim Davies. I've been a licensed forester in El Dorado County for 50 years and I'm in support.

Thank you.

Claudia Jackens, resident, Placerville. I'm in support.

Marie Summers, resident of El Dorado County and creator of the Mountain Lion Sightings Map for the county. And I'm in support of SB 818.

Thank you.

Miranda Jachens here representing the membership of El Dorado County Farm Bureau and we are in support of SB 818. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Mike Costello with Howl for Wildlife, we're a conservation advocacy organization. We support this legislation.

Thank you.

I am Wanda Gaines, I'm a small business owner, Camo Queen. I also am the admin of the Mountain Lion Sightings Page, 20,000 people who are concerned, and I am in support of SB 818.

Thank you.

Keith Smith, Taylen and Wyatt's stepdad, El Dorado County resident for 35 years and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Janine D'Agostini, resident, El Dorado County. I support this bill and respectfully ask for your support to give El Dorado County a chance to, to work with this pilot program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I am Nancy Blair, resident of Placerville, California, El Dorado County in support of SB 818. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you.

Maureen Boaklin, a resident of El Dorado County and I support 818. Thank you.

Tim Irwin, El Dorado County, 48 years, and I'm in support of 818. Thank you.

Thank you.

Heather Mastin, resident of El Dorado County and I am in support of 818. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Linda Irwin. The boys' mother is actually a good friend of mine. I am in 100% support of 818. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Nick Graham, friend of the family here, in support.

Thank you.

I'm Jody Slate and I'm a registered nurse and work with the boys' mother. And I'm in very much support of this bill.

Thank you.

Dave Metzger, a 32 year resident of of El Dorado County and very much in support of AB 818 and I hope you will too.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Terri Metzger, resident of El Dorado County and in support of 818.

Thank you. We're now going to call the next batch of folks that are outside. So we ask that you either take your seat or you can go outside so that we can welcome the next group.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Mark Henley with California Waterfowl in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Maria Malloy. I'm from Placerville, speaking on behalf of myself and I'm in support of SB 818. And I would just ask you a quick question.

Thank you.

I don't think.

We're not taking any comments, just.

I'm in total support.

Thank you so much for being here. Thank you.

Juan Delazar, Placerville, El Dorado County, ranch owner, strongly opposed 818.

Okay. This is for the support position, but thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mary Sanchez and I'm in support of SB 818.

Thank you.

Good morning, committee members and staff. My name is Kelly Platter. I hail from Marysville, California. I'm also a rancher, married to a fifth generation. I am in support of SB 818.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Good morning, members and staff. I'm Lori Jacobs, President of California Houndsmen for Conservation, and I am in support of SB 818.

Thank you.

My name is Dan Tichenor, I'm with California Houndsmen for Conservation. I'm in support of this bill. I'm a volunteer on the UC Santa Cruz Puma Project in which we are doing a hazing study as we speak. We have now hazed up to nine mountain lions and we're in the process of getting up to 15 mountain lions to haze.

Just your support position. Thank you so much.

Hi, my name is Justin Zimmer and I support SB 818.

Thank you for being here.

Amy Granat, on behalf of Sierra Access Coalition and Access for All, we support this bill.

Thank you.

Greg Hurner, on behalf of the Safari Club International California Coalition, 10 chapters in California, 4,500 members, support of the bill.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau in support.

Thank you. So we don't have any more witnesses in support in the room or outside. So we are going to welcome witnesses in opposition to please come up. Opposition please come up and sit here. You will have a total, however you want to split it up, you have a total of 6 minutes, which is the time that was allotted to those in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Roger Trout. I'm originally from Santa Maria, but I've lived in El Dorado County for 35 years. I'm a retired El Dorado County Planning Director. Public safety was a core responsibility during my 28 year career at the Planning Department. And that is one reason why I oppose SB 818.

SB 818 is problematic, misguided, and threatens public safety. I sent a letter to this committee in March that explained these issues in great detail. I'd like to summarize a few points. The perception that lion behavior has changed is not because they are less afraid of humans. There are many variables involved. One significant factor was the Caldor Fire.

Lions have been displaced because of that fire. A scientific study proved that lions do not return to burned areas after a fire because the taller vegetation has not grown back. There are also unintended public safety consequences that SB 818 would cause. Hounds would be pursuing lions through private residential properties, putting people, pets, and livestock at risk.

Lions that are stressed or injured due to hazing are then more likely to prey upon livestock and become a danger to people. SB 818 is not even necessary. Last year, the County Board of Supervisors voiced their concerns about lions to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Director Bonham, agreed to be more responsive. The coordination has been working well.

It was reported last month to the County Fish and Wildlife Commission that depredation permits are being issued in a timely manner and that livestock losses had been reduced to normal. In addition, the County Board adopted an ordinance making it illegal to feed deer in the county.

SB 818 would also interfere with the Sierra Nevada Foothills Mountain Lion Study that was referenced. It's currently evaluating effectiveness of non lethal lion deterrence, including hazing. Finally, I found the proposed amendments in the bill analysis to be much more effective at addressing the issues. I am opposed to SB 818 for these reasons and urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. You may begin.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Sharon Negri and I'm the cofounder of the Mountain Lion Foundation and currently their Director of Strategic Initiatives. I'm here today to voice our strong opposition to SB 818.

We recognize the unimaginable loss that the Brooks family has experienced and calls for some response. The foundation understands the author's desire to ensure public safety and prevent livestock loss. Unfortunately, SB 818 not only falls short by likely increasing the risk to public safety and livestock, it's also illegal.

35 years ago, California voters passed Proposition 117 and made the take of mountain lions illegal. Two independent legal opinions, one from Green Fire Law and another from a coauthor of Prop. 117, concluded that using hounds to hunt, pursue, or capture a mountain lion is an illegal take and a direct violation of Prop. 117.

Also, the sale of permits for recreational hounding of mountain lions is precisely the type of program that the California voters passed and outlawed in 1990. Clearly, SB 818 is illegal, ineffective, and runs contrary to the best science of how people and livestock can live safely in mount lion country.

The people of El Dorado County deserve solutions that actually work. Let the Department of Fish and Wildlife and their team of experts complete their study and help the county identify the best way to proceed. For decades, the foundation has provided safety education and helps small lobby livestock owners implement scientifically proven tools.

Over the years, we have built pen enclosures and fences and installed electronic deterrents. Over the last year, we have expanded our research and experience into El Dorado County and showed up at the Ag Commission supporting additional research.

We also continue to coordinate with local and state partners to help make sure that El Dorado County is safer for livestock, wildlife, and people. We respectfully oppose SB 818 and urge your no vote. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Seeing no other, you do have a little more time, but seeing no other witnesses in opposition. Lead witnesses in opposition. We are going to ask any witnesses in opposition in the room that are not lead witnesses to please come forward. State your name, your affiliation, and your position. This is the right time to come forward to the microphone, please.

Thank you. My name is Beth Pratt with the National Wildlife Federation. I am also a resident in the author's district and I oppose SB 818. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Korinna Domingo. I'm the Executive Director of Cougar Conservancy and we oppose Senate Bill 818.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Paige Munson. I'm a resident of Sacramento and I am also the science and policy coordinator for the Mountain Lion Foundation. We strongly oppose SB 818. Thank you.

