Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

The Senate Natural Resources and water Committee will begin in 60 seconds.

Good morning. The Senate Natural Resources and water Committee will come to order. We're going to welcome all Members of the Committee to come down to room 2100 to establish quorum. We have eight bills on the agenda, and one bill is on proposed consent. Bills will be heard on file order.

Since we don't have quorum, we're going to go ahead and start as a subcommittee until we establish quorum. The consent Bill is file item one, AB 14 Hart. And we will. We will vote for that when we get quorum. So we're actually going to start with Assemblymember Rogers, who has three bills for us today.

So, Assemblymember Rogers, please, you're welcome to come on up. And we have quorum. So we're going to go ahead and call the roll while you come up, so you're welcome there or the podium, wherever you want. Perfect.

[Roll Call]

Perfect. We have quorum. So then I'm going to. If there is a motion for the consent item, which. Thank you. We have Senator Laird who has made a motion for consent item, file item 1, AB 14, that is Hart. Can we please call the roll for that?

[Roll Call]

Great. That's four, and we will leave that on call. So, we will go ahead and begin with AB 263. Is that correct, Assemblymember Rogers?

Yes.

Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. So, you may begin whenever you are ready, or you can start with a different Bill if you prefer.

Yeah, come on up. All right. Thank you so much, Chair.

They can—so, they can sit here. Usually, you're at the, at the podium, but you're welcome to all be there together. It's perfectly fine. Yeah, come on up. And then we usually do the "Me Toos" on the standing mic.

We're getting the kinks worked out after house of origin.

It's all good. Welcome to the Senate presentation.

Yes, thank you so much. So, I'm here—first and foremost, we'll present AB 263. I appreciate the Chair and the Committee's Staff in presenting some technical amendments, and we will be accepting those amendments.

AB 263 would allow the emergency regulations that currently exist on the Scott and the Shasta River watersheds to remain in effect for the next five years or upon the permanent adoption of waterboard regulations, whichever occurs the soonest.

The Klamath River is a major watershed in Assembly District 2 that is in the midst of a historic transformation back to its natural state. After decades of activism and countless studies, the hydroelectric dams have been taken down and restoration efforts have been underway.

Dam removal improved mainstream water quality, dramatically reduced fish diseases caused by parasitic organisms, and offers hundreds of miles of new spawning and rearing habitat. But despite this exciting new chapter, the River still remains in peril.

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

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

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

Instead, the boats have stayed docked for a third season in a row. Instead, those boats are looking for other opportunities, rather than salmon.

In other words, no one here has probably eaten a California wild caught salmon in the last few years because all of the fresh salmon on your plates is imported from out of the state or raised on farms.

Fortunately, the State Water Board in 2021 stepped in to implement emergency regulations that guaranteed minimum water flows in the Scott and Shasta Rivers. The Karuk Tribe and allies from fishing and conservation communities used the Governor's drought declaration to successfully petition the State Water Board to set minimum flows.

The first time we've had minimum flows in the area and also, the first times that we've seen a balance between the needs of the farmers, the tribal men, the fishermen, and our local communities. Without these emergency regulations, salmon populations would be even closer to the brink of extinction.

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

If the drought declaration is lifted, we may have long summers where the rivers are completely dry while permanent flow rules are being made. We are not asking to set the permanent regulations. We are just asking to not undo the progress that's been made over the last few years, while DWR promulgates those regulations.

With that, I have two witnesses with me today. I have Chairman Russell Attebery of the Karuk Tribal Council and Councilmember Phillip Williams of the Yurok Tribal Council. And with that, I'll go ahead and turn it over to them. Thank you.

Thank you. You may begin. You have four minutes total. So, however you would like to split that up.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning.

And Committee.

My name is Philip Williams and I'm a member of the Yurok Tribal Council, who are proud to sponsor this Bill. We've worked on climate dam removal for 20 years and taking the dams down was not the end, but it's the beginning. We have a brand-new river, brand-new system.

For nine years in a row, the Yurok has not been able to have a commercial salmon fishery. This is vital to the health and wellbeing of our tribal members. Salmon is an integral part of their diet, center of their life, center of their religion. We've been suffering for nine years.

The salmon runs would support our families, our children. Historically, the summer runs are able to give our children a head start for school, dependent for school clothes, to give them a start. That's been taken away for the last nine years. This affects the Urich economy, community, and culture.

The loss of economic opportunity has resulted in substantial financial hardship for our people, which has exacerbated the existing poor economic climate of the community. A significant portion which already live below the poverty level. You know, the amount of homelessness and addiction is directly related to our salmon.

When we have healthy salmon runs, there's no greed, there's no jealousy. Everybody has everything that they need. But when we're at times of scarcity, that opens the door for all those things to come in and we're seeing it—hopelessness, helplessness. This Tribal Council is moving forward, trying to bring our salmon back.

And our communities are depending on me, my council, Assemblymember Rogers, to make these things balanced. We're talking about balance. There's been a long-time imbalance in both of our communities. If you go up on the Shasta and Scott Rivers, you see the thriving agricultural community.

They have million-dollar harvesters, they have great water systems, they have all this investment they've invested in their ag community. We have not had the same opportunity.

Let me give the Chairman a chance to jump in as well.

Thank you, everybody. My name's Russell Atterbury. I'm the Karuk Tribal Chairman. Everybody calls me Buster, so that's probably what I would answer to. Thank you for your time. So, I was born and raised in Happy Camp, California, which is probably right smack in the middle of the Klamath River. The Kuruk Tribe has three districts.

Wairika, Happy Camp, and further down river, Orleans. So, a little bit about—I grew up in Happy Camp. I grew up there fishing with my dad and my brother. You know, when everybody thinks about fishing, they think of it as recreational. For the indigenous people lived on the river, it was more than that.

For the young men, it was kind of a rite of passage to go and dip the salmon, to process them, to give them out to our elders, family, and friends in need and to hear our parents at the dinner table give thanks for me and my brother for putting food on the table.

That was a really good feeling. Our children nowadays, they haven't had the opportunity to do that. So, we understand, and as Councilman said, that the dam removal was the tip of the iceberg. You probably all know about the 2002 fish kill that happened on the Klamath River. It was due to low flows and warm temperatures.

And of course, low flows will cause warm temperatures. And the water quality that coming out—the dam river was going to greatly help the water quality. We still need to maintain those flows in order to have a healthy river. So, we, the Kurtuk Tribe, would love to offer solutions.

You know, we don't come to the table with complaints without offering solutions. And we have done that. So, that's why we're asking for this five-year period so we can maintain and look for those solutions. Since 2013, when I gave Secretary Sally Jewell was on and I said, we're not against farming.

It's, it's a, it's a part of their life that's just like ours with the farms and the fish. It's, it's, it's no different in the culture that's there. So, we need to look for long-term water solutions, water conservation solutions. I've been working with Christina Snider, the Tribal Liaison with Governor Newsom, and looking at putting in place some long-term solutions.

I would love to get together with farmers. They already do some conservation efforts. We would look for more. We have ideas.

Thank you. Thank you so much. We're going to invite the opposition to come forward. You did each go over a little bit. So, we're going to give the opposition a total of five or so minutes, instead of four. Sorry. Yes, we need to do "Me Toos" first. So, I'm going to welcome—I'm going to welcome any additional testimony. Sorry, not testimony—any "Me Toos" in support.

Good morning. Alex Loomer on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, the Santa Barbara Channel Keeper, Shasta Waterkeeper, Environmental Protection Information Center, and Save California Salmon. Thank you. In strong support.

Hi. Mateo Kushner, Community Water Center, in support.

