Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order Good morning Members and Committee Members of the Committee. I'm hoping we can get folks to come to room 2100 so that we can establish quorum for a hearing. We have 15 bills on today's agenda. Five are on proposed consent. The bills will be heard in file order.

Since we do not have a quorum, we are going to begin as a Subcommitee and so we do have multiple Members here from the Assembly ready to present. So I'm going to welcome our first Member and that's Assemblymember Schultz who is going to present AB43.

And we will start as a Subcommitee and hope that we get quorum soon.

I'll be quick.

Good morning Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 43 today. AB 43 would permanently extend the authority for the Natural Resources Agency to protect California's Wild and scenic rivers. A little bit of history might be helpful.

In 2018, the state Legislature passed AB 2975 by my predecessor Laura Friedman, which required the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency at their discretion to take action to add any California river in the National Wild and Scenic River System that is removed, delisted or whose protections are otherwise weakened by the Federal Government to the State Wild and Scenic River System if it's not already part of that system.

That bill AB 2975 allows the Legislature and the Governor to statutory repeal or modify these designations at any time now. Importantly, this law will sunset on December 312025 unless the Legislature acts to keep it in place this year.

There are 819 miles of federally protected wild and scenic rivers in California that are preserved in their free flowing condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations that are not currently protected by state law and enjoy only federal level protection.

Current law as extended by AB43 would apply to federally protected rivers if Congress or the Federal Administration were to pass legislation or enact an Executive order to eliminate federal protection from all or a portion of a federal river.

And I will just note as set forth in page five of the Committee analysis, since 2011, the United States House of Representatives has considered at least four bill proposals to remove federal protection for part of the Merced Wild river to allow for expansion of the McClure Reservoir. So this is not a theoretical risk.

This is a very real risk to Cal California. AB43 would not add any new rivers to the state system that are not already protected under federal law. However, it would ensure that federally protected rivers in California could be considered for protection under California law should they lose their federal protected status.

I will close with noting that AB43 received bipartisan support in the Assembly and has no registered opposition on file. With me today to speak in support of AB43 is Ron Stork with the bill's sponsor, Friends of the River, as well as Steve Evans with Cal Wild.

Thank you so much. You each have two minutes, so we'll let you know when you approach your time.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Steven Evans. I'm the Wild Rivers Director for Cal Wild, which is a statewide conservation group working to protect wild places on public lands throughout the state.

There's about 2,400 miles of rivers and streams that are both in the state and federal wild and scenic river systems in California. That's about 2% of the total miles of rivers and streams throughout the state.

This bill and current Public Resources Code applies to only the 819 miles of federally protected rivers that do not currently enjoy state protection. Much of our current system we have rivers like the Eel and the Klamath and even the Lower American that are both state and federally protected.

But this bill only applies to those rivers that are just in the federal system, but not in the state.

The bill permits the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency to administratively add federal rivers to the state system if the Federal Government, the Trump Administration or Congress fails to protect and manage those rivers as protected rivers in the system. It doesn't add to the state system any rivers and streams that aren't already in the federal system.

So it's not a real expansion, but it ensures that the state has a role in working to protect these rivers if the Federal Government does not. In this time of uncertainty caused by the political turmoil of the Trump Administration, Congress, including the potential sale to developers of millions of acres of federal public lands in the state.

It's imperative that we make permanent the ability to provide state protection to federal rivers to ensure that their free flowing character and outstanding and extraordinary values are protected in perpetuity for present and future generations. I urge you to vote yes on the bill and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have some. Thank you.

Thank you. Impressive. Exactly. Two minutes on the dot.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Ronald Stork with Friends of the River. Steve Evans and I have been working on wild and scenic rivers since the 70s. So you know we've got a stake in this.

Friends of the river and the state Wild and Sunic River system celebrated its half a century of existence two years ago and Natural Resources Agency, including the secretary, of course, manages the system for the state. Mr. Laird did a good job and hopefully so will his successors.

This is a modest step to improve the protection of national wild and scenic rivers in the state. Past resources secretaries have been responsible in their powers granted under this law that has been being proposed for sunsetting and I think we'll do so in the future.

And in fact, I think as a practical matter, the existence of the ability of the state to act quickly to protect national wild scenic rivers is one reason why the Congress and the President have so far at least recently not moved to create problems for the national wild suner givers.

But I think the state has already shown that it's less than confident that that situation will continue moving forward. So thank you for letting us speak and we're happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you so much. We will now take any witnesses in support in the room for just me twos to come on forward. Please just state your name, your affiliation and your position.

Ruth McDonald representing Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Dylan Finley on behalf of the Sierra Consortium in support.

Matteo Kushner, Community Water Center in support.

Good morning. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank in support.

Good morning Chair and Members. Molly Colton, Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Scott Webb, [unintelligible] Institute. Also talking for Restore the Delta and Planning Conservation League in strong support.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and California Trout in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward. See no lead witnesses and oppositions. Any other witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing none, we're going to bring it back to the dais.

Senator Laird, you're bringing it back to the Member. The Member. First. Thank you for bringing forth this bill. Thank you for the shout out. I'm confident that the previous resources secretary would have loved this authority during the first Trump Administration.

And I think we struggle right now, and you will see it even in some of the others today in trying to figure out how to best fill in or protect in the light of what's going on at the Federal Government. And our challenge frequently is the fact that it takes oodles and oodles of money.