Thank you

Again, Juan Delazar, Placerville, ranch owner. Oppose 818. I cohabitate with these animals.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Deborah Berman. I reside in District 24 and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Natalie Casdin. I'm a resident in Henry Stern's district and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of San Diego Humane Society and our Project Wildlife, the state's largest wildlife rehabilitation organization. Opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Catherine Cardozo. I'm a resident of the City of Sacramento and I oppose SB 818.

Good morning. I'm Lou Galgani. I am a member of the Mountain Lion Foundation as well as a resident of Sacramento and I oppose this legislation.

Good morning, my name is Diane Karagienakos. I live in Orangevale. I have a master's in Anthrazoology, that's the study of human animal relations. And I volunteer with the Wildlife Care Association. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, my name is Mary Handel. I live in Sacramento, the City of Sacramento, but I do own property in rural areas in Northern California, mountain lion country. And I am opposed to this bill. Would like us to stick with science. Thank you.

Morning, my name is Mike Handel. I'm from Sacramento and I do plenty of hiking, especially, and some at night. I'd love to see a mountain lion sometime in the wild. And I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Therese Barakat. I live in West Sacramento and I oppose the bill.

Thank you.

Hi, Brian Remar, Sacramento. I don't necessarily have anything super intelligent to add that hasn't probably already been said.

It's okay because it's just your name and your position. Thank you.

I oppose, so.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

My name is Emily Gilbert. I'm a public school teacher in Sacramento and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Cody Hess, I grew up in rural El Dorado County on the divide, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Molly Culton with Sierra Club California in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in respectful opposition. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the author.

Thank you.

Hi, Jenny Berg on behalf of the Humane World for Animals in opposition.

Thank you.

Hello, Nickolaus Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation in opposition and a courtesy Me Too in opposition from Animal Legal Defense Fund.

Thank you.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters in opposition. Thanks.

Great, thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing no more witnesses in opposition, we're going to move it to the dais. And I do. If the author would like to come sit, that's fine. You can sit there, but. So we're going to begin with Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to make a statement before I ask questions. The good senator represents El Dorado County. The sheriff is here as elected to El Dorado County overwhelmingly, from what I understand.

It's amazing to me that even being in a super minority position in the State of California that we cannot bring a bill forward that represents the constituents, the safety, and the protection of our county, of the people who elected us to be here.

And I say that because I looked up the information on everybody that sits on this committee that is most likely going to vote this bill down. And it's a common sense measure.

There are no mountain lions dragging children off by the jugular or killing livestock in Santa Monica County, Santa Barbara County, Santa Cruz County or Newberry, where Senator Stern's district is at. That doesn't exist. This is a particular district bill that is not involving the entire 58 counties in the State of California.

It is subject to one county that you have been elected to represent and you have been elected to protect. You are defending the people who are here trying to make a competent change to the catastrophic situation that you face. Like I face in Kern County. We have wolves.

Wolves that are killing calves a soon as they drop on the ground from their mother's bellies, these wolves will drag them off. One of them was drug off and totally eaten down to the bone about 300 yards from an elementary school in a rural community in which I represent. But we have no ability to deal with that situation as well.

Just like you have no ability as the elected senator of almost a million people representing El Dorado County. And you, sir, as one of the 58 county sheriffs in the State of California.

This is a common sense measure that lets you represent your district to save the mountain lion, to make sure that they are, you know, protected, but to prevent them from being so consistently bold when it comes to humans and natural guard dogs or life. We have that same situation. And I empathize with you over the wolf situation.

We have wolves. They used to be afraid and they'd standoff in the distance, and now they just walk right up and start growling at the fence. It's ridiculous to me and almost unfathomable and immoral to have people that don't represent this rural part of our state. Our state is very diverse. You don't represent a beach area.

And I would say the same thing to you, Madam Senator. If you were trying to outlaw something on a beach, I would ask you, what beaches do you represent? You don't represent Santa Barbara County like the chair.

And if there's an issue in Santa Barbara County that you don't face in the area that you represent, I don't think you should introduce a piece of legislation that affects her district. This is a district bill, and I thank you for bringing forward. It's a common sense measure.

And the individuals on this dais should not tell you and your constituents that you shouldn't be worried about the lions. You have a family sitting behind you where a young man sat at the dais, right where you are sitting in that middle chair who watched one drag his brother off. The parents are in this audience.

None of these people on this dais can ever testify, including me, where they have the same situation where an animal drug their child or a constituent's child off, buried them in the dirt so that they can come back and do something with them later.

That is a compelling testimony from your district that Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Newberry Park or Malibu, like Senator Stern, they don't have those situations. So thank you for introducing this bill. Thank you for representing your district the way you represent your district. And thank you for just having common sense.

It makes no sense to me that this bill is going to die in this committee. On another note, I represent ranching community and again, dogs. My uncle, before he passed away was the bear hunter of California and used his dogs to do it. They don't allow that anymore. My brother raises cattle dogs.

These dogs are so well trained, they can respond to a whistle and stop dead in their tracks. My brother can put a dog up on a hill and go like this and that dog will go around the cur, the corner of that cattle and they will bring them down.

He can put his hand in the air and they'll stop. If they can't have visible contact with him, he can whistle a certain way and they stop or they move forward and they back off. This is not unleashing rabid dogs, chasing mountain lions and harming them. And I want to read something else. This is the opposition letter.

I mean parts of the opposition letter. This is, this is the arguments in oppositions. Critics argue that hazing, and I'm reading exactly what it says. Even if non lethal, they possess a risk to mountain lions' well being potentially causing them stress. That's in the opposition's letter.

Potentially causing a mountain lion stress by having a dog haze them away from a child or a natural habitat of a natural resident of a family or community or a school. Another statement. It could disrupt the natural mountain lion behavior and displace them to other areas. What?

Away from humans and away from our animals and away from our yards and away from our schools and away from our children and away from our communities? That's the opposition. One more statement from the opposition letter. Animal rights organizations generally oppose any pursuit of wildlife, viewing it as harassment.

It's not harassment what happened to this family? It's not harassment when they're killing our pets and our animals? It's not harassment of the human, human beings? It's absurd to me.

The people that make decisions over your district and mine that have no comprehension of what it's like to live in a rural community that we love, in a mountain community that provides beautiful places for people to go and hike.

But there has to be a balance between the ecosystem and there has to be a balance between wildlife and human life. And that balance is not struck in your district nor in mine. But you've brought this bill forward. So thank you first. And now I'll go to my questions and I apologize for my diatribe, Madam Chair, but you don't have mountain lions in Santa Barbara

Correct you right now. Because if you look at the Fish and Wildlife list, there have been human attacks in Santa Barbara County as well as Orange County and San Diego County. So I was just going to let you speak. But you can go on the Fish and Wildlife and see that we do actually have a problem all throughout the state. And so I think it's just you can keep going.

But you know, I want to make sure you know that this is an issue and that the Fish and Wildlife website lists all the mountain lion attacks to humans on their website and that does include Santa Barbara County.