Hi. Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League, in strong support. Also voicing support for California Environmental Voters, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Friends of the River, Humboldt Waterkeeper, and Inland Empire Waterkeeper. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Golden State Salmon Association, Trout Unlimited, and the Resources Renewal Institute. Thank you. In support.

Alex Sarkissian, on behalf of Green Policy Initiative, in support.

Hi. Alex Rahil, on behalf of the California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance, in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Anna Basius, on behalf of the Environmental Law Foundation, in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Molly Colton, on behalf of Sierra Club California and Clean Water Action, in strong support. Thank you.

Other witnesses in the room in support? We are now going to welcome the opposition to come forward. You can, yeah, or you can move maybe just next to each other. That's also possible.

I'm also happy just to speak here.

That's okay. Wherever you'd like. You can also come here. And there's plenty. Whatever you want.

Okay. I'll just—I'll stand here. I feel bad, you guys shifted around. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Alex Biering from the California Farm Bureau and today, I am also channeling the concerns of my members in Siskiyou County Farm Bureau and about the around 200 people that are affected by AB 263.

The communities living in the Scott and Shasta Valleys have, since 2001, been under this emergency regulations that the sponsors and that the author spoke about for two years, that those valleys have not been in a hydrologic drought, but that drought era proclamation still exists.

So, those e-regs continue and they continue for at least five more years under AB 263.

Farm Bureau opposes AB 263 because it effectively establishes a permanent or long term in stream flow requirement for those rivers without the robust public process that is generally required for a standard rulemaking procedure, undermines local collaborative efforts and removes incentives for the board to act.

Regional stakeholders, including our members, understand that permanent flows will be likely for both rivers. So, I don't want anyone to be under the illusion that we think somehow that there's an opportunity to not have flow in those rivers, right? And they also, I think, very much appreciate the importance of salmon to their tribal neighbors.

These are small communities, everybody knows each other, but—and that's why for a few years the regional stakeholders, including Farm Bureau, including the sponsors of the Bill and NGOs and others, have been engaged in a conversation with a facilitator and all this collaborative process to try and figure out what a long-term management plan could look like for fish in those rivers with in-stream flows.

Those conversations, which I have been a part of as well, stopped when this Bill was introduced, right, so they're not the same sort of conversations and opportunities for developing a plan with local buy in that there was before.

And like I said, we, we know that permanent flow rules are coming and that they're going to take some time to develop. And that's for good reason, right? Permanently reducing a community's water supply should not be done lightly.

A forthcoming study from Dr. Robert Eyler, who's a Professor of Economics at Sonoma State, is looking at the regional economic effects of curtailments in Siskiyou County. His preliminary results—so they're not out yet, but he did give me some yesterday—suggest that there's a permanent 10%.

If a permanent 10% loss in water supply is associated with a loss of 740 jobs in the county's main industries—farming, construction, tourism, and utilities—another 1,711 lost jobs would occur in the broader impacted communities, such as healthcare, retail and restaurants. In a community of 42,000 people, this is a really big impact.

Almost one of every 10 workers would lose their job in one of California's most rural and impoverished counties. And the curtailments under the AB 263 e-regs are much larger than 10%. That's why the situation deserves a full public process to develop in-stream flow rules at the board and not this solution offered by 263.

It locks curtailments into place in a way that says those community impacts I mentioned don't really matter. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA represents over 84 public agencies that provide water, wastewater, and electric services in California.

We oppose AB 263 because it would set a troubling precedent for the use of emergency regulations through legislation to instill permanent conditions that would greatly impact water management in California. The Water Board's authority to set emergency regulations to curtail water usage is specifically designed to be time limited and in response to drought conditions.

Permanent regulations, on the other hand, are scientifically based and include robust public participation. AB 263 creates long-term regulation, without those critical components and processes, which would pave the way for any party to seek their preferred regulatory outcome through a legislative avenue.

AB 263 would set the precedent that emergency curtailments could be made permanent without adjusting for our changing climate. And for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the Bill and ask for a "No" vote.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition, please come forward to state your name, position, and affiliation.

Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of Valley AG Water Coalition, in opposition.

Good morning. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectful opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Eichert, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, also in opposition, for the reason stated by CMUA.

Good morning. Soren Nelson, Association of California Water Agencies, respectfully opposed.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Melissa Kosciuk, on behalf of Western Growers, in respectful opposition.

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

Thank you. We're going to bring this back, seeing no other opposition, to the dais for any questions. Thank you. We're going to start with Senator Laird with questions comments.

Thank you very much. I appreciated the chance to meet, and I should make a brief statement first, which is somebody that spent eight years working on the climate dam removal, it's—I am really committed to that whole process and the restoration and what comes from that.

And yet, I think this Bill is sort of a specific framework and that's what I have questions about. And I appreciated meeting on it. And where I had a level of confusion is, right now, there is no drought in this area under the classification system. And so, the Governor could remove the drought proclamation at any point.

Could you speak to what would happen if the Governor removes the proclamation and this Bill is enacted? And speak to what would happen if the Governor withdraws the proclamation and this Bill isn't enacted. How will this affect that situation?

Yeah, first of all, thank you so much, Senator, for the question. It's really at what the heart of this Bill is trying to accomplish, which is if the Governor was to remove the drought declaration, these minimum flow regulations go away.

And as was noted in the analysis and by some of your colleagues in discussion, there are no minimum flows in the area. We oftentimes were referring to them as belly scraping for the fish, where the minimum flows barely cover the fish, if at all.

And we've heard stories of the backs of the fish getting cooked as they're up. That's with the regulations in place. So, if those drought declarations go away because the Governor has removed the emergency order, there is nothing to protect the fish there. There is no balance that's there.

If this Bill goes into effect, it creates that bridge between where we are now and where the Water Board is going to go. Again, I've been very clear with everybody, I'm not trying to set the permanent regulations.

All we are trying to say is that you are at a moment of equilibrium right now on those streams flowing into the Klamath. Don't undo that progress that you've made until those permanent regulations come in, whatever they are. It makes no sense to harm your fish population and then come back.

If this Bill, if the drought declarations were to go away and this Bill does not pass, what that means is that if you go back into a drought conditions, there is no protections for the fish, for the fishermen, for the tribal folks who rely on it,. Period. None.

And then, on the practical issue of the process, if this Bill were to pass, then the Water Board would no longer be doing sort of interim regulations. They would go back to working toward whatever the permanent situation is. Is that right?

Correct. And as was noted by the Department of Finance, it would save the state about $2 million to not do the interim steps every single year, but rather, to focus on those permanent regulations.

And then lastly, one of the opposing witnesses talked about a collaborative process that in essence had been frozen in place by this Bill. Based on the answers to the two previous questions, you are in essence saying this takes the annual or, you know, interim approvals off the table.

Do you believe that would put pressure on people to come back to the table and make sure that there is some kind of collaborative process on the permanent regulations?

Oh, absolutely. And I'll be honest, I raised an eyebrow at that because there is no reason that people shouldn't be collaborating in the short term. This Bill has a small window where in which we're going to get the permanent regulations right, and if not, this Bill goes away and to the point, you might have zero protections.

So, it makes no sense intellectually for people to not be at the table having these conversations. What I will also say is this is.

You're on dangerous territory when you start to move into the intellectual category.

Well, and just one thing that really want to highlight, we have one of my good friends who's the former Vice Chair for the Yurok Tribe has brought up repeatedly in these discussions as well, that when water rights were being adjudicated in this area, his tribe was not considered to be citizens of the United States or of California.

When in the 1980s, you had these rivers adjudicated, they were not considered as parties, to that interest. This really is one of the first times where those tribal voices have been at the table.

And so, to say that the discussions have broken down because now there's an equal footing in the discussion, I think they would have a hard time agreeing with.