This doesn't and this does that kind of protection. And so and it's impressive that there's no opposition. So when we have a quorum at the appropriate time, I will look forward to moving this bill. And I thank you for bringing it for me. Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you so much for bringing this forward. We will take a motion when we have quorum. We don't have quorum now, but you're happy. You know, I'm happy to let you close if you'd like.

I'll just say thank you very much, Madam Chair and Member. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Member Schultz. So when we have quorum, we will take that up. Next we have Assemblymember Papan, who has a couple bills with us, AB93 and AB900.

Good morning, Madam Chair. I'll start with AB93.

Thank you.

The first in numeric order here. So, as we all know, water is our most precious resource. And I'm here because data centers are incredibly thirsty. So AB93 is a common sense measure that's all about ensuring data centers operate responsibly, balancing innovation with sustainability.

The demand for data centers has skyrocketed with the rise of artificial intelligence and cloud computing. While data centers can bring benefits, especially economic benefits, they also consume immense amounts of water, up to 5 million gallons of daily in some cases, and that's comparable to a town of about 50,000 people.

This strain is felt most acutely in water stressed areas where tech companies are drawn by affordable power while often ignoring the water impacts. In a state where water is finite and droughts are becoming more frequent, we've got to make every drop count. So AB 93, excuse me, tackles this issue by doing two things.

One, requiring data centers to self certify both their expected and then actual water use when applying for or renewing a business license and two, directing the Department of Water Resources to develop best management practices for efficient water use in data centers.

In response to feedback from water agencies, I will be amending the Bill in the Senate Local Government Committee to remove the cost of service analysis requirement. I'll also be clarifying the definition of data centers for purposes of this Bill.

This Bill is a pragmatic step towards better understanding the impact of data centers on California's water supply while giving local governments the information they need to balance economic development with resource sustainability. With me to testify in support of the Bill today is Sean Bothwell of California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Good morning Chair Committee Members Sean Bothwell, Executive Director for California Coastkeeper Alliance. We're happy to be here today in strong support of AB93. Really, because we feel like local governments should have a full picture of the water usage in their communities, particularly from high demand users such as data centers.

Data centers generate a large amount of heat, which typically then requires large amounts of water consumption. And I use the word water consumption deliberately because data centers use water differently than you and I would use water.

We return, you know, households return water to the system either for, you know, it gets treated and goes back to the environment, or hopefully it gets recycled and reused. Data centers consume water and do not bring it back into the system. It's just an empty use. So it's even more important that data centers use that water efficiently.

And unfortunately, the studies are showing that they use large amounts of water. Reports indicate of the 270 data centers in California, they use billions of gallons of water annually. It's just one example. Google in 2023 used 6.1 billion gallons of water for their data centers.

The reports also indicate that about 80% of water usage is potable, drinkable water that could be put to other uses.

So we think it's important that communities know before issuing business licenses how much water is expected to be used and then how much water is being used, and that data centers are using the best practices possible so that they are using water efficiently so that other community members also have access to clean and affordable water.

So for that, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any additional witnesses in support? If you can just come forward, state your name, affiliation and position.

Mateo Kushner, Community Water Center, in support.

Thank you.

Dylan Finley, on behalf of the County of LA, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. We're currently reviewing the proposed amendments by the author. We really appreciate her working with us. Next was more just about finding the right balance of structure and how this would work. So we really appreciate your work and we really appreciate the analysis of the Committee.

So we're going to be reviewing those and reconsidering our current position of opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. See no additional witnesses in support. Any witness. Lead witnesses in opposition. Any other witnesses in opposition.

All right, Good Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Timothy Burr, on behalf of TechNet and the Data Center Coalition in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. See no others. We're going to bring it back to Members. Senator Laird.

We have Members. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just an observation, I'm really glad that that there at least some of the opposition is reviewing these in the hopes that they will get with the Bill.

And one of the interesting things that happened earlier this year is when the battery storage plant fire happened, a lot of the stakeholders wanted a pause on battery storage. And they called for the pause on all these high electric using hubs that in essence are data centers.

And so not realizing that sort of opposing the electricity to the data center was a position that put them into conflict. And I think a similar thing is true here.

And if you look at where some of the data centers are proposed, I mean, I represent a district where there's a very small part in the south that has access to state water, but the district is just contingent on whatever falls from the sky or is under the ground. There's no imports.

And so when you have massive uses added to the water grid, it is something that you truly have to take into account. And so I think this Bill strikes in the right direction on this issue. And if there are ways to still work with the opposition, great.

But I think you have it with these amendments in generally good form. And I will look forward to moving the Bill when we get to a corner.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. I support what you're trying to do here. I have some issues with the Bill as it is in its current format. I know we chatted about it.

I'm not a big fan of conservation as a way of life, and I think that it needs a lot of improvements. However, I will be supporting your Bill today, but I also hold back the ability to vote no on this measure on the Senate Floor. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. All right. Thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate the comments made by our Members of the Committee, but also your work. You've been doing quite a bit of work on this.

I appreciate also that you've recognized that there's going to be some things that are coming in the next Committee and as you move forward, including the definition. The definition of Data centers. I understand that you're working with stakeholder groups to try to refine that definition.

I know that, you know, page 6 and 7 of our analysis kind of referenced that. So grateful that you're continuing to do that work, as well as removing the cost center cost analysis out of service analysis portion. So I think we just ask that you continue to keep us apprised of the work that you're doing.

You know, you're doing a great job. And so we're thankful that you're working on those couple issues. And with that, I'd love to have you close if you're ready.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And we will continue to work with it. We'll get the Bill there. I'm confident of that I appreciate the analysis and the support and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. We do not have quorum, so when we have quorum, we will take a motion and move that forward. But you do have a second Bill and that is AB 900.