And I apply. Thank you for that correction. But I want you to know that every article that I looked up when it looked at wildlife mountain lion fatalities, the only one that showed up was in her district. Do you have a similar situation where a child was.

Oh, I don't have a similar situation but we have the, the Fish and Wildlife website does have multiple counties attack. And so I, I think it's just important to clarify that. But yes, it is not the same fatality and it is not an identical.

And it's in a completely different environment. Okay. So I guess let me. Sheriff, thank you for being here and supporting your community.

And again I realize that some of the opposition came from El Dorado County as well, but the citizens overwhelmingly elected you to represent them and you, I looked at your rate, you're like through the charts 90%. So they like you a lot. So Sheriff, this question is for you.

Is the proportion of mountain lions to residents much more prevalent here in El Dorado County compared to other counties across, across the state and if so, why?

Absolutely, due to the terrain of El Dorado County, it's been studied, the rivers, the American River Canyon and the Consumnes River Canyon is a perfect habitat. It's been stated here already. That is a big reason that we have an overpopulation of mountain lions in El Dorado County and more and more mountain lion human contacts.

Thank you and Senator Alvarado-Gil looking at your bill, it's only for El Dorado County.

That's correct.

It's not a statewide issue. If the good senator from Santa Barbara County wants to address her constituents and the attacks that happen in her district, she can introduce a bill for that district. You are specifically representing El Dorado County. It's not a statewide issue.

Not a statewide issue. Although Madam Chair herself says that we do have a problem all throughout our state. I, as an elected representative of El Dorado County and presenting this as a district bill. Overwhelmingly support from El Dorado County. I'd just like to address the opposition. This is not about San Diego County, it's not about Sacramento.

So all those who came to oppose the bill today, it's not about them. It's about those who came from El Dorado County. It's about the Brooks family, it's about Taylen Brooks and it's about the future of El Dorado County. And this is a non lethal method for us to study, for us to intervene.

This is not going to cost the state a dime. This is a very fiscally conscious decision to say, hey, we are going to allow the experts to come up with the protocol. We didn't even say how many permits or how long the permits would be.

We want to allow the sheriff, the Agricultural Commissioner, the Fish and Wildlife Agency, people that have been elected and appointed to oversee public safety in wildlife situations in California to make those decisions.

What we are saying is let's put forward a program that allows for trained hounds to participate in tree and flea, tree and free of these mountain lions. And I will say, you know, the opposition talked about the science and I want to speak specifically to cougar, world renowned cougar researcher, Dr. Maurice Hornocker.

He studied mountain lions for 60 years in Idaho. His studies are plastered across all the sciences. And he used dogs to tree and free mountain lions. He didn't talk about them being stressed or harassed. That was what he did.

Highly trained hounds to tree the mountain lions, which is scientifically how you catch a mountain lion, to collar them, to study them, to take blood, to tag them for research. That is what has already been done. And this is a world renowned researcher saying that this level of intervention helps to save lives.

Not only the mountain lion lives, but human life because now we can study their behaviors. And frankly, you know, I'm looking at the opposition and they talked about, you know, the individual from the Planning Department, Mr. Roger Trout. You know, he is from El Dorado County, but this is not about private property hunting.

This is not about private property hazing of dogs. This is done in conjunction with our sheriff, with our commissioner, with local law enforcement, and local elected individuals who are entrusted with the public safety. This is not an open call to hunting season. This isn't giving you a permit. So in the backyard you can hunt on your private property.

That's not what this is. And so let's be very clear and not, you know, add smoke to what this really is. I represent 13 counties, Senator Grove, and of my 13 counties, I had more than one county ask me to be part of this Bill.

And we had to say no, because this is about Taylen and Wyatt Brooks. This is about a fatality that occurred, a needless, tragic fatality that occurred in El Dorado County unprovoked by a young adolescent male mountain lion attacking two young men. Can you imagine that?

I mean, not even in a bar fight would I see a young adolescent male attack two very healthy males. I mean, we are looking at behaviors that are questionable, and we are looking at situations not only of stories of mountain lions dragging little kids away from their parents and mauling them. We have those stories.

But this was a physically fit young man, knows his backyard, knows these mountains like the back of his hands, and was still, still taken by a mountain lion. And we still haven't answered the question of why our opposition talks about that. This is illegal. This is not an illegal. Because we're not asking to take mountain lions. We're not asking to kill mountain lions. That would go against Proposition 117, and we're not doing that.

We are asking to tree and free, which is a humane way of hazing, using trained hounds and trained individuals under the supervision of our sheriff, the Fish and Wildlife Department, and our commissioner, to ensure that we are humanely moving mountain lions out of areas of human population. That's not illegal. That was already codified in law.

This is not about recreation. I think it's a joke to talk about recreation when we're talking about saving lives. The experts will design the program. They are entrusted to protect public safety. The mission of the Department of Fish and Wildlife is to protect public safety and to coexist, design programs to coexist wildlife and humans. We're not talking about going to Chuck E. Cheese and shooting mountain lions. To use the word recreation is obscene.

I go back to the quote of our chair. We have a problem all throughout the state, and this is simply a district Bill for El Dorado County.

This is El Dorado County asking for this Committee to move this Bill, to move this Bill to the next Committee to allow us time to perfect it, to allow us time to meet with the opposition if they so choose. Not a single one of the people that submitted letters to this Committee contacted my office for a meeting.

Not a single one of them wrote me directly and said, "Senator, I want to sit down with you and talk about this." Because they're not from El Dorado County. These are organizations that have millions of dollars, philanthropic dollars, to have people show up in opposition of this Bill.

We, the Legislature, put forward $30 million over years to help protect the habitats of mountain lions. This is about El Dorado County and the residents of El Dorado County and the children of El Dorado County.

And the least that we can do is give a policy, a program to our elected officials and local officials to help protect the lives. I am afraid. I am afraid for my constituents in El Dorado County because I have talked to the sheriff and I know that we have mountain lions in the trees.

I know that we have walking paths and biking packs and hiking packs that are within the territory of mountain lions. And I am afraid when I get calls and text messages from the sheriff that it's going to be another fatality. And my fear is minimal compared to the Brooks family. Minimal.

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I really do. I'm glad you emphasized because it's exactly what I got when I read this Bill. This is a district Bill only for El Dorado County. And again, I implore my colleagues on this dais, it is not about Santa Barbara. It's not about San Diego. It's not about Santa Cruz.

It's a different district Bill to let professionals, including the sheriff, who was overwhelmingly elected, the Senator, and their experts work with Fish and Wildlife to address this safety issue that is prevalent in their area.

The sheriff just testified that it's overwhelming that there are more incidences in El Dorado county than there are in any other part of the state. It's a district Bill, and I realize that we are in the super minority position, but there is no reason why we can't represent the people who elected us to be here.

And the people overwhelmingly elected these two individuals to represent El Dorado County. You have a family that came up and testified. You have countless constituents that came up and testified. And when you look at the opposition Most of those were from outside of El Dorado County. This is a district Bill.

I have one more question, and I'd like to address it if I could, to Ms. LeeAnne Mila from the El Dorado County Ag Commissioner. So conversations between the Department of Fish and Wildlife have been ongoing for several years now to address the increase in human mountain lion encounters with no real solution.