Okay, then just maybe a comment based on this, on this exchange, because I'm not thrilled about the precedent of doing this by legislation. There's a reason, there's a process, and there's a reason that everybody comes. I really appreciate what you just said about the tribes.

And when we were going through the whole Klamath process, one of the interesting dynamics was, it was mentioned of the 2002 fish die off, and on the Oregon side of the border, they won a lawsuit against the irrigators.

And yet, the tribes were willing to give the irrigators money or water in exchange for the ability to have fish restored to this watershed. And actually, the Tribal Chairman faced a challenge from within from people that said, we don't have to give that up. And so, there is a significant give and take that is involved in this.

And my only concern is we're setting a precedent. We're taking the give and take away because we're putting it in statute. We're not allowing that to be in the process. And yet, everything you said about why this Bill is necessary is true. That goes away.

So, on balance, I'm going to vote for this Bill, but it just gives me some concern that we're doing something that's normally a regulatory process in statute, but if in fact, the regulations were—because I think the estimate, you can know better is 2030 or 2031 before the permanent thing is done.

And so, what we're really talking about is the interim time before that happens.

That's correct. And I will say the precedent, I'm not indifferent to the idea that people don't want to set a precedent. What we keep saying that is very critically unique about this discussion is one, the investment that the state has made on the Klamath in the past years and not undoing that progress.

Two, is the fact that we are already in the process of creating the permanent regulations and that there's a finite window here that we're talking about.

And three, really, is that focus on what you're talking about is answering the question of what do you do in the interim, that if those go away, you have zero regulations, zero minimum flows in the area, which we know will do harm to that investment and that cultural aspect that's up there.

But two, with this endpoint of we're not trying to circumvent the entire process, we're trying to create a bridge between where we are now and where DWR is headed and where the community is headed.

And I think—we're each making closing comments over and over again. But there are conflicting values here, and I hope you take that into account as this Bill moves along, because it's important to protect the fish in the dry times. It's important to make sure everybody is at the table, especially people that weren't historically there.

And if that balance gets out of whack as this Bill goes on, I think we'll all want to talk about it again. But I appreciate the exchange. Thank you, Madam Chair, for indulging me.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Grove, and then, I think, Vice Chair Niello.

Yeah. Wanna go first? Oh, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very few times I love my colleagues, the former Chair of Natural Resources or former Secretary of Natural Resources, and very few times do we have things in common. I love them as a person, but we very rarely come together in commonality.

I spent a lot of time on your bill yesterday, talked to you, talked to the Water Board, talked to the tribal community, read the letters from the opposition, and a couple of questions that I still don't have answered is, and maybe, just maybe my colleague on the dais can answer this. Is there no federal minimum water flow?

Is there no federal minimum for water flow in this region, for flows that come out of the Scott and the Scott and Shasta that flow into the Klamath? Is there no federal minimum water flow?

I don't believe so, but we also have an expert who can.

Great.

He's shaking his head. No.

Thank you for answering that question. And the other question that I had is, and I agree with my colleague, that, you know, people need to be at the table. And I realize that this all happened in 1980 and prior to, in 1914 and original water rights. And it's a balancing act.

He's shaking his head. No.

I mean, this bill is forcing us to do a balancing act because we have to balance, you know, water rights that, you know, senior water right users fight for, you know, because of their livelihood, and even junior water right users with individuals who have now been granted by the federal government the right to their own land. Right.

And so, and you weren't at the table prior to. So I- I get, and I get the cultural piece. I had a significant conversation with, like I said, the- the tribal communities yesterday. I- I do have concerns based on what the opposition said. The opposition didn't. We didn't meet, so we didn't have time to answer those questions.

But so I do have concerns. In Siskiyou county, there was the individual through the chair, you talked about a population of 42,000 people and a significant job loss on a report that's coming out. 1711 or 740 jobs that would be lost with 10% less water. This emergency regulation has been in place since 2021.

How much of that is true at this point? Can somebody answer that question for me?

So the study that's being done is looking at a permanent.

If- If these were, if these rules were in place or even something lesser was in place permanently, which I think there's a little bit of a gray area here where, because the emergency regulations have been viewed as like a temporary thing because they're supposed to be just a one year temporary thing.

You don't necessarily have the same lasting community impacts that you would have if it were known in the community to be a permanent reduction. Right. There's hope right now that people feel like, okay, maybe it might be different in the future. Right. But not necessarily if it is something that's permanent.

And so there haven't been a ton of studies done on that. And in fact, the Water Board is under no obligation to do any studies that document either the benefits or the impacts, negative impacts for the community of these E regs or anything else.

There is an estimate they do about impacts to public revenue, but that's not the same thing as impacts to communities with like, actually model effects. So there hasn't been a full accounting for that. So we just have to, like, step in. And what's that?

What about from the Farm Bureau? Because my understanding. This is my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, there are individual water right users. That part of the river, okay, they're individual water. It's not like a. It's not like a regional water district. They're individual water users.

So out of those individual water users that you have, and maybe somebody else can answer the question. My concern is that- My question is that I want to know what the impact has been, right? Like, they primarily grow alfalfa. Are they eliminating their fourth cutting? Are they eliminating their third cutting?

The way it typically works is and has worked. This is my understanding, based on my members telling me, and there are probably others in the room who could chime in here too, but they would forego irrigation earlier in the season to preserve by like about 30% to-

to preserve the opportunity to irrigate later in the season in terms of number of cuttings. Not sure about that. But this year, for example, there were basically flood conditions on these rivers and they couldn't irrigate, which is a bizarre situation. Right. So, yeah, so I think it reduces- probably reduces maybe one cutting. I'm not sure.

I'd have to ask them about, you know, what the material impact is that way, but.

Well, okay, that was just an example.

I mean, what I'm trying to figure out is these regulations have been in place since 2021. What has been the impact to those individuals that are senior water right owners, farmers in our community of a community of 40 or 42,000 people, and what's the impact on that?

Yeah.

And if there has not been a drastic negative impact, we have a different climate, a different environment. We have New people at the table, senior water right users. And I guess my thought, but I don't understand the northern part of the water basin, we're all under Sigma.

You know, in Kern, county, where I'm from, Central Valley, I would look at a solution thing like, you know, if the basin is in overdraft and a senior water right user doesn't take all of their water, can they get credit for recharge if it goes downstream? Like maybe that's a solution. Like I'm looking for a solution.

So what's made the difference? This is probably the best answer. What has made the difference over the past four years is there was a water leasing program the Department of Fish and Wildlife was running that a lot of them were participating in that was basically compensating people for not irrigating and that- that is no longer in place.

And so some of the effects. So there was a way to make up some of the difference financially, but that's no longer the case.

Why is it no longer the case?

There's no funding for it.

Okay. So.

And it was funded through Fish and Wildlife, but that helped--

That helped people kind of close the gap to an extent. For the reductions in water supply of 30%.

Senior water right users didn't take, I mean, take what you need, obviously, you know, but not in excess. There are times where you can leave water available. I mean, I've- I've tracked it for years.

Not up there, but in the Central Valley, we have a lot of senior water right users that don't use, you know, a good percentage of their water in some cases.

So if they don't take it, if that makes sense, even though they're entitled to it, if there's some kind of co op, sometimes I don't know what's going in Northern California, but in the Central Valley there'd be a co op agreement. Right.

And then they could get credit, they could get credit for- in- for- for recharge against future water uses. So. But you guys don't have that situation up there because you don't have overdraft basins, right?

Well, it is. They are sigma basins. They're not quite in the same dire straits as folks in the San Joaquin Valley in terms of groundwater access, but they are definitely sigma basins. So I think one of the challenges that you pointed out is that there isn't. These are senior water users who are usually individual diverters.