Alrighty. So, first, I'd like to thank the Committee for their work on this Bill, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. Our state is committed to conserving 30% of lands and 30% of coastal waters by 2030—there's a lot of 30s in there—which require those lands to be durably protected and managed.

So, acquiring land for 30 by 30 is only one step. Caring for that land is like steps 2 through 100. So, without adequate stewardship and funding, goals like climate resilience, biodiversity protections, and outdoor access won't come to fruition.

Requiring the Natural Resources Agency to review stewardship efforts will enable the state and all our partners to develop management frameworks and an ecological workforce as we quickly approach 2030. AB 900 does not affect how much land will be acquired under 30 by 30 or the 30 by 30 goal in any way.

Instead, it elevates the importance of caring for those lands so they provide more benefit to the state. AB 900 will better prepare us to protect and manage the state's incredible landscape for generations to come.

With me to testify today are the co-sponsors of AB 900, Michael Jarrett from the Nature Conservancy, and Caroline Godkin from the California Council of Land Trusts.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today. My name is Michael Jarrett, Associate Director with the Nature Conservancy.

The Nature Conservancy is a co-sponsor of AB 900, which requires the California Natural Resources Agency in its 2027 annual report to update the pathways by 30 by 30 report, to better understand stewardship needs and the opportunity for conserved land in California.

I'd like to thank the author for her leadership on this important issue and the Committee for its great work analyzing the Bill. Many conserved areas lack funds necessary for stewardship which can diminish the benefits of conserved land.

These activities include the removal of pre-existing hazards, cleanup from extreme weather events, invasive weed removal, fencing and water infrastructure work, wildfire resiliency work, trail maintenance, and other important and necessary activities. Stewardship is vital to uphold conservation values of land conserved for the public good.

Stewardship needs and the costs associated with them for conserved lands will grow due to the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, as well as the increase in climate-related extreme weather events. Stewardship can protect and enhance climate resilience, biodiversity, public access, and the environmental services conserved lands can provide.

AB 900 does not change the goals of 30 by 30, but instead requires an increased emphasis on stewardship. AB 900 requires the CNRA to develop strategies to reduce the barriers and increase support for stewardship and conserve lands. This includes understanding stewardship needs, best practices, workforce needs, and to highlight new and innovative stewardship practices and technology.

AB 900 will also require CNRA to release recommendations to increase stewardship of 30 by 30 lands, including innovative ways to reduce barriers and increase federal, state, and local support for stewardship. I'm happy to answer any questions the Committee may have and urge your aye vote on this important Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Caroline Godkin, and I am the Executive Director of the California Council of Land Trusts. We are the statewide organization representing our member land trusts and the broader community of land trusts in the state.

We are pleased to co-sponsor this important legislation with the Nature Conservancy and we're grateful to Assemblymember Papan for authoring this Bill. As you've already heard, this Bill will require the Natural Resources Agency to review the stewardship needs of lands already conserved, as well as those to be conserved moving forward.

For the land trust community, a key partner in delivering the state's 30 by 30 goals, this is critical. In a recent survey of 66 land trusts, we identified that they had already conserved 3 million acres and placed them under permanent protection, with another 750,000 acres in the pipeline for the next three years.

Finding ways to effectively steward these lands will help to make them resilient to wildfires and other climate events. This Bill represents a critical step in effectively stewarding these lands. Thank you for your consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Thank you both. All right, we will take any additional witnesses in support. Please just come to the microphone.

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

Good morning. Tasha Newman on behalf of Big Sur Land Trust, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, the Peninsula Open Space Trust, and the Wildlands Conservancy, in support.

Good morning. Michael Chen, on behalf of Audubon California, in support.

Dylan Finley, on behalf of the Sierra Consortium, in support.

Good morning. Jake Schultz, on behalf of California Association of Local Conservation Corps, Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, California State Parks Foundation, Save the Redwoods League, Sempervirens Fund, and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, in support. Thank you.

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

Good Morning. Kim Delfino, on behalf of California Native Plant Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and the Sonoma Land Trust, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Markquise King Mason, California Environment of Voters, in support, thanks.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, and Sustainable Conservation, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing no lead witnesses in opposition. Do we have anybody else in opposition? All right, seeing none, we're going to bring it back to the Member. Goes back and forth between Members and the—go ahead.

I feel like I'm carrying the load for the rest of the Committee this morning. One of the major issues about land acquisition and stewardship is that we're so good about acquiring and we're so absent in the management of the stewardship. It's true with state parks. In some of the organizations that were represented in the witness for support, I know that you try to raise money individually by site that people bond to.

You do it with state parks. And yet, it is our struggle. We acquire and management is a challenge. So, I think getting this report will be really helpful.

And what it really needs to do is spur the conversation about what an ongoing funding source is or set of ongoing funding sources that match our ability to require. So, I think this is a great idea.

And along with every other Bill that will need a motion when we finally have a quorum, I will look forward to moving this one.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Laird. Thank you very much for bringing this forward. I don't have any additional comments. If you'd like to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Laird. You know, if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. Stewardship is absolutely essential. I respectfully request an aye vote, and thank you so much for the reception of the Bill.

Thank you so much. And when we have a quorum, we will take a motion and move that forward. Thank you so much, Assemblymember Papan. Next, we have Assemblymember Bennett, who has three bills, but one of those is on consent. All right, we're going to start with AB 367.

Thank you very much, Chair and the Senator. First of all, I want to start by accepting all the amendments that the Committee has recommended. Secondly, I just want to point out, and I'm trying to point out for Members that may be watching this that are not here also, but this is a district bill.