Can you give your assessment why this pilot program would be the best option in managing how mountain lions and humans coexist? And the reason why I ask you that question is because you guys have more encounters. I want to know how, how you feel or how you think.

And the science behind what you're doing will allow you to address this issue. And hopefully this issue can be, I don't want to say plagiarized, but mimicked or copied or whatever used in, like, where we have issues with wolves or we have issues with other predatory animals that are causing wreaking havoc against the constituents that we serve.

And it's something that. And I really. And I asked this question because in my district, Lorelei Oviatt is the permit queen or Planning Director. Right. 53% of the state solar. It doesn't matter. She's the permit queen. And other counties are adopting that policy instead of starting from scratch.

I'm interested on why you think this pilot program where I know, but I'd like you to share with my other colleague on the dais why this would work.

I think that one of the things that I continually go back to is the policy was changed on how we dealt with mountain lanes in California in 2020, and specifically El Dorado County was really affected by that. That's that two animals had to be killed within 11 days on the same parcel.

If it was you, a mountain lion killed something on one parcel and then went to the next one that didn't count. And so we became where we weren't managing the population. What is the other animal that manages the mountain lion populations? It's us. We are the top predator over them. And so we weren't managing them.

We have some fires that push them. But I can tell you that that habitat up there now is prime deer country. And the deer should be up there. The mountain lion should be up there, but they are now down in our area because we've allowed our population to get out of whack, and there is a need now to really deal with that.

I believe that Fish and Wildlife is helping us, but I think this will be another tool that will dovetail with the University of Utah study. And that study has been, you know, lauded from the opposition that it was going to be this amazing thing that would.

It's going to go to, you know, fruition and solve problems and give us a lot of answers. It's a very short survey. It's very. It doesn't have quite the funding that it needs. And so having. It's already using hazing, it will be using proactive hazing, which is what I call this, as opposed to after the fact.

And I think that it's going to give us another tool, having another set of hounds, because they're just going to be using my wildlife specialist hounds for the study. So now we're going to have more hounds that will help us and that Fish and Wildlife will be really calling the shots.

And the Ag Commissioner and the sheriff of. Where are you going to be doing this? We're not going to be doing this in the City of Placerville. We're not going to be doing it in urban areas.

We're going to be trying, trying to go out into some of the more rural areas and push the mountain lions out of the habitat.

I also would like to address some of the issues that's been said is that, you know, we have a big increase in the population of El Dorado County, where people want to, you know, be homesteaders. And they don't put up the right fences and they don't do that.

Depredation permits for mountain lions do not come from Fish and Wildlife unless you are doing everything you need to do. And I have not seen. I've been at the Ag Department for 25 years. In those 25 years, it's just been since that policy in 2020 that we really have seen the problem.

Thank you. Again, I want to emphasize that this is a district Bill. It doesn't affect the entire State of California. It's the Department working with Fish and Wildlife. It's your ag science working with Fish and Wildlife. It's the elected sheriff working with Fish and Wildlife.

And these are trained, certified hounds that don't go out and kill wild lions, mountain lions. They will just tree them for an expedient removal to a very good habitat that they have the opportunity to thrive in and protect human life and domestic animals and domestic property. So I want to move the Bill when it's appropriate.

I know we don't have a quorum. I know that we can't take a vote on this Bill because there's only two of us here. But I wish our other colleagues were here because it does it doesn't affect their district.

And for them to vote no against this Bill is a voting no against the elected representative, the overwhelmingly elected sheriff, and a sound solution to protect your constituents. I mean, you're not asking to interfere in anybody else's area of the state, but to protect your constituents from the situation that you are overwhelmingly facing.

So I'd be glad to move the Bill when the time is appropriate.

Thank you. So thank you to Senator Grove. I want to start off by really thanking the author and the Brooks family. I had a chance to meet with the Brooks family yesterday to talk about this Bill and to discuss the Bill in the context of a tragedy.

As a parent, there is no one that can tell me otherwise that this is anything but a tragedy. And as a parent who goes hiking with my daughter in the mountains in our trails, I don't know what I would do if something like this happen. And it gives all of us pause.

And it's because of what the family and what the author has shared with me that the position of this Committee and dais as the chair has always, every step of the way has been to get this Bill out. And I appreciate that you're acknowledging that that has been the step and the discussion at every single moment.

What do we do to address an issue that I agree is different in El Dorado County? If you look at the fatalities versus attacks, it is different. I agree.

I see the data that has been presented so far and what we discussed has been how do we get a Bill out that addresses the need of El Dorado County, that ensures that the perspective is not lost, but also gets a four-fifths of a vote?

This Bill is unique in that it's the first Bill that I've seen in eight years that requires a four-fifths vote because of Prop 117.

And so the approach for me as chair and for this Committee is how do you build consensus around what next steps need to happen to ensure that we get a yes, to ensure that this Bill provides a pathway to a conversation that is needed.

And so what we suggested, and it was rejected, was to provide a dedicated human wildlife conflicts units for El Dorado County. That was one of the amendments that we suggested that was rejected. And we tried to create again a pathway to get to a yes.

We also believe, and I'm glad that, you know, the Ag Commissioner mentioned it, that the Fish and Wildlife and the study is already using hazing and proactive hazing. And so we recommended that that continue, that the study continue. The amendments that were suggested were not amendments that were taken lightly.

We didn't want to speak to one particular solution as opposed to the other. We think that there could be. That the study may say that something else is more effective in saving lives and protecting the people of El Dorado County. And we wanted to be open to that, that we wanted that study to continue.

We agree with what has been said, that this has to be a partnership between government and county officials. We've always agreed with that. We agree. You know, in the author's opening statements, there was talk about middle ground, coexistence and public safety. This Committee agrees that those three elements are very important.

Finding that middle ground, ensuring public safety and coexistence, again in the statements that have been made today, is a recognition that both humans and animals are at risk. We agree with that. And we believe that that is something that needs to address. That the Bill could serve as a step to study abnormal behavior of mountain lions.

We agree. And that's why we believe that the amendments that we had recommended helped us address those issues. Certainly when reaching a consensus, any amendments don't go in the direction that any one person or any one group wanted. And I think that that's where we have gotten stuck.

I know that Members are in multiple committees, multiple committees today, going in and out of committees, but there is not one Member of this Committee that has come to me and expressed anything but a willingness to support this issue and trying to find a way to build consensus.

And I think that that's where the Bill has gotten stuck. But every Member that I've talked to wants to address this issue, believes that the tragedy should be a tragedy that informs policy outcomes to ensure it doesn't continue to happen. And so these are the things that I feel are very important.

And that's why the recommendation of the Bill, of me as the chair and the Committee is at actually to move the Bill forward with amendments proposed. The conversation has never been about not moving the conversation forward. It's about saying yes.

It's about working with all folks and parties to determine how to help this Bill be successful, how to ensure that we get a four-fifths of a vote and that this Bill moves forward. How we continue to focus on, on El Dorado County and the specific needs of the county. And that recommendation still stands.

My recommendation still stands that we move the Bill forward with the amendments to ensure that we are able to reach all of these elements that are important and that I think both the author has expressed through for several weeks. By the way, this is not a one-time, conversation.