There's not a water district that can broker a deal on something. Right. And so inevitably what you have is individuals that are impacted. Maybe they get some. They make up the difference a little bit through a water leasing program or something like that.

But I mean, money for water is good, but it doesn't help the community long term. Because you have--

And I understand that's what caused me to have, you know, pause. You know, I was talking to the Vice Chair and, you know, listening to the situation yesterday without having your input yesterday and the day before.

We did talk. We did talk to your staff.

Okay, great. Yeah. No, I mean, it- it- it's something that I think there probably are solutions here, like you're pointing out. There are probably solutions that could sort of make it a little easier for the community, like something like that water leasing program.

But those are just not--

So I've been talking to the State

Water Resources Control Board yesterday, talking to the State Water Board yesterday, because I was trying to get input from everybody to figure this situation out because it's like my colleague said, it's a bill that makes me nervous because we're bypassing the process and making it a legislative fix versus a regulatory fix where you have input from all sides and in a complete open process, they estimate that these.

Can we. And so they said that it's probably going to take two years to promulgate these permanent regulations and it is harder to work off of, you know, drop regulations, but that the damage that could cause if they didn't do it with all the stuff that has already happened with the Klamath and working together and processing this.

So you have. They said belly. What is the word? Belly what?

Belly scrape.

Belly scrape. The minimal flows. And I was surprised there wasn't a federal minimal flow for protection, specifically for, you know, indigenous lands. Right. I was surprised about that. And then it wasn't done in the compacts.

But so I guess my question is- is that what I'm trying to find out here today before I make a decision is since 2021, what is the negative impact to those individual farmers that are on there?

And then how do you assess the fact that with this being in it's, you know, been there for four years, almost five years, how many jobs have been lost? Based on what you just said and the loss to that community with 42,000 people in Cisco County, I don't think.

Anybody's done the study on what has- Nobody's accounted for that. It's not required either through.

Okay, but you have to know something. When they cut off the oil industry in my district, I can tell you 70,000 people lost a job because I'm in that area and I know that people are leaving the state and doing all that.

There has to be something, someone in this room has to know something about Siskiyou County that says this impact over the last four years of not allowing us to have or having us flow, a regular flow down to the Klamath from these, from Shasta and Scott, that impact has shut down my farm.

It's delayed my forth cutting of alfalfa, it's- it's whatever. And I know they grow more than alfalfa. That was just an example.

There's a lot of alfalfa. Yeah, I mean they've had to reduce their irrigation by 30%. So what that equates to, in terms of how many cuttings you're getting.

I am not a grower up there and I I- I, my- my growers up there, my members up there, I think they were a little disheartened by their experience last time on this bill in- in committee. And so they- it's a busy time of year and they were like, you know Alex, you can- you can- you can be us there today. Right.

So I can't speak personally directly to the impacts of my neighbor or something because I'm not there. But I know that there hasn't really been a good accounting for- for the impacts to the community and that's one of the issues with this.

And I would also say that one thing that hasn't been noted on this bill is that even though the emergency regulation is an imperfect tool, it gives the opportunity to adapt every year and tweak it as it goes. And this bill doesn't allow for that.

So even if there were an agreement that were to come up in the next few years between tribes ranchers that accepted by the Water Board, you would have to rerun a bill to undo that, to allow that to happen. So again, it's freezing something in place.

And as we learn more about the community impacts we may want to tweak it.

But on the opposite side, if you don't freeze it in place, there could be an opportunity for this whole side of the aisle. I don't mean aisle, but this whole side of the situation would be completely cut out, I guess.

Well, I guess, yeah. I mean I, what I would like to see, and I think my members would like to see is for at least the opportunity to have a check in with on the emergency regs every year to have them adapted. They know that there is going to be a long term flow on that river. Right.

A long term requirement for in stream flow. And I don't think anybody, nobody is disputing that.

I don't think I, yeah, I totally agree with you, I think that's exactly what's going to happen. And my concern is between now and, and that two years or three years, however long it takes for the Water Board to be able to promulgate those regulations.

Like what happens if- if we don't have something in place to protect those on the lower part of the river.

I mean, I would also--

Without- Again, I'm not trying to take anybody's water rights, but we're in a situation where we have to create a balance here. And that's my concern. But thank you.

No, I appreciate that.

And Senator Grove--

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead.

To your point about permanent regs and- and sorry. And the check in point, I just want to call attention to the analysis page 5 of 8 and page 6 of 8. Very bottom. Actually talk about how the- the check in actually diverts resources from the ability to adopt the permanent rights.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So- So just I wanted to- to call on that because it does speak on that on the analysis. Vice Chair Niello. Seyarto. Sorry. I am so--

Not first time that's happened.

I apologize. I was--

No, that's all right. Niello's a nice guy, so--

Okay. I'm going to start out my com- comments the same comments that my colleague from Bakersfield made.

Apologies.

Rarely do I get to align some of my comments with my good colleague from Santa Cruz, but he made some very excellent points and there are some of the points that I have.

And as well as my colleague from Bakersfield, they've pretty much covered the mass of this issue and why it's so complicated and why it's so difficult.

What I see is we have these emergency regulations, but not all of those emergency regulations may be the ones needed to bridge the gap between getting the permanent solution and- and the emergency regulations.

I fear also that extending it by five or six years, we wind up making a broader window and taking longer to get to those permanent solutions. We have new players in this that weren't and it's- it's players.

And I'm talking about the tribes that California has been trying to rectify our relationship with for, you know, for the, you know, past many, many years of us not having an appropriate relationship.

So all of that together tells me we need kind of an interim solution that's not the regulatory one that will ensure that there are adequate flows. Did not go backwards. For sure, if more emergency regulations need to come in because we have another drought, then that- then that's happened.

But some of the things that my colleague from Bakersfield have said, yeah, we kind of need to know that information in order to make that type of decision. So what I want to do here today is I am going to vote to advance this bill.

But I want to see some really hard work on behalf of our committee to try to figure out what is the best way really forward and whether this needs to be amended or whatever going forward so that if we need certain things done, that's fine, but there can be a short interim solution and then we can do the longer process on the longer process.

You know, everybody talks about the environmental process in California, not just environmental, but the whole regulatory process and how it affects a lot of projects. And they all think housing, right? Everybody thinks, oh God, look what's happening housing. It's not just housing, it's projects like this. We shouldn't take 10 years to get this. The answer for this.

We should be able to figure this out a lot faster than that. I mean, for Pete's sake, we're trying to- we're trying to restore rivers back to what they were before. So for me, it's like an environmental impact on putting them back to where they were before. I could see if we were going the other way. But.

And at the same time, there's a lot of people that depend on that and we have to ensure that they can do their business, that they are not unnecessarily restricted going forward, especially when we have high flows.

We've had non droughts for the last three years, especially in Northern California, but certainly the previous two years to this one we had lots of water, too much water coming down, so much water, we didn't know what to do with it all. So, you know, we need some flexibility here.

And I don't know that this bill gives us the flexibility we want, but I would like us to try and work towards that. So right now, I- I- like I said, I'm going to vote to advance a bill, but it needs work.

It needs to try to get to that part where I'm more comfortable with some of the issues that they've raised about setting a precedent, about having a regulation that goes on and on, disincentivizing the permanent solution. Because I don't want that permanent solution disincentivized.

So with that, I'll turn it back over to the chair and appreciate all the learning experiences I'm getting from my other colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Seyarto. I think Senator Grove wants to ask another question.

So just again, I align myself with my colleagues. I really do. I don't want to circumvent anyone's their water rights, but we do have you know, individuals at the table, the tribal community at the table now. But again, that creates balance.

And I spent, I want you to know, I spent more time on your bill than I have on most of my bills. Yesterday it was like four hours and a half on, you know, I spend more time on my bills. I'm joking, but I spent more time. So is there.