It's limited to simply Ventura County. And you may say, why, why do we have this district bill. So I'm afraid I have to go into a little bit of history to try to explain that. But in 20178 years ago, we have five major cities, Ventura County, that are over 100,000. We have five more smaller cities.

But one of the five major cities, Fire broke out in that city. That city had decided that they were not going to be filling their tanks up until midnight because that's when electricity rates were the lowest, in spite of the fact that we had red flag warnings out.

And at 10:30pm at night, when the water tanks were almost at their lowest, the fire swept into the City of Ventura. Then those water tanks ran out of, I mean, the fire hydrants ran out of water within minutes instead of hours. Had the tanks been more properly filled in anticipation of the red flag warning.

It was very frustrating for citizens to watch as they evacuated out of the hillsides to watch fire trucks race up the hill and 10 or 15 minutes later, fire trucks leaving in spite of the fact that their homes were burning because the fire Department said, there's no water in the hydrants, we're going to go someplace else where we can be effective.

The second thing that happened is that city had backup generators, but they had not tested the backup generators. Consequently, they found out that the electrical connections between the generators and the pumps had not matched. So they were not able to get the backup generators to effectively function.

So that meant they were not just out of power for a short period of time, but for a much longer period of time before they could fill those tanks. We had fires breaking out in the hillsides 121416 hours after the fire first swept through.

And it wouldn't have happened had they been able to get some water into those tanks and get water there. The third thing that happened is, of course, the citizens were very frustrated. And when citizens asked for information, the city refused to give any information out about what the situation was with the fire.

And then that was in 20178 years later, that was, by the way, the largest fire in the history of California at the time, the Thomas Fire. Eight years later, that fire is now the ninth largest fire in California's history. Which tells you we have crossed a tipping point in the last eight years.

Eight years later, we have another fire breakout in Ventura County, where we have 168 water districts, many of them very small. In this situation, the same thing happened. There were not backup generators. Eight years later, you would think everybody would say, hey, we learned the lesson of what happened there, and there were not backup generators.

And in addition to that, the water pump burned up because it was housed with a wooden roof on top of it. And so that also created a renewal of frustration in Ventura County about water districts and what water districts are doing and what they should be doing.

And that frustration came from citizens, but also from firefighters that I was speaking to about their frustration. Nobody is asking for the water system to be able to fight hundreds of fires at the same time. We're not trying to design that, but we are saying the system ought to work to its maximum capacity.

So a hydrant should operate like it was designed to operate. For that to happen, you have to properly fill the tanks during red flag warnings. You have to have backup generating power, because inevitably the power gets shut off during a fire.

Then you need to house the water pumps and the backup generators, and in facilities that are fire hardened enough, they don't burn up at the beginning of the fire. Knowing those were the three basic solutions, we surveyed all the water districts in our district, that's all 168 water districts.

We let them know last fall, we're considering this bill. We want your input. We're not trying to catch anybody. We're not trying to get anybody have increased liability. We're just trying to get everybody to do the basics out there that the citizens would like them to do.

We made significant changes, many changes based on that input before we ever drafted the bill. We got good input from people. We had lots of support from people for doing this.

And as I said, the goal is to try to make sure that something that almost everybody basically would say, which is, is our water district filling the tanks up when there are red flag warnings, are they, and to what extent, et cetera, and do they have backup power and are they hardening that backup power?

And the, I think the answer to the question, that's what citizens really want. Water districts, I think, can do this. There is one water district, one city in our district that says they have a very complicated system.

I'd be happy to address that if, if people are interested in me addressing, I think, the potential solutions, et cetera, to that. But with that, this is an essential component of us dealing with this.

The final thing I would leave you is the firefighters that I spoke to, we lost 500 homes in that city where they had a failure eight years ago in 2017, to do these simple things in this bill. And that firefighter said hundreds of homes would have been saved.

And when you look at hundreds of $1.0 million homes being burned up, I think you have to ask, compare that cost to the cost of implementation of this bill. We. In addition, I just came from another Committee where I have been pushing an expansion of funding for water districts to be able to do this. It's grant funding.

It's not guaranteed that they would get it, but we're doing everything we can to try to make this a practical implementation of a common sense step given the tipping point that we're at.

Thank you very much and I appreciate you allowing me to go into the history because I think without that, it's hard to understand why we're doing this bill.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett, do we have any witnesses in support of the bill?

We have no witnesses here. In support only. But only me. I mean. I mean, official.

So we have no lead witnesses. We'll take all. Just the me toos. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, appreciate the author's commitment to this issue. We are in proud support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Galler, on behalf of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Any. Yes, we do. Okay, Come on forward.

Madam Chair, if I may, Jason Gonzalez. We're not in support, not technically in opposition. Representing the City of Fillmore. Just very briefly, Madam Chair.

Wait, hold on. There's two people that are sitting here, so are they not going to be the lead witnesses in opposition? Okay so

I just didn't want to take their time Madam Chair

So, so, so, okay. Thank you.

Be very brief. Jason Gonzalez representing the City of Fillmore. As you know, Madam Chair, the City of Fillmore has its own fire Department. The city is simply requesting language that allows them to be part of the consultation, much like the water agencies. And we respectfully request that amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we will go. And actually, we have quorum, so we're going to go ahead and call the rolls.

[Roll Call]

All right. So we have established quorum. All right, please begin.

Yeah. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA represents approximately 470 public water agencies statewide.