There have been multiple conversation for several weeks about this Bill. Again, I, as I hear and as I've learned, as I've talked to folks for many weeks about this particular Bill, I am committed to continue working on this and trying to address an issue that I think is a tragedy.

It is an issue to the parents, to Wyatt, who was there when the attack happened on Taylor. There are no words for what this is and why it's important to move this forward and to find a way to say yes to create something that addresses this issue.

My recommendation still stands that we move the Bill forward with the amendments in order to continue to achieve what this Bill requires, which is consensus and not just a super majority, but a great majority of people voting in support of this Bill. So with that, I will allow the author to close. I just finished.

I know, but I'm entitled to ask another question.

What is the question you would like to ask?

So the question is, is the only difference, my understanding on the amendment is you're going to use private houndsmen, but you're, are you going to work with Fish and Wildlife, the sheriff and the experts and give this an additional resource for Fish and Wildlife to use these houndsmen for you guys, Is that or you're not excluding Fish and Wildlife?

Right. Fish and Wildlife manages all depredation permits. And in order to haze animals, you have to have a depredation permit to do that. Mountain lions. So everything would be going through Fish and Wildlife in conjunction with us and the sheriff and, you know, deciding where they needed to do the hazing, where it was important. Also looking at the study, how could we dovetail with them?

Okay. And you made a statement earlier, or one of you did, there's not a cost to. To the state regarding the solution that you have.

That's correct. Being that we are in a deficit in the state, we looked at a solution and this is a Bill we're working on. For over a year, we looked at a solution with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure that we could put forward a program, a solution without mitigated costs to the state.

Being that the Department of Fish and Wildlife, their budget has continuously being cut, even at the local level, El Dorado County, we are in a budget deficit as well. So this is for us a fiscally prudent solution to addressing an immediate public safety need now.

And is one of the fears about accepting the Chair's amendments, that it will die in appropriations, a very quiet death because of the price tag associated with having a specialized individual or other people involved in this process that the state will have to pay for.

That's part of it. And also we feel that, you know, if Fish and Wildlife had the funding to add an extra person to dedicate to El Dorado County, they would have already done that because we have the data suggesting that there is a real problem in El Dorado County.

There simply has not been funding allocated for this position. And to create a Bill with this understanding that there may or may not be magical dollars coming down really does a disservice to the family and to the memory of Taylor Brooks.

Okay, I just want to reiterate my statement. This is a district Bill that you've worked with experts, including the sheriff and the wildlife organizations and Department of Fish and Wildlife to fix a problem that you have in your county overwhelmingly behind any other counties in the state.

You have funded it and secured the funding and have your own mechanism for funding not to burden the state on it. And again, it's a district built to protect your constituents, which you were elected to do along with the sheriff who's who sits beside you. So I respect the Chair. I do. We have disagreements on policy, but I respect you as a person and a human being, as a mom, as a Legislator, I do.

But to impose a, in this policy hearing, to impose an amendment, to force an amendment on the author who's represented her district, which happens often, that is going to make this Bill quietly, it will get out of this Committee if she accepts that amendment, but it will quietly die in Appropriations because there is no dollars defend it when they have a solution already put forward is just. It's not right.

So I think that we can have this debate, but that is not an accurate statement that the current Bill does not have a cost to it.

From conversations within the Committee and also with agencies and other parties involved, there is a belief, it is the belief of the author at the moment that the Bill that she proposed does not have a fee associated to it. It is not the belief of most people that that is an accurate statement.

And the reason being is because that in it of itself is a new process requiring a new way of doing things. So just to be clear, there are costs to both. And so I don't know where.

If you would like to tell me if the author would like to tell me what the dedicated source of funding is that you're proposing, I would like to know that.

So these, these permits would require for the private houndsman to apply for the permit and thus would have a cost to the state they would pay for that permit and that amount of money would be dictated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife according to their design of the program.

There would be a cost associated for Fish and Wildlife for creating any new program, because that is the case of any Bill in any Committee, in any policy. So where does that fee come from?

Again, the fee is being paid out of the pocket of the applicants that are seeking that.

That is not the belief that that fee would suffice in the needed. So I just want to be clear.

So...

So I just want to be clear.

...Wildlife Department....

Like I said.

...trusted.

Like I said, it is not the belief of any groups involved at this moment that have been analyzing the Bill that the Bill that is moving forward is free of any cost to the state. Every Bill. No, I disagree with you. I disagree with you that I am. I've been for weeks and I've been trying to find a solution. This Committee has been trying to find a solution.

The private house are going to pay a fee set by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to cover the cost that Fish and Wildlife incurs. Then they're going to issue that private houndsman a degradation permit If they meet the process and the licensing requirements and everything.

They're going to give it to those people sitting at this dais elected by this county to help the situation that they have. So to say that there's going to be some expense to Fish and Wildlife.

Fish and Wildlife gets to determine the fee applied for by the private houndsman to cover their cost and to say that somebody at Fish and Wildlife who issues a degradation permit right now, and now they have to issue another degradation permit by another agency, a private houndsman agency, to apply a fee to and say it's going to cost an exorbitant amount of money just to process.

I mean, if the sheriff gets 20 calls a day or two calls a day, he gets the same amount of money. It should be applied the same with state resources. And I realize it's not.

But the point is that the author has written this Bill to say when we apply for a permit with this new agency, this new private hounding company or provider, Fish and Wildlife gets to set the fee.

If Fish and Wild determines that processing this particular type of permit cost $1,000 just per se, they can charge the Hounds people $1,000 to process a fee to cover their costs. They're allowing Fish and Wildlife, the state agency, to set the funding for the fee expense to offset any state resources. That's what's happening.

You're saying that it would have to go here to this with your amendments, and this Bill will die in Appropriations. And I, it's, it's a very good Bill, and it covers every aspect of every question that would probably be asked by anybody on the Policy Committee on this dais.

Where's the funding come from? How are you going to manage it? Who's the experts? What's going to happen? How are you going to fix the problem in your county? You have addressed all those issues along with the individuals that you've brought here with you today.

So I respectfully disagree with the fact that forcing amendments on, you know, the author in order to get the Bill out of this Committee just to die in Appropriations because the state can't afford it is not right. It's a district Bill and they've covered the funding. The Fish and Wildlife gets to set the funding fee or the fee.

So, Senator Grove, I think you and I are going to disagree. And I want to also be clear that my position is not a singular position. It is a position of multiple entities that have looked at the Bill and that have been trying to get to it. Yes.

So that, that's what I will say, that this Committee has, from the beginning, tried to get to a yes. To try to determine how to meet the conditions of Prop 117. So I will welcome you to close. And I stand committed to trying to figure out how to move this Bill forward, knowing that both bills have limitations.

Right, that's, the versions of the bills that are before us have limitations. And so it is still the will of this Committee to move this conversation forward. And so I'm going to allow you to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator Grove, for this conversation. Respectfully, may I have 10 seconds to confer with the family before my close?

Part of the reason that I was elected to serve Senate District 4 was to speak on behalf of my constituents. To bring my leadership, my experience and my values forward to Sacramento to represent over a million people. And I don't take that responsibility lightly.