Yes, we all spend more time on my bills because. So I- I guess my big question is that I don't want to impact what's going on at the Water Board. The Water Board, I, you know, hope they're listening, needs to step up and do this faster. It's been in place, temporary one, since 2021 and this should have already been addressed.

I guess my question I have is, is there anything in your bill on the actual language? And I read the analysis, I didn't see it, but is there anything in your bill that if the Water Board comes through next year, your bill goes away.

Yes.

Okay, so it does say that.

Yeah, the language says, and I'm not going to quote it directly, but it's five years or once those regulations are adopted.

Okay. And.

Because I agree, I'd love for them to move faster.

So we're basically two years out is what the Water Board told me. Okay. I don't know if we can all put some type of pressure on him.

Obviously the new pro tem or sitting on this committee as a chair should be able to put some type of pressure on them to promulgate these regulations sooner because there's no doubt, even with the farmers that I spoke to yesterday, everybody that I spoke to yesterday, there's no doubt they're going to promulgate these regulations for a sustainable flow or in stream if it takes two years.

And I realize there's a cost to it. Is there any way that you would work with the opposition to add like a year check in? It's just one more check in. Right. So that they can see how things are going and how the impact is on both sides. We don't want anybody disaffected.

We know somebody's going to have to give up something. We know that. So is there any way that you would work with the opposition to address that issue so that you know, there would be more cooperative instead of creating enemy.

The only other issue, the only other right they have is to file a lawsuit and nobody wants to go through that because that's going to delay it for years.

Yeah, no, understood. I'd be happy to work with them to see what we can come up with, what we're trying to do here. And what I'm not interested in doing is keeping this protection in an emergency order for the interim.

So if they're comfortable with us moving forward with putting this in place for that five year period until the permanent. But there's an opportunity for a check in that's outside of those emergency regulations. I'd be open to it, but I want to talk with them and see what that would look like.

I just want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to talk. Obviously the tribal community, the individuals that are downstream in the Klamath. But I also want to make sure that, you know, when you take a county, I live in rural America. Right.

And a lot of things that go on in this building disproportionately affect rural America. And when you take an entire county of 42,000 people and you lose a thousand jobs, that's a significant impact.

They've already been impacted because of the lack of tree cutting, the lack of timber stuff, all of the stuff that affects that Northern California area. So I have great concerns about that.

But I think it's unjust with the system that we have now, having recognized tribes in the community that have their land and then the system that is in place now disproportionately affects them and their land and their culture and what they desire for their future. And it's not just a desire, it's a minimal need for their future.

Yeah.

I don't think they're being over excessive on an ask.

No, no. And I will if I can jump in there.

I do. I represent Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino and Sonoma County. So I do represent some of those rural areas that you're talking about. I'm definitely not indifferent to the concerns around farmers. And you know, to quote Mark Twain, whiskey is for drinking, waters for fighting.

Sure.

Right. The history of California water regulations have been a power imbalance that I know folks in this building are trying to fix. And this bill is not perfect. It's an imperfect solution. Trying to bring more voices to the table and rectify that power imbalance that's existed right now.

These temporary flows have created some level of equilibrium or balance. We're just trying to make sure that that doesn't go away while we do the permanent regulations. And that doesn't mean that we want to negatively impact our farmers indiscriminately. It means that we want it to be a conversation.

But what we're concerned about is that if those emergency regulations go away, that existing power structure around water is what- what takes hold in the short term, we don't want that. They don't want that. Right now, everybody has a level of certainty on what they're going to get. And I've got a lot of respect for Dr.

Eiler from SSU, my Alma mater. He does great work. I look forward to looking at his study.

I don't know what it says about the job losses in Siskiyou county, but I can tell you what the impact of loss of salmon has meant in terms of economic and cultural loss in Humboldt County and in Trinity and in Del Norte and Mendocino. So I'm happy to continue to work with them.

But that's what our stated goal is, is exactly that, trying to create that balance in the short term.

I totally agree with you, and I want you to have that balance in the interim. I just don't want it to look like the legislature. It's going to look like it anyways, but I don't want the legislature to have to. I don't want other bills coming through this building, especially while I'm here about doing what the.

The agencies are supposed to be doing and setting a precedent so that I'm bothered by that. And I do want to make sure that the farmers and the ranchers are at the table. The tribal Chairman that I talked to yesterday, they were willing to cooperate and work with everybody.

I wasn't aware that the conversations had stopped once this bill was introduced. I think that's bad messaging because I think we have to come to you.

To be frank, I had not heard that either yet. Okay.

So I just want to make sure that you're going to continue to work with the opposition because ranchers and farmers need to engage in this process along with the tribes, and we need to come up with a good solution. And again, I don't know enough about the northern part of California and the water structure.

They always have more water than we do. But I want to make sure that there's- if there has to be some solution that would. If there's- and it doesn't have to be money, but they have to get some type of credit or something for leaving water in the river and addressing the issues on the- on the downstream issues.

So thank you for making that commitment. I appreciate that.

Madam Chair. I would move the bill.

Thank you. So thank you. So thank you. We have a motion for the bill and I just want to go on record. We only have one pro tem at a time. And, you know, Pro Tem Mcguire is our pro tem and actually very familiar with the area. Right. Very familiar with the area.

I want to thank, you know, my colleagues.

This is actually very interesting because I think that as this bill has come forward, we have all debated this and I think this is the first time I'm aware that we're all in the same head space on this in trying to figure out what this, this in between option could be.

Certainly I'm very sensitive to the fact that, you know, the fundamental issue at hand is that as you said, Assemblymember Rogers, in your talking points, that when these laws and rights were given, we did not have our tribes at the table. And so undoing or changing that makes it difficult.

And ultimately now even looking at what's available with the current rights that are in statute means that our tribes will not have either anything or what they need. And so this has, you know, at the core of that, I think it's been challenging.

And I've certainly, you know, heard from the supporters, but also the opposition and met with farmers and ranchers and folks who have concerns about the impact it has. You know, one of my reasons for supporting this bill today is because I feel like there has to be. It's very important.

We have to figure out how to do it. But I also am hearing and agreeing to the sensitivity we have in trying to solve this through legislation, but do believe that it is important.

And again, I will say that this is probably one of the rare times that every single member that has spoken is in the same head space about the challenges, but also the desire, like the true desire to get something that works for folks and for communities that have historically been excluded from rights.

And so that's something to me that, you know, I want to hear. And we heard a lot from the opposition and they were able to say something. So I didn't know if the supporters also wanted to chime in because we've heard a lot back and forth. If you'd like to say anything.

I'd just like to highlight the opposition. We're not in so much opposition because we are working together. The Yurok tribe has a world class restoration program and we're being well known for restoring the environment. We're working with partnerships with individual water users to restore some of the other environmental damage that's been done because we're the experts.

We're in agreements. We entered in MOAs with some of these water users to help restore the mining that happened in their area. We're going to be tapped into helping. Restore that area of the river. So I know we're here in opposition. But actually we're trying to work together and I just met with one of.

The groups a month ago and- and forwarding. Our strength- restrengthening our collaboration and so we're committed to that and they're tapping into our expert in restoration. So I just wanted to make that statement. Thank you.

Yeah. Real quick. So thank you, Senator Grove, for your comments. And I do believe there's a balancing act that we have to here and one side we have, you know, a thriving community and the other one is we're looking for help to restore that the fish into the river and the condition of the river.

So and we are, I again always refer to our council on issues but checks and balances as we go. Yes, we're, we want to see this be a very positive process that we're going through. In the meantime, these regulations need to be put in place temporarily, if you will, so that we can maintain those flows.