I first want to thank Assembly Member Bennett for several rounds of amendments he has taken on this Bill, some of which include allowing mutual aid to meet the backup power requirements, allowing water agencies to develop emergency response plans to address the concerns of the water tank levels, and the added flexibility in the timing to turn on backup power.

In addition to the amendments he has just taken, ACWA still has several remaining concerns with this Bill and suggested amendments, and we respectfully maintain an opposed unless amended position.

We have concerns on the high costs to water suppliers, the lack of consideration of the challenges and unpredictability agencies face when responding to emergency events, and the precedent that this Bill would set for future statewide efforts. This Bill would impose significant costs and lack sufficient funding. Backup power sources, such as stationary or mobile generators, are costly.

Several water suppliers estimated that upgrades to a facility in their system would be in the millions, which is exacerbated by agencies with multiple facilities. Without sufficient state funding, the burden of these costs would fall onto the ratepayers undermining water affordability. This is an important consideration as agencies are faced with a multitude of climate adaptation investments.

A budget allocation is needed. Additionally, water suppliers can be impacted by the unpredictability of a wildfire event that could prevent them from meeting the requirements of this Bill and could increase their risk of potential litigation.

Amendments are needed to add liability protections and consider operational realities, such as removing the requirement for generators to run for 24 hours and adding language that water suppliers are making their best efforts to meet these requirements for These reasons, Aqua respectfully asked Members of the Committee to vote no on the Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Sharon Gonzalez, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, in respectful opposition to AB3 67. The City recognizes Assemblymember Bennett as a champion of wildfire resiliency and really appreciate the Member and his staff for the continued dialogue. Unfortunately, the Bill is lacking a funding vehicle.

Thousand Oaks water system serves 17,000 customers. That's about a third of the city's total population. Based on the size of the system, it's estimated that $16 million would be necessary to comply with the infrastructure mandates outlined in the Bill. The city if they were to enact a 218.

A Prop 218 to raise water rates, it's estimated that that would be $78 per month per customer, which would result in a 47.4% increase. If the Proposition failed or if the Prop 218 efforts fail, the city would have to take 16 million from the General Fund, forcing the postponement or cancel of cancellation of other critical infrastructure projects.

AB 367 also provides a very short compliance time, not taking into account the time needed to enact a Prop 218 ballot, procurement approvals from IOUS and other permitting agencies, and design and construction. Municipal water systems are designed for local structure fires. They're not engineered for the scale and intensity of a wildland urban interface fire.

After wildfire, water purveyor and the county fire Department must provide a report evaluating the adequacy of the water delivery system. After action reports can be very useful, but an evaluation could open agencies to increased risk of litigation based on misinterpretation or presumed admission of negligence. And it's for those reasons we must respectfully oppose AB367. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We will bring forward any other metoos in opposition. Please just state your name, your affiliation and your position.

Good morning. Kira Rosoff, on behalf of the City of Burbank Water and Power, we would echo the concerns of ACWA and the City of Thousand Oaks. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley Water Association, will echo the comments of ACWA. Ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. Kaitlyn Johnson, with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association, not with an Opposed position, but with concerns. We've been engaged with the author's office and are hopeful we can get to a good place and thank the author for his Engagement. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, now we're going to bring it back to the Members. Any thoughts, questions, comments? No? Okay. Senator Laird.

I would just say that the comments you outlined in your opening statement sort of crystallize what the issue is. And I appreciate the concerns of the opponents, but to me, it's not the choice between doing this and doing nothing. It's the choice between doing this and preventing higher costs because fires go ahead, and that's the challenge.

I get the problems with governments being worried about how they would finance this, but if you look at the losses from the fires in how they spread at certain times, and there's.

There was an example in my district way before I was in the Legislature where outside of Pacific Grove on the edge of Pebble Beach, there was a fire and the electricity went down and they lost tons of homes while they had fires in the tank. Water in the tank they couldn't access, much less having the water there.

And so I think it's important to move this Bill ahead and force the issue. And if there are other ways you can address this, great. But I actually think this is a positive step in moving ahead.

And I recognize that it's a district Bill, and I also recognize that we spent so much time in our hearings with somebody saying it's the camel's nose under the tent. But for addressing Ventura, this is the appropriate thing. And we have a quorum now, so I would move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Stern.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. You know, we. We saw so many failures over the last several fires. So, you know, it sort of haunts me thinking about backup power and water pumps and things like that. Just happened again in that place I had, where I had, you know, my kids and grew up.

And now that place is gone. Because. I mean, there's a lot of becausees, but certainly when water pressure fails because you didn't put adequate backup at a central pump to an area. And this one, this is a non Ventura County one. This is on the LA County side, but it is a constant risk.

I do want to get your thoughts on how you know just how to manage this liability question and how you. How you sort of see that playing out going forward.

We've seen these sort of cycles of litigation occur after these incidents where, you know, could start on at the, you know, on power grid and suddenly become a subrogation claim against the counties from the utilities on their liabilities. Everyone gets very litigious when big money's on the line. Right.

So I don't necessarily believe that this opens up new litigation risk. But I do think that there is a, you know, I mean just be straight about. There's pending, there's pending suits against our county and number of other counties still dating back to Thomas fire. Right. And those are, you know, those have huge fiscal ramifications.

If that plays out. You get a $350 million hit to your General Fund. Suddenly you got to pay out like it shifts all kinds of other things that we didn't that go well beyond fire and water.

So I just, I want to, yeah, we have to force this issue to get fixed because people's houses are burning down because of things that should be done in a reasonable care of management of local infrastructure.