This is a Bill that an entire community, a family, and California Department agencies have worked on tirelessly for over a year. This is the Taylen and Wyatt Brooks Bill. Without the Brooks family, we would not be here today. Every letter of this Bill we have crafted with experts in the room at the table.

We participated in town halls with El Dorado County constituents. Mr. Bannon has come to El Dorado County and answered questions. We have addressed these issues via social media, and we've come up with this Bill as the solution by speaking to our constituents in El Dorado County.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to take the amendments as presented by this body. This Bill was created in district and if you decide for it not to move forward, it will go back to the district.

And we will continue to fight in the name of Taylen Brooks with the assistance of Wyatt Brooks and his family and with the experts who know El Dorado County day in and day out, those of us who have family members and friends and businesses there.

And unfortunately, we can't take that vote to move this Bill in El Dorado County. This is a state decision. And so with all due respect, I respectfully ask for that aye vote and know that without these amendments, more than likely this Bill will die.

And at this point, unfortunately, I cannot take those amendments and still represent my constituents. So I choose to represent my constituents and deny those amendments.

Thank you to the author. We don't have quorum, so we don't have a place to make a motion. And no matter what happens with the Bill, I stand, as does the Committee to try to build consensus around this. The Bill does have a do pass as amended to Appropriations recommendation.

I thank you for being here and I thank every single person who came here today to testify and to provide feedback on this issue. Thank you. Thank you.

You have Senator Arreguin here and we're going to welcome him as folks leave the, as folks leave the hearing room.

All right. And we're going to ask folks if we do have other Members here. We do have other Members here. So we will ask folks if they can quietly exit the hearing room. There are other bills here. All right, folks, we have here Senator Araguain, who is going to present Senate Bill 304.

So we ask folks to please quietly exit the hearing room. All right. We're going to actually start with 287. I apologize. It's Senate Bill 287. Arreguin. So he has two bills up today. It's going to be 287 and then SB 304. We thank everybody that's been here today to provide feedback.

I think the witnesses are just coming in as the transition's happening.

All right. All right, thank you. We're going to go ahead and begin. This is Senate Bill 287.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm pleased to present before you Today Senate Bill 287, which would create a Trails Conservancy program within the California Natural Resources Agency. Trails are a low cost, high return infrastructure that connects communities.

They are the backbone of of California's outdoor recreation economy and are really the most democratic form of access to nature in our state. Despite a surge in the use of trails during the pandemic and a continued high demand, trail maintenance backlogs are growing.

Since 2010, dedicated funding for trails has been on the decline, placing further challenges on the state to keep pace with changing use patterns and user demands.

As the Committee may be aware, a byproduct of the state's efforts to realize its 30 by 30 objectives has been a shift from land ownership toward land trust community to ensure enhanced conservation of our valued landscapes. This shift represents new opportunities for expanding public access.

Senate Bill 287 seeks to promote best practices across jurisdictions, coordinating funding from state, local and federal and NGO sources, and to address trail infrastructure gaps, particularly in under resourced communities.

Lastly, SB 287 supports our 30 by 30 goals by exploring opportunities to encourage or incentivize the deployment of trail infrastructure on newly acquired lands, promoting inclusive and broadening public access. Today to testify in support of SB287 is Doug Houston, representing the California Trails Foundation, and Michael Anzalone, Executive Director of the California Mountain Bike Coalition. And thank you. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Are we hot here?

We go ahead and begin. You have two minutes.

Oh, thank you very much. Good Morning, Madam Chair and staff. Doug Houston, representing the California Trails Foundation. And Happy Earth Day. So what are parks without trails? They are nature preserves. They are wildlife protected areas.

To many a steady diet of nature, it's life sustaining Trails are the connective tissue and the mobility networks that interface help folks interface with nature out there. Foundation is hopeful the promises associated with Proposition 4. But it's worth noting that funding for trails over the course of the last couple decades has been on the decline.

$6 million annually has been redirected from trail nature based trail purposes. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the Chair's own outdoor equity program. Funding for that program in itself has been reduced.

It's incumbent upon the state to create a program spearheaded by an advocate with strong knowledge of trails to coordinate activities across jurisdictions and be poised to respond to both the opportunities and the challenges on the horizon. And I'll just. I'll leave it at that. And urging your support. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We will move to the next witness in support.

Thank you Madam Chair. Again, Michael Anzalone, Executive Director for the California Mountain Biking Coalition which represents 39 bike friendly trail stewardship organizations across California. These are regional nonprofit organizations that build and maintain over 4000 miles of trails for in their communities.

These organizations provide numerous volunteer and paid support services to the city, county, state and federal agencies where these trails exist, helping to preserve and enhance California's larger recreational trail network. I echo what my counterpart here has to has just shared regarding the importance of trails.

I'll also add that the proposed legislation reflects an attempt to address what many of these of our coalition Members are facing on a regular basis, including funding challenges associated with trail maintenance and construction of trails, unnecessary regulatory hurdles, insufficient staffing at the at many agencies, delaying deployment of projects and lack of or at the very least the muted voice in some of these major state level statewide initiatives like 30 by 30 and the wildfire Task Force.

And all this occurs despite the overwhelming health, social and economic benefits that outdoor recreation provides. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, outdoor recreation at the national level is the economic impact is 1.2 trillion national nationally, so 2.3% of the US GDP. And here in California that economic impact translates to 81.5 billion and including 545,000 jobs.

So SB287 enjoys a diverse mix of supporters beyond just our trail stewardship community. And we believe that the Trails Conservancy program will provide an important and much needed platform to expand equitable access to trails and nature Based recreation for Californians and encourage collaboration across land management agencies and organizations to address emerging trends in trail use. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room in support that would like to do metoos? Please come forward. State your name and your position.

Hello, chair and Members, Molly Culton, Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses, please come forward. Line up.

Good morning, Abby Smith of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and East Bay Regional Park District in support.

Great, thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? And I'm going to ask the two. Is it only one in opposition? I'm going to ask one of you, if you can just step back and maybe sit right behind so that the lead witness in opposition can come forward, please. And please have a seat here.

Madam Chair. Members, this will be very brief because it is actually a spur of the moment decision. My name is Amy Granite. I'm the President of the California Outdoor Recreation foundation. And there's just been a lack of outreach to the motorized community and the greater recreation community. We'd like to be part of the Bill. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing none. We're going to bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments?

Thank you. It's already allocated resources from Prop 4 and So I think it doesn't create a cost to the state, but I do want to address the opposition. You know, you address one availability for parks and trails and there are other enthusiasts or interest out there. Would you be willing to work with opposition to include them in that?

Happy to connect her and any other stakeholders.

Okay. Thank you sir, very much. And at the appropriate time, I'll move the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for moving it forward. Thank you for working with the commit with the Committee. I'm going to give you the opportunity to close.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. When we have quroum, we will take a motion and we will take a vote. You do have a second Bill, so thank you so much for coming and testifying and support. The second Bill is Senate Bill 304. And if there are other authors out there, we welcome other authors to come to the Committee, please.