We mentioned the fish kill. There's also other issues you may not have known about at a certain time when the Scott river flows got so low that the fish was unusual conditions and they wouldn't- the salmon wouldn't go up there and they would circulate at the mouth of the Scott river.

And if you circulate long enough, that's going to cause a disease. So those are types- different types of things that we need to guard against.

But- But I agree we need to come together at the table and look at this balancing act, how we can help come up with solutions to help resolve that and checks and balances on the way. I'm sure our council would approve of that. So thank you.

Thank you. And Assemblymember Rogers, I'd like your permission for something if- if you're okay with it. You are the author. This is your work. I would like to see if there is a willingness, a public willingness made to have a meeting, a conversation within the next weeks on this from the opposition locally and from our tribal members.

Absolutely. My expectation has been that they have been continuing to meet especially as the permanent regulations are promulgated. So. Yep.

Yeah, I hear the support and I hear the opposition. I think that this is really important. We're trying to figure this out. If so again, this is your bill. It's, you know, I don't my role is not to right to intervene.

I'm just, I think that as this bill move forward, it would be helpful for folks to know that there is a conversation and I'm hearing that there was a conversation breakdown. So if it's appropriate. If it's not appropriate, happy for you to also say that.

And no, I'm seeing nodding heads. So I'm taking that as an opportunity.

Yeah. All right. Thank you. So with that, would you like to close?

No, I just really want to thank you all for the discussion as well as how much time all of you have spent on the on the- on the bill. And I'm very appreciative when we met, when you had mentioned all of the other conversations you had had. I know that you all have considered this very thoughtfully.

Like I said, it's not an easy transition to bring other voices to the table. It's going to be imperfect. But I appreciate the opportunity to continue to have that discussion.

Great. Thank you. So with that, we have a motion by Senator Laird. The motion is do pass to a environmental quality. Sorry, no, no, no. So to do pass as amended to appropriations. So will we please. Can we please call the roll?

[roll call]

Alright, that is three. And we will. We have three votes in support, and we will put that bill on call. Thank you, Assemblymember Rogers. I know we have some. So thank you for- for being here. We have some other Assemblymembers in the room. Assemblymember Rogers has two more bills.

We don't think that they will go this. I know. Did I just jinx us? We think this was probably the most robust conversation, producing one.

And unfortunately for Assemblymember Gonzalez, he's heard it now, what, three times? Four times?

So you can maybe do a joint presentation with him on the Bill. So if you would like to proceed, you have AB 439.

Yeah, if you like that one, you're going to like this one. So AB 439 actually primarily seeks to do two things.

The first is to streamline part of the Coastal Commission's processes so that when a de minimis change occurs, they don't have to wait 10 days for the implementation of it, unless multiple members, more than three members, think that it is not a de minimis change.

The second is to change how frequently they have to do a comprehensive report on fines and issues. They still report out on that at their meetings. But instead of doing a comprehensive report every single year, this would allow them to do it every five years.

The data is still available in the meantime, but it does save some time and some resources. With that, I'll go ahead and turn it over to Sean with the Coastal Commission.

Thank you, Assemblymember Rogers.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Sean Drake, Legislative Manager for the Coastal Commission. AB 439 would make several streamlining improvements to the Coastal Act's planning and regulatory processes.

First, as the Member mentioned, the Bill would eliminate the 10-day waiting period for amendments to local coastal programs and port master plan amendment, port master plans that do not impact coastal resources to take effect. Instead, these amendments would now take effect immediately upon being approved by the Commission.

This will speed up how quickly local governments and ports can use their amended plans to approve projects in their coastal zone. The Bill would also revise reporting requirements regarding the Commission's enforcement activities, resulting in more comprehensive, less frequent reports.

Taken together, these statutory changes will provide efficiency gains for local governments, ports and the Commission without weakening Coastal Act policies protecting coastal resources or public coastal access. We respectfully request an aye vote and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Please come to the podium. Just state your name and position.

Molly Colton, Sierra Club, California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition here today? All right, seeing none. We're going to bring it back to the dais. Yes, Senator Laird.

I know that after we had very animated discussions on the Coastal Act and expediting things, we finally have some bills. And I'm doing one on expediting housing within the Coastal Act. There's this. I think it's very constructive. I would move to the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Laird, we have a motion. Any other comments or questions? All right, seeing none. We have a motion and I'm happy to support the. And you're welcome to close.

That's great. Just ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I was just trying to move it along. Sorry, y'all. So this is file item 3 AB 439 by Assemblymember Rogers. The recommendation is a do pass to Appropriations. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, we have 4-0. We'll put that on call. Thank you very much. And the final AJR is AJR 10. And you may begin.

Yeah, no. Thank you so much, Senators. And given the robust conversation about watersheds in that region, I'll skip most of the presentation and just say that this is an Assembly Joint Resolution that recognizes the importance of the U.S. forest Service, both from an economic perspective.

Those jobs that we talked about up in my way, as well as on the local ecology, fish populations and culture in our communities. Calling on the President and Congress to push back on cuts to the U.S. Forest Service.

Thank you. All right, any witnesses in support. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any Members, comments, questions? All right, Senator Laird.

I would just note that of the force In California, 57% are under federal Administration, 3% under state. So we are left certain times with having to pick up the ball when. When it is not adequately funded at the federal level because we face the fire impacts, the watershed impacts, and everything else.

So I think this is a very important resolution because it. It asked the Federal Government to keep that commitment on that 57% of the forest. And so I would move the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Laird. And we have a motion. And Senator Grove.

Thank you. I'm going to support the resolution today because I think we need to address that and we do need to make sure that funding is to our forest.

But what I don't appreciate is the politically charged language in it, because then it makes us, you know, on this side of the aisle, have to address that issue with our colleagues in Washington, D.C. that are to come to down on us on those things.

So I just wish we could just pass stuff that is not politically charged that benefits the State of California. And the bottom line is we need the Federal Government to help us. And the more we politically charge this situation, we have two individuals at the state, an individual, the state, and the individual of the Federal Government.

And they are just going to keep going at each other. But we can be the civilized people in this argument or in this situation, and we don't have to offer politically charged language. And we can say, can you help us with the Forest Service? It's vital to California. It's a natural resource. It's amazing.

And thank you very much for your assistance. We don't have to turn it into something political. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Grove. All right. Seeing no additional comments. Thank you very much for doing this. Certainly, as someone who has a national forest in our backyard in the District, this is very important. Would you like to close?

I just. I never miss an opportunity to tell people that my beautiful district has 50% of the redwood trees in the world. And we are always loving and protective of them, as well as all that it brings to our community. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I have the largest. Just saying, you have beautiful red so you can drive through ours. I have the largest. And I have the General Grant tree, the only living monument.

Yes.

True. We have Juniper Sarah.

Thank you both. I see that there's.

Oh, come on. I have the southernmost. Let's keep going.

All right, let's get this back order. There we go. I will accept this friendly banter about who has bigger, better, largest forest as your close. Thank you. Sorry, now I will recognize the motion since you have closed, by Senator Laird and the motion is for AJR 10 to be adopted. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 40. And we will leave that on call for absent Members. And now I will say thank you. That's your last one.

Thank you so much, Senator.

Thank you. All right, we have Assemblymember Bennett. All right, Assemblymember Bennett, you are presenting AB 293. You are welcome to begin when you are ready.

Thank you very much and congratulations, Chair. AB 293 will enhance transparency and accountability in groundwater management by requiring groundwater sustainability agencies to publish on their websites or local agency websites, the membership of their board of directors and a link to the Fair Political Practices Commission where the website, the form can be viewed.

While many GSAs already publish membership on their boards, it's vital that we ensure the public can easily access this information across all 260 California GSAs. Current regulations require GSA board of directors to file Form 7002, but there's no mandate that they actively disclose board membership or provide easy access to the information.