At the same time, how do we sort of just manage that, that sort of tendency within the system to sort of chase where the next liability is because everyone, no one's really whole and everyone wants to be made whole. So how would they not exploit, you know, these kinds of things?

Even if county or cities did everything they needed to do and that pumping station had the right stuff and you know, I'm still frustrated, I gotta say. You know, before it. Maybe you can answer that in your close.

But even to have state money on the line, that's not being taken advantage of by local governments to be doing this work where we have the SGIP program sitting there. Micro grid funding. I've been trying to get help to like get you some power funding. They're not moving quick enough.

So I think the underlying thesis here is right. I just want to hear from you how you see that risk getting managed going forward.

Yes, please.

I appreciate both questions and I think they're two legitimate issues and one from Senator Laird about the cost and yours about the liability. So my response would be start with the fundamental, and I think you said it well, people expect their water districts to be prepared for wildfires.

It's just if you live in a high wildfire risk area, you expect your water district to do the basics. We're not talking about and as was alluded to, we're not talking about trying to create a water system that can fight once you have hundreds of homes burning.

But we are talking about trying to put out spot fires quickly. And you don't need very much water to put out a spot fire, but you need the water for an extended period of time. And these are the basics that give you that water for an extended period of time.

If you fill the tanks, if you have the backup generators and if the pumps don't burn up. I think everybody, virtually, I think virtually all citizens would agree. Those are the basics. A water system should have those three things. The question is, how do you pay for it? And the question is, does doing this increase liability?

I'm going to go backwards and start with the liability side of it that you bring up. Courts in the state have created significant protection from liability with these wildfires that are out there. So you don't see very many successful suits as long as places practice unless they're just truly negligent out there.

I would offer that this clarifies what is and what isn't negligent. Right. And that's all that it does. And these are not unreasonable things to ask or unreasonable things for citizens to expect. And so I don't think it does extend liability from my perception.

There is one case that is out there where there was a suit and a Superior Court judge ruled against them. And, and I believe they would have easily won. The government entity would have easily won if they would have appealed it, but they chose not to appeal it for some other reasons.

And that's the case that gets cited all the time when people want to say liabilities really change. But I would offer to you, there are appellate courts and we have one, you know, we have a number that we could cite where they've said, hey, as long you have to use reasonableness with these lawsuits.

And, and that's, I think, a standard that would be easily met by everybody moving forward with this. So I hope that that's the best that I can offer to you in terms of liability.

But I don't think that Ventura County, I don't think we would have gotten a unanimous vote from the Board of Supervisors of Ventura County because they have water districts also. I don't think they would have done that if they thought this was some significant expansion of liability out there.

With regards to the cost issue and the trade offs that Senator Laird was referring to, I would like to point out that you're exactly right. Compare the homes that are lost. I would venture $200 million worth of loss in the city that I described in 2017 with the Thomas Fire.

Compare that to whatever it would have cost them to just more properly get their electrical outlets to match up and to do that work. Now we have in the City of Thousand Oaks. It's the only city in the county that has identified a $16 million figure, if you remember.

And I appreciate that not everybody was here when I made my comments, but this is not something we surprised everybody with last fall. We did a survey with all 168 water districts. We said, we're trying to get these three basic things in. We don't want to catch anybody or trip anybody up. Please give us your feedback.

We took all 168. We sent them emails. We created a chart. We tried to fix everything that seemed practical that we could fix. We made lots of adjustments before we ever introduced a Bill. And since then we've made more and more adjustments. If it's practical, we're in favor of it because we're not trying to get people sued.

We're just trying to get this basic function to happen. We're different than other counties. We have 168 small little water districts. Some counties, we don't have that many different water districts. We have lots of small ones. For those small ones, the cost is a backup generator perhaps, right? Maybe two backup generators. Right.

For the City of Thousand Oaks, they're the ones that are saying we want to harden the whole. It appears to me, and not an engineer, we want to harden the whole electrical system there, including the reservoirs.

Now, my staff, in working with them has been able to point out a number of these things go beyond just the backup that you need for the wildfire. And so we could debate what that cost is that's out there.

But in my early conversations with Thousand Oaks and I spoke to a top official at Thousand Oaks last fall, they pointed out that their biggest frustration was they were planning on doing all of this backup generating. They were going to do this anyway.

They were frustrated that the other two water districts that service Thousand Oaks, they had no way to pressure them to do this. And so that official welcomed us doing this because they said we're going to do this eventually. So they may have been planning on a $16 million upgrade. Right. And they would certainly like to have help.

And we're trying to get them all the help we can. But if they were doing it, they wanted to have the other two. Imagine if they do do this and the other two don't. Right.

And you're a citizen that lives across the street from, you know, the Thousand Oaks provided one, but you're still in the City of Thousand Oaks. So the dollars and cents add up when you consider the loss, when you consider the long term benefits of this.

And I just came from the hearing where I mentioned to the other Senators, but for you, Senator Stern, where the Tahoe Water District was testifying in support of my Bill to try to expand grant funding for. Only happens when you're in this situation, right? Grant funding. Grant funding for.

To help water districts to apply for grants to buy backup generators, et cetera. I also found for all the water districts in Ventura County, a FEMA grant that's been under subscribed. Like you talk about leaving dollars on the table for. For all of the hardening of their critical facilities.

So we've gone a long ways to try to just make this a practical implementation of this Bill, and I hope that that addresses the two questions and concerns that you have. Thank you very much for letting me give you the fairly lengthy answer, but I feel passionate about this getting done properly.

Thank you. And I think Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this being a district Bill. Obviously, the Senator that I serve with on the red carpet is. It's his district as well.