All right, I will let you begin when you would like for Senate Bill 304.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. First, I want to state for the record that I accept the Committee amendments which were developed in consultation with Committee staff and the State Lands Commission and thank the Committee for your engagement with our office on this Bill, SB 304, which in its amended version will have the State Lands Commission, the Port of Oakland, implement mutually agreed upon Solutions by July 12026 to address some of the existing challenges in the Port's public trust lands along the Oakland waterfront, Jacklin Square.

Once again, the amended version ensures that we continue to respect and honor the public trust doctrine and ensure that permissible uses do honor the public trust, while ensuring that there are ongoing conversations and ultimately solutions to ensure flexibility to lease vacant property and to promote more economic development at JUC London Square in the Port of Oakland.

The Port of Oakland manages over 4,000 acres of public lands that are vital to the City of Oakland's economy, culture and quality of life. This includes marine cargo terminals and international airport and public spaces like Jack London Square. I want to just emphasize this Bill does not address the airport. It does not address the marine cargo terminals.

This is just about Jack London Square. Over time, especially in the inland portion of the Oakland Estuary, this area has evolved into a vibrant mixed use district that includes commercial, residential and open spaces. However, the current statutes governing the use of these public trust lands have not kept pace with current changes.

Permitted uses are outdated, limiting the port's ability to attract new businesses such as a new gym or grocery store to support the growing and vibrant neighborhood of Jacqueline and Square. Specifically, we're losing businesses and visitors as the area has experienced higher vacancy rates and decreased foot traffic, highlighting the urgent need for action.

And I think we can all agree vacant spaces do have a public safety impact. And so it's also critical that we work expeditiously to promote more commercial activity and fill vacant spaces to improve public safety in this critical commercial district as well.

SB304 provides a forward looking solution by having the State Lands Commission and the Port of Oakland explores strategies that will modernize and expand allowable uses on public trust lands, accelerate approvals for mixed use and the rehabilitation of deteriorated properties, and strengthen the Port's ability to serve the public good.

And we are engaging with a variety of waterfront stakeholders, including the Pacific Merchants Association, labor stakeholders. We made it clear that this does not address the Howard Terminal, does not address the marine terminals. It's just about Jack London Square with me today to testify and support the Bill is the Council Member for that district, Oakland Councilmember Carol Fife, and Diego Gonzalez, Government Affairs Manager for the Port of Oakland. Thank you.

You may begin. You have two minutes. We are timing here a total of four minutes.

Thank you. And thank you to the Committee for allowing me to be here with you all today. My name is Caroll Fife, and I'm the elected representative for Oakland's Jack London Square in District 3. And Jack London Square belongs to the residents of my district and the City of Oakland overall.

And right now, people need to give it the ability to thrive again. As Council Member for the district, I hear every single day that residents who are tired of seeing empty storefronts and vacancies want to see something different.

SB304 is about giving us the tools to bring Jack London Square back to life, and not just as a tourist destination, but as a thriving, working part of Oakland. This Bill gives us the freedom to build a waterfront that serves working families. We're not trying to replace maritime jobs or compromise our port's future.

We're asking for the ability to bring businesses that our community desperately needs back to this area.

If you can imagine what it would mean to move from vacancy to vibrancy by allowing a local grocery store that our residents are demanding, but we don't have the ability to bring because of the existing laws or a neighborhood gym, as their Senator said, a child care Center for local dock workers and service workers who make our City Run.

SB304 gives us the authority to make those things possible without navigating a legal maze that was never built for modern cities. We are ready to be bold, but we need the state to give us room to act. SP304 is not a request to ignore the public trust.

It's a demand to fulfill it in a way that works for Oakland in 2025 and beyond. Our city is facing a housing crisis, a small business crisis, and a vacancy crisis in one of our most valuable areas of the city. But we have a plan. We have community partners.

We have what we know is an environment that is demanding us to do more for our city. And we need the legal flexibility, and that's what this Bill delivers. I'm honored to sit here with our Senator who's brought this legislation forward.

And it is critical to our economic future, and it is tied to everything that happens at the waterfront right now, in this moment. Without SB304, we are stuck with decades old restrictions. Thank you. That don't reflect the needs of our people or our economy. With this Bill, we can move forward.

We can grow responsibly, and we can bring Jack London Square back not as a symbol of. Of lost potential, but as a beacon of what is possible when public lands are managed for the public good. Thank you.

Thank you. That Was about two and a half minutes. So you have a minute and a half. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you. Senator Arreguin, Chair Limon and Members of the Committee on Behalf of the Port, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing and the thoughtful engagement with Committee staff and Members throughout this process.

As a trustee of public lands, the port is deeply committed to upholding the principles of the public public trust doctrine while also ensuring that our lands serve the evolving needs of the community. As the Senator mentioned, in addition to operating the Oakland seaport and the international airport, we're also trustees of public land in Jack London Square.

Today, Jack London square is facing a nearly 60% vacancy rate, decreased foot traffic and widespread business closures, including the waterfront hotel which was a hotel that's been in Jacklin square for almost 40 years.

There is clear and urgent need to activate this area and bring people back to the waterfront through a more flexible and inclusive framework that supports a mix of visitors serving and neighborhood serving and culturally enriching uses. We thank you for your consideration.

All right, any other witnesses in support of the Bill, please just come forward. State your name, your position and your affiliation.

Mayor of Oakland in support of 304.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses in support. We're going to welcome any witnesses in opposition to please any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing no lead witnesses in opposition. Anyone in opposition in the room? All right, seeing then we're going to bring it back to the Dias.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a district Bill. You're the elected Senator. You're the elected representative of this London park. Never even heard of it. London Square. Correct. London Square. The people of that community elected you to help make decisions. You are part of a public lands trust.

You are working in conjunction with the mayor, your elected Senator and the selected your City Council. Mamer. Yes, City Council Member for this district. And it's a district Bill. You're not forcing this on the state.

You're doing this because you have a 60% vacancy rate and there is a law in the state that is preventing you from executing what you want to do to benefit the well being of your constituents. Provide economic advancement, businesses, a thriving economy. All of those things that will provide jobs and make your district better.

We just recently heard a Bill just now about another district Bill that isn't going to be voted down probably from this Committee. But I'm staying with the same subject matter that I advocated for that Bill. This is a district Bill.

The people of that district elected you as their Senator, you as their City Council Member and you as your mayor. And you want to make something better for those that community.

So at the appropriate time, I'll move this Bill based on the same reason the other Bill should have been moved and passed, but won't be, because it's representative of a minority party this state, which is really sad.

And I'm just beating that drum all day today because I'm going to watch district Bill after district Bill after district Bill be passed. That's part of the majority party that benefits their district by the constituents that elected you to be here to bring this Bill forward.

And I applaud you for representing your district and I will always support a district Bill. Statewide bills, we may be in disagreement, but your district elected you to represent them. Your policies are different than my policies. I represent the Central Valley. My policies and my constituents are different than your constituents.

But in this case, just like the case that we just heard, this is a district Bill and I will move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you. And I want to thank the author. There was a lot and actually all the supporters, there was a lot of conversation about this. And you took amendments. You took amendments. You really worked incredibly well with the Committee. I know that this was hard. It was also. It involved other state agencies.

So I want to thank you for the work that went into it and also just for everybody involved. I know Jack London Square. I went to school up in the Bay Area. So you know. Exactly. Go Bears. So you know Jack London Square. And so I'm very familiar with the area.