This is a simple step designed to build public trust and strengthen accountability. This Bill has received bipartisan support in the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee and on the Assembly floor. And with me today is Catherine Van Dyke, Community Alliance with Family Farms, representing 8,000 small family farmers in California. Catherine.

Good Morning, Chair Limon and Members, my name is Catherine Van Dyke. I am the Deputy Director of Water Policy with CAFF, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. CAFF represents over 8,000 small and mid-sized farmers in California and has worked for more than 45 years to preserve family scale agriculture and promote environmental sustainability.

I'm here today to speak in favor of AB 293 which supports transparency of groundwater sustainability agencies. As the only agricultural group to support the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, CAFF respects the nuanced needs of groundwater regulation in California.

The local control approach of the groundwater sustainability agencies ensures that communities can steward their groundwater resources and work with the state to reach sustainable groundwater use. However, we believe that transparency for GSA boards is critical to ensuring that local control does not equate to undisclosed conflicts of interest.

We respect and value the opportunity for public participation in GSA boards and believe that AB 293 will help the wider public to understand who is shaping rules for their local sub basin.

In our efforts to help family farmers understand their local groundwater sustainability plans and the potential impact of demand management actions, it can be challenging to understand the board composition and who has decision-making power in the GSA. Having a standardized system to disclose this at the local level will support transparency.

Some GSAs already do this, but many do not. CAF supports AB 293 as a helpful next step following last year's passage of SB 1156, which requires GSA board Members to complete the Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests.

Given that underrepresented small farmers are often not considered in groundwater sustainability plans and are seldom included in GSA boards or committees, more transparency is critical to SGMA success and the survival of family farmers in California. We urge your yes vote on SB 293. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Alex Loomer on behalf of Environment Defense Fund in support thank you.

Molly Colton, Sierra Club, CA in support thank you.

Thank you.

Matteo Kushner, Community Water Center and on behalf of Clean Water Action in support.

Thank you. All right, any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of the Valley Ag Water Coalition. Groundwater sustainability agencies in California are probably the most overseen, accountable local agencies in California. Remember that SGMA requires their work to be assessed, monitored and corrected by the Department of Water Resources as well as the State Water Resources Control Board.

If their plans are not approved by the Department of Water Resources, they are probably the most transparent local agency in California. Every decision by an analysis by DWR and the State Water Board are posted on those websites and are easily accessible by the public. I think the issue we have opposed unless amended.

The issue that we take with the Bill is the requirement to post a link to the FPPC. I will correct the support witness. The Hurtado Bill last year required the statements of economic interest to be filed with the FPPC. But that requirement for Form 700 already existed for these members.

We don't understand the need for singling out one local agency for this type of treatment. You've got three former City Council Members for the City of Los Angeles that are serving prison terms for self dealing. Just this month, a Director for Caltrain was convicted of embezzlement.

This Bill doesn't require any transparency for any other local agency of California. There is no compelling reason that's been offered throughout this entire legislative session to require this posting of a direct link on the website. And that's the basis for opposition. So we'd ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Good morning. Soren Nelson, Association of California Water Agencies also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we're going to bring it back to the dais. Any comments or questions Members? All right, seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes. I just would point out I would disagree that there have not been compelling arguments made in terms of that. I think we have the representative of 8,000 small farmers who would like to have easier access to this. And the most powerful have lots of influence over groundwater agencies.

We've been trying to do things to try to help the people that are less powerful. We think this is an important and valuable step in doing that. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, folks, I will welcome a motion if there is one. All right, we have Senator Hurtado who has made a motion. So this is for AB293 and the motion is do pass. We have. Can we please take the roll?

Senator Limon.

Aye.

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

All right, that is 3-0. We will leave that on call. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Bennett. And now we have Assembly Member Kalra. You may begin as Senator Kalra whenever you are ready.

Good morning. It's especially wonderful to see you this morning, Senator Limon.

Thank you.

AB 454 will remove the California Migratory Bird Protection Act's sunset date, making it permanent. For over a century, the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty act, or MBTA, has allowed the Federal Government to act against the unauthorized take of more than 1,000 native bird species.

However, in 2017, the Federal Government issued a legal opinion that set the stage for significant rollbacks of the MBTA. Specifically, this opinion indicated the MBTA should no longer apply to incidental take, and that is the killing, capturing, transporting, trading or selling of birds that results from activities that are not explicitly meant to take birds.

These activities are often perpetuated by industrial entities that harm birds in their nests when they build and utilize their facilities. In response to this policy shift, California enacted the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, which codified at the state level the version of the MBTA that was in place on January 12017.

Unfortunately, the California Migratory Bird Protection act expired this January, leaving our migratory birds susceptible to the effects of renewed MBTA rollbacks, including the recent reinstitution of the 2017 legal opinion invalidating the MBTA's jurisdiction over incidental take.

AB 454 addresses this issue by removing the sunset date from the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, ensuring that our state's migratory birds will always enjoy comprehensive protection against all firms of unauthorized take. Keep in mind, this has been the State of the Law for well over a century.

And so industries have been accustomed, whether it's their fossil fuel industries, solar, wind, timber, ag. They already know how to comply with the Migratory Bird Protection act because they've been doing it. And essentially it just requires them to use best business practices to reduce the number of birds that are killed due to their operations.

It's no more complicated than that. With me to provide supporting testimony is Michael Chen, Senior Manager of Government Relations with Audubon California.

Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Michael Chen, Senior Manager for Government Relations for Audubon California. I just want to start off by thanking Assembly Member Kalra for his commitment to this issue. And thank you to the Chair and this Committee's work on this Bill.

We are proudly sponsoring AB 454 because it ensures that California law will consistently and predictably protect birds regardless of changes in federal Administrations migratory bird populations in North America. Have declined by over 3 billion since 1970, or roughly 1 third of their population levels.

According to our research, two thirds of North American birds face much higher risk of population declines and even extinction in the coming future 50 years due to climate change. This is not the time to reduce or complicate migratory bird protections.

Audubon has worked with Republican and Democratic federal administrations for decades to conserve birds, and both have interpreted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to prohibit incidental take. The MBTA is relatively rarely enforced, usually only in egregious situations like oil spills, oil pits, actual cruelty, or when a violator has been repeatedly warned but fail to address their violations.

As Assembly Member Kalra explained, the federal administration's novel interpretation of the MBTA, which was rejected in 2021, leaves birds potentially unprotected and creates confusion between state and federal laws.

For example, if there were another oil spill off California's coast, the violator would likely argue that the current administration's interpretation of the MBTA means that they are not liable to damages to bird populations.

Since its passage in 2019, the original AB 454 has not resulted in increased enforcement action or costs to industry or to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, but it has helped to ensure migratory birds remain protected in the state. Migratory birds and regulated industries benefit from consistent and predictable laws and regulations.

The new AB 454 keeps the status quo as it has been for decades and ensures that state law remains clear regardless of changes made by the Federal Government. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, any other witnesses in support please just come forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Molly Colton, Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, in strong support.

Thank you.

Marquis Mason, California Environmental voters. This is on our priority list in strong support. Thanks.

Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? All right, see no witnesses and oppositions Members will bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Senator Grove?

Thank you. I just have one question. Make sure Senator Laird staff can hear me. I just have one question. So when you you can actually apply for a take permit, right?

Okay. So individuals that are in this migratory like businesses in this migratory bird migration where they fly, if they are affected by this and like let's just say windmills in Tehachapi. Right. They can apply for a take permit for all the birds they kill? Yes. Just a fee.

Yes.

Yes. And Again, in doing so, they still would. Would comply with the tenets of the Migratory Bird Protection Act, which is basically just using best business practice to reduce the number of the bills that may be incidentally taken.