I wish there was a mutual respect regarding our diverse state and who we all represent and that district bills were deeply were more respected than they are in this body today.

But I appreciate what you're trying to do to make sure that there's equity between the water districts and that like you said, if somebody who lives in thousand lokes is across the street from the water agency, that's not going to provide that information or provide that service, it needs to be addressed and it creates consistency and certainty within the district.

I appreciate what you're trying to do for your district and I wish all district bills were treated that way. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. I think my colleagues have brought up some of the issues related to. To cost and liability. Certainly we share, you know, Senator Stern, myself, you and Assemblymember Erwin share of Ventura County and have seen wildfire after wildfire and also some of the challenges that have come up.

And so when I think about cost and liability, I don't just think about it in relation to one entity at that one particular time. I think of it also broadly speaking. And Senator Laird mentioned specifically that, you know, the alternative is not to do. The alternative is not to do nothing at all.

That there is a big cost and big liability when it comes to some of these natural disasters and particular wildfires that we've seen in the district. And so I think that that's what a lot of us are trying to navigate as we consider this particular Bill as it relates to cost.

Yes, it's going to be an ongoing conversation, just as our conversations when we have wildfires. So it's not this one time when incident is sinking more broadly. And certainly those costs are significantly more higher than you know what we're talking about here with the recognition there is a cost on liability.

I think it's not completely clear, you know, where the liability may fall should a backup power source fail. On the one hand, courts have applied a strict liability standard to inverse condemnation on public entities in cases similar to what is being addressed by this Bill.

On the other hand, there's also examples of courts applying reasonableness standard in inverse condemnation cases when examining flood control issues. So I think that there is, you know, a legitimate question on local issues. This Bill, should it get out of Committee today, it will go to local government.

And I've met with, for example, the City of Fillmore as well and understand some of their concerns in terms of if this Bill by. If this Bill passes, would it bypass their own city Department and fire Department concerns?

I don't read this Bill as prohibiting a city to be able to still continue to do their review or own inspections. I read this Bill as saying county has to do it. And if a city wants to do more, that's something that they would then consider.

However, that is something that could maybe be clarified in local government, should you choose and as these conversations move forward. So I want to thank you for working on this. This isn't an easy issue.

I want to thank, you know, the opposition and the support I think we're trying to navigate, but also want to just recognize that while this seems very local with 168 water agencies in one county, our concern is trying to, of course, hear every, you know, every particular water agency, but thinking more broadly about the impacts this has and the cost and liabilities, not just at this one time, but broader to our community.

So with that, I will allow you to close.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the research. If I could mention two quick things. One, the strict liability case was not one that was ever done by an appellate court, whereas the reasonableness one was done by an appellate court.

An appellate court ruling has the force of law for applications in the future, whereas the Superior Court one does not. The other thing that I would add in the close is we're all going to be focused more and more on home insurance rates and the hardening of our homes.

And I don't think there's any question if you have a water district that does not have backup power, right. You're going to find the insurance company saying, hey, that area is a different level of risk than an area that does have good backup power.

And so cost are many things, not just the cost of the backup power, but the cost of the rising home insurance rates, you will find that growing disparity between the communities that are hardened, that have good water systems and communities that are not hardened and don't have water systems that have met the basic requirements out there.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. So this Bill is Assembly Bill 367. This has a recommendation of do pass as amended to local government. Can we please call and I don't have a motion, so thank you. Senator Laird has made the motion. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 40. Thank you very much. We'll leave that on call as we bring up the witnesses that are coming up for the next Bill. AB 1056. I'm actually to take the roll for consent, please.

Okay, thank you.

We have a motion by Senator Laird for consent.

[Roll call]

Great. All right, that's 40. We'll leave that on call and next we will go to Assembly Bill 1056.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1056 is a simple bill. It allows for the transfer of any gillnet fishing permit from a permit holder to any party until 2027. And then a one time transfer to a family Member is permissible after 2027. The fundamental issue with this bill is bycatch.

Bottom line is these nets can be up to 1.7 miles long. The amount of bycatch can be significant. And that is why this kind of fishing has been banned off the coast of California almost everywhere except off the coast of Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. And that is what we're trying to do.

Phase out in an appropriate way that does not overly penalize the existing gillnet fishers that are out there. You have, the opposition suggested that this was going to cause a major problem in terms of the catch of the fish.

But alternative ways of catching halibut in particular, which is what this is designed for primarily, have been very successful and it will not cause that kind of a problem. Bycatch is the fundamental issue. It's time for us to have as cautious of a phase out as possible. And that's what this is.

It really does treat the current fisherman, I think, very fairly, which is why we don't have that much significant opposition.

We do still have one organization in opposition, but with that I have two witnesses here and I look forward to their testimony and I respectfully ask them to identify themselves and move forward because I don't have the names listed.

All right, thank you. So you each have two minutes and so feel free to begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Kaitlyn Burch, marine scientist with Oceana.

AB 1056 reflects decades of science and policy progress in California toward more sustainable selective fishing Set gill nets are now banned in most of our coastal waters, not because of politics, but because their impacts are well documented to wildlife, ecosystems and commercially important fish species.

In California, according To federal observers, 64% of the total catch in this fishery is discarded thrown overboard at sea.

Even excluding small schooling fish and invertebrates such as mackerel or crabs and sea stars, nearly half 49% of the animals caught are thrown overboard, many dead or dying, including sharks, rays, important commercial and recreational fish species, sea lions and seabirds. Federal observers have documented over 120 unique species caught in sed gill nets.