It's a great, great area and also a great place that attracts a lot of folks as well. So thank you. And just for the record, this Bill has the same recommendation as the previous Bill which was do pass as amended to appropriations. Thank you for that. Would you like to close

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. When we have quorum, we will take a motion then and vote for the Bill. Thank you so much. We have the next author here. Senator Jones, it's your turn.

I hear you guys nice and easy Committee hearing today, huh? It's very much a district Bill. And my district and your district and Senator Limon's district. Everybody's district. It's a Bill for my district. A Bill for your district.

Senator Jones, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Senator. Chairwoman, appreciate you. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 586 which establishes a clear legal framework for registering emotos as off highway vehicles in California. I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on the Bill and will be accepting the Committee's suggested amendments.

Currently, emotos are not explicitly recognized as electric off highway vehicles under California law, preventing them from obtaining the necessary OHV green sticker for registration.

This Bill will codify emotos as electric off highway motorcycles, remove the outdated engine number requirement and provide a clear legal pathway for Emoto riders to obtain a green sticker and legally access OHV designated areas.

Without a clear registration framework, Emoto riders have no authorized place to ride on public lands, forcing them onto streets, sidewalks and non motorized trails, creating safety risks and enforcement challenges. The market for emotos is rapidly expanding with an estimated 30,000 units sold in California just in 2022, making this issue increasingly urgent.

SB586 will address this gap in the law by providing a solution that improves safety and enhances law enforcement and directs e motor riders to appropriate areas reducing unauthorized riding on public infrastructure.

This Bill will also support reasonable recreation by ensuring Emoto riders use the designated trails rather than public roads or non motorized areas, which will help reduce conflicts with other users and enhance safety. Finally, this Bill will help mitigate environmental impact as emotos are zero emission and quieter than traditional gas power powered OHVs.

It does not require new trail creation or regulatory overhaul. Just an update to the DMV registration process. With that, I'd like to invite Terry Mchale, who is representing the sponsor, Ama American Motorcycle Association District 36 to provide further comments on the Bill.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Terry Mchale with Aaron Reed and associates. I'll be very, very brief. First of all, thank you to the Committee using your regulatory background to streamline a Bill that it made a difference and we appreciate it. Senator Jones did a great job of outlining it.

What this does is take a new form of recreation that has grown rather ubiquitous in the OHV environment and make sure that it abides by the laws of the land. That's the Bill. We ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support who would like to speak on the Bill? Just name, position, affiliation? All right. Seeing none. Any witness? Are you in support or in opposition? Okay. Yes. Please come to the mic.

Amy Granite, Managing Director of CORVA, the California Off Road Vehicle Association, and on behalf of San San Diego Off Road Coalition. We strongly support the Bill.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? All right, no witnesses in opposition. I'm going to bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions from Members? Seeing none. All right, I want to thank you. Thanks for working with the Committee. You've accepted the amendments? The Bill does have a do pass, as amended to Appropriations.

Perfect.

And I'm going to allow you to close.

I will take that as my close and ask for an aye vote once you get a quorum. And if you need me to go arm wrestle somebody, get them here, I'm happy to do it.

All right. It's a busy day in Sacramento, and when we get a quorum, we'll take a motion. Thank you so much. We are now looking for other authors we have, so I will. If not, I'm going to actually take some. Senator Stern, do you want to present your Bill or I can go? You want to. I can go and then you can .

All right, thank you. I'd like to thank. This is SB 542. I'd like to thank the Committee and staff for their work on this spill and I'd like to accept the suggested amendments. California has a terrible history of oil spills.

On the Central coast alone, the 1969 Santa Barbara spill devastated the coast and spilled an estimated 3.4 to 4.2 million US gallons of crude oil into the Pacific Ocean. The 2015 Refugia oil spill in Santa Barbara, caused by a ruptured oil pipeline, spilled 1,1402,800 US gallons of crude oil along the coast into the sea.

Even with technological advancement and expansion of spill response capacities, spills still cause millions of dollars in damage, severely impact the economies of local communities and kill economies innumerable animal life. To reduce the risk of future oil spills, SB 542 establishes requirements for the approval and restart of oil pipelines in California.

The Bill requires a public process prior to the Office of Spill Prevention and Response, OSPER Administrator issuing a Certificate of Financial Responsibility, providing an opportunity for the public to weigh in on what the worst case scenario spill could be.

This Bill also requires, prior to the restart of any pipeline that has not been in use for five or more years, a comprehensive hydro test to better catch problematic and corroded sections of pipeline, effectively reducing the risk of an oil spill.

I have with me today, Christina, here with the Center for Biological Diversity to speak in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Very good. Two minutes, Is that right? We're doing two minutes?

Or you can have four if you need the whole.

Yes, two minutes.

Sure, I won't need that. Thank you so much. Good morning. Christina. Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity and strong support of SB542, with thanks to the author Chair Limon and to the Committee. This Bill aims to protect California communities and the environment from the known destructive risks of oil spills.

SB542 provides transparency with important updates to California's oil spill prevention laws, including mandatory pipeline safety testing and a public process to ensure operator oil spill responsibility. This is especially important because on Friday, the Department of Interior announced plans to develop a new offshore oil leasing program, which will almost certainly expand drilling in federal waters off California's coast.

Past oil spills taught us that California's approach to oil spill responsibility is outdated. We are unprepared for the next spill. First, California has underestimated the increased cost of oil spills. For example, planes incurred $870 million in expenses from the 2015 pipeline spill in Santa Barbara. The 2021 spill off Huntington Beach cost up to $210 million.

Yet for those spill sizes, they would have only had to show an ability to cover about 3.5% of that amount. Second, as California's oil fields dry up, the oil majors sell to smaller operators that may not be able to afford an accident.

A public process can provide transparency to make sure that California requires an operator to demonstrate financial capability for a worst case discharge. Oil spills have devastated marine life, harmed fragile coastal habitats, closed fisheries and beaches and impaired local economies.

While it's better to prevent an oil spill in the first place to to protect our $1.0 trillion coastal economy, SB542 makes sure that an operator can pay for cleanup damages to landowners and restore the environment. SB542 also helps to prevent oil leaks and spills by requiring idle oil pipelines to undergo rigorous tests before a restart.

The Bill creates a transparent and updated framework to determine operator financial responsibility in the event of an oil spill and to enable holding responsible parties accountable and to fairly and more accurately calculate the true costs of cleanup and restoration. We ask for your aye vote to help protect California against destructive oil spills. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll see other witnesses in support. Other General witnesses in support of legislation. Now's the time. Name and affiliation. Thanks.

Marquis King Mason, California Enviromental Voters insupport. Thanks.

Thank you. Next.

Hello, Chair and Members. Apologies to you, Senator Limone. We weren't able to submit our letter in time for the deadline, but Sierra Club California is in strong support. Thank you.

Hey, thanks. Any others in support? Seeing none. We'll take opposition. Welcome.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Paul Deiro representing the Western States Petroleum Association. I apologize to the chair and the Committee staff with not engaging with you more quickly on this Bill. I will be working with the author's staff. Had a good conversation outside.