So the solar companies in our district, they kill more birds than anybody. Solar plants, the windmills, they kill more birds than anyone or any industry in our area. But I think they're exempt. Like, they don't have to pay the fee. They get so many freebies.

And then if they go over that, then they have to have a take permit. So I think I get what you're trying to do. I'm going to respectfully oppose the Bill.

And obviously, I just don't think that we should create an additional fee or cost for a business to do business in the State of California when there's no. There's no, I don't want to say detrimental.

There's no purposeful business out there, standing out there with a shotgun shooting birds left and right just because they're flying over their farm. If there is a situation where something happens and I think it just creates a revenue source for the state, that's an illegal tax. I have a lot of issues with it.

We didn't have a chance to talk about it, but I did have issues with it. If you want to address some of my concerns, that'd be great.

Look, yeah, I mean, you referred to intentional takes, someone shooting down birds or intentionally doing that. Incidental takes happen in every industry. There's a recognition of that under this act. It's not punishing businesses for existing.

And there's a reason why this act has rarely been enforced is because since the 1920s, all industries have been accustomed to operating under the provisions of this act. And so the reality is that it's not adding any new regulation or new business practice. It is what has been in existence for over 100 years.

And so there's a reason why, you know, thankfully, gratefully, there's no one here in opposition. And you would imagine if it was a new regulation, there would certainly be a line of folks from industry in opposition, but it's not because they already know how to operate under the provisions of the act.

All right, any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I welcome a motion. All right, we have a Senator Laird who has made the motion. And the motion is due pass to appropriations for AB 454.

Senator Limon.

Aye.

Limon, aye. Seyarto? Allen? Grove? Grove, no. Hurtado? Hurtado, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Stern?

All right, that is 3:1 on call. Thank you very much. Now we will go to assemblymember Soria. See, we're going faster though. Thank you. So, Member Soria, you're presenting AB 639 and you are welcome to begin whenever you are ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the amendments in the Committee analysis and thanking the Chair and obviously the Committee staff for their work on this bill. AB 639 is, I think, a pretty simple and common sense bill that makes a narrow exception to the definition of dams to ensure that it does not inadvertently apply to additional unnecessary regulatory burden on weir operators.

Weirs are water impounding structures intended to control the depth of water channels to aid in water deliveries to farms and ranches during times of low flow. These structures are operated by placing removable flash boards against a fixed structure to temporarily raise water levels to enable water diversions. These structures do not typically cross the entirety of rivers or streams that allow for a rapid deployment or removal of flashboards, significantly reducing the risk and impact of a structural failure.

Despite this, the current definition of dam in the water in the Water Code inadvertently captures some of these structures and places them under the same level of maintenance, inspection, and fee structure as dams. And so AB 639, as proposed to be amended, corrects this oversight for several specific weirs and preserves California's high standards for dam safety. Here with me today to testify in support of AB 639 is Charlotte Gallock, the chief engineer for the Kings River Conservation District.

Thank you.

Hi, it's live. Okay. As she mentioned, thank you very much for your wonderful explanation there. And thank you, Madam Chair and board Members, for having me here today. And congratulations is in order, I hear, Madam Chair. I'm Charlotte Gallock.

I'm the chief engineer, as she mentioned, for Kings River Conservation District. We were established in 1951. We own and operate the hydropower plant at Pine Flat Dam, and along with that, 140 miles of US Army Corps of Engineers levees along the Kings River. And that's where all of those weirs reside is within our service area.

As she mentioned, the regulatory burden on agriculture will be significantly lifted should this occur and allows the Division of Safety of Dams to focus significantly on the larger dams and those items that they have over their jurisdiction. So with that, I thank you for your consideration of this, and we are in strong support of an aye vote today.

Thank you. All right, any witnesses in support, please come forward and just state your name, affiliation, and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers and Kings River Water Association in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Bob Reed with Reeb Government Relations on behalf of Valley Ag Water Coalition in support.

Good morning again. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau, in support.

Good morning. Taylor Triffo on behalf of the Tulare Lake Water Storage District in support.

Good morning. Eric Will with Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Koshlaychuk on behalf of Western Growers in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any... Seeing no other witnesses in support. Any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing no witnesses in opposition. We'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. All right, we have a motion made by Senator Grove, but we're going to go to Senator Hurtado. Oh, no. Or did you make the motion? So. Okay. All right, all right, all right. Would you like to close, Assembly Member Soria?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Grove, and the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. And that's AB 639.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 4-0, on call. Thank you, Assembly Member Soria. And now I'm going to ask all the absent Members if they can please come to the hearing room 2100. This is our final bill. And come on up, Assembly Member Gonzalez, that has been waiting here for about an hour and a half. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 709. AB 709 is a simple bill which simply clarifies the ability of groundwater sustainability agencies with multiple sustainability plans to amend their coordination agreements following the completion of the DWR plan assessment.

This bill takes a proactive approach in ensuring that the locals charged with implementing SGMA have the tools and flexibility they need to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of their groundwater sustainability plans. AB 709 is an important clarifying measure that enables GSAs to continue serving their communities and to continue the vitally important work of managing our groundwater resources.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing no witnesses in support or opposition. Members, any comments or questions? All right, we have a motion by Senator Grove. Assembly Member Gonzalez. I do want to just clarify something and I want that on record.

The bill currently proposes to make a minor clarification to SGMA, and I understand that you don't plan on adding additional language. Is that correct?

I commit to not take any amendments and clarify that this bill is just simple, as simple as it appears. It just clarifies existing laws. So, yes.

Okay. So I just want to be clear. If this bill is amended to make additional changes, the committee may want to pull this bill back into committee so that we can analyze the new language. Thank you. And with that, we have a do pass recommendation. This is AB 709. Can we please call the roll?

[roll call]

All right, that is 4-0. We'll put it on call. Thank you so much for waiting.

Thank you. Felicidas.

Gracias. Thank you. Yes. So we're gonna lift the call. We're gonna start with the. We have folks coming in. Perfect timing. All right, we're gonna lift the calls and we're just gonna go through the top. Any absent Members, we welcome you. Yes. We're going to go ahead and start with consent.

Alright, on the consent calendar. File item number one. AB 14. [Roll Call]

All right, the consent calendar is 7, and that is out. And then we're gonna go to the next Bill. Okay. That is AB 263. Can we please call the roll current?

Motion is do passes amended to appropriations with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Okay. All right. And that Bill is 5-0. I'm sorry.

And it's still on call. Okay. Okay, we're going to go down to the next one. AB 439.

Do pass to appropriations with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that is 6-0 and that is on call. Next one is item, File item number four, AJR 10, and that is by Rogers. Please call the roll.

Motion is be adopted with chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that is 6-0 on call. Next we're going to go to file item 5, AB 293.

Okay. AB 293. The motion is do pass with Chair voting aye. Senator Seyarto. AB 293.

All right, can we just go and we'll bring it back, please?

[Roll Call]

Alright, that is 5-0. It's out. All right, next we have file item 6, and that's AB 454.

Motion is due. Pass to Appropriations with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

5-2. That is out. All right, next we have file item 7, AB 639.

639, due pass as amended to Appropriations with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That's 7-0 and that is out. And then the next one is file item 709.

The motion is due pass with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That's 7-0 and that is out. All right, folks, and then we're just going to do a couple more add-ons, I think, for Senator Seyarty. File item two. AB 263.

Motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations with Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That is 6-0, and that is out. The next one is file item 3. AB 439.

The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is 6-1 out. All right, and now we have AJR 10.

And AJR 10 is. The motion is to be adopted. [Roll Call]

That's 7-0 and that AJR is out. Alright. And with that, everybody has voted and we will go ahead and adjourn our hearing.