AB1056 offers a thoughtful and gradual transition away from this non selective gear type. It maintains current fishing and fish landings in the near term, but supports the broader shift toward gear types already in use in California that are far more selective and sustainable. We've seen what happens when secular nets are phased out in other parts of California.

Fishers adapt Marine life recovers in the aftermath of bands. Fishers not only pivoted to more selective gears that allowed them to continue fishing halibut and sea bass, but scientists also documented the regional population recovery of species previously depleted by the gear, such as White Sea Bass, harbor porpoise, giant sea bass, Leopard Shark and soup fin shark.

Several of those researchers who have published as peer reviewed scientific papers about those species have written to express their support of AB 1056. This bill prioritizes the long term vitality of California's marine resources and ecosystems while taking away no current jobs, keeping current fishers on the water and giving families the opportunity to pass down their operations.

It is a proactive, measured, science based step that balances California's marine ecosystems with the long term viability of our fisheries. I respectfully urge your aye vote of.

AB 1056 and our other witness is Scott Webb from the Resource Renewal Institute.

Thanks Senator Bennett. Appreciate the intro. Good morning Chair Members, as the summit says, my name is Scott, Director of Advocacy with the Resource Renewal Institute. As my colleague Kaitlyn Burch mentioned, California has a long history of moving away from harmful fishing practices like set gill nets. In 1915 we banned their use in Northern California.

In 1986 we banned them in the Bay Area. And in 1990s voters approved Prop 132 to close state waters off Southern California to sack gill nets, recognizing the serious threat they pose to marine life. AB 1056 is a measured step towards a more resilient future for California fisheries and the communities that depend on them.

It recognizes that economic strength comes from sustainability ensuring our fisheries remain viable not this year, but decades from now. This SEC Gill net fishery represents a small fraction, just 18% of California Halliburton landings, yet carries a disproportionate ecological cost.

We've seen that when sick elnets are phased out as in the Bay Area and the Central coast, fishing evolves. Local lower impact methods like hook and line have increased and continue to provide consumers with fresh seafood, maintain and create fishing job and opportunities while providing the very resources that make them possible.

Economic transition often involves a short term disruption, but AP10PT6 provides a long term transition that is not disruptive to current fishers and their families and provides a long term gain sustainability, ecosystem health and fisheries resilience.

This bill builds upon the Fish and Game Commission's management recommendations implementing a management tool, non transferability of permits that the Commission has identified in 2023 that could not be enacted without legislative action. Hence why we're here before this body to today.

This bill supports a future where seafood remains sustainable, local, trusted and available because it's caught in the ways that safeguard ocean health. I urge you for to support AB 1056. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Just please come forward. Name, affiliation and position Good morning Madam Chair and Members.

Jennifer Fang. I'm here in support of my client Oceana, but also asked to express the support of Eco Dive Center, International Marine Mammal Project, of Earth Island Institute, Endangered Habitats League, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Santa Barbara Whale Heritage Area and Heal the Bay. We urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Molly Colton, Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in support. Thank you.

Holly Eberhard on behalf of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin as well as the International Game Fish Association, American Fishing and Tackle Company and Fish On in support. Thank you.

All right, any lead witnesses in opposition Please feel free to. You're welcome to come sit here if you'd like.

Hi.

Hi.

Ready for me?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Okay. Thanks. Sorry, a little new at this. My name is Lisa Damrosch. I'm the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. And while we are just one organization, we represent working commercial fishing families from San Diego to Crescent City.

We strongly oppose this Bill because it circumvents California's established fisheries management process. Trust me, commercial fishing is not always a fan of the fisheries management process, and it might not be perfect, but our Fish and Game Commission and Department of Fish and Wildlife manage state fisheries through a transparent public process.

We show up, engage, and comply, because that's the way it works.

When things don't go our way, which unfortunately is often, we do our best to work through the next available process to change things or work to adapt to new realities, even when those realities are slowly killing our way of life, our businesses, and the coastal communities that depend on us.

What we don't do is look to the Legislature to circumvent the process. The Legislature, of course, plays an important role, and we need you, but legislation should be to support solutions that emerge from the fisheries management process, not replace them or go around them. The Commission spent two years reviewing this fishery.

The Department conducted a comprehensive bycatch evaluation. Fishermen and conservation participated, resulting in a new set of regulations that just went into effect this year. Some groups didn't think that went far enough. So, here we are. There's not a conservation finding to justify this and no recommendation to further reduce or eliminate permits.

There's no need to regulate inactive permits because current law already restricts transfers for any permits that haven't had landings 15 out of the last 20 years.

If there is a need to analyze this and the Fish and Game Commission does not have the authority, this body could provide that authority and send it back to the Fish and Game Commission to review through a public and transparent process.

This proposed language, and I think it was said by the author, who I respect, but it's to phase out a fishery, and ironically, when highly regulated fisheries are phased out, all we do is outsource and we make Californians eat seafood from places that fall short of the labor, environmental, and food safety standards that we uphold here in California. It doesn't protect.

It undermines the real protections, increases climate impacts, and guts the communities that still feed people. It's difficult to understand that argument. So, therefore, we urge you to reject this Bill because California's fisheries' management system depends on a transparent process, sound science, and meaningful stakeholder involvement. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition in the room? All right, seeing none. We're going to bring it back to the Members. Any questions? Senator Stern.

Yeah, thank you. Maybe, just want to see from the author, can you, can you address some of these questions about the existing process of Fish and Game and whether there have been conversations with Fish and Game here about the need for the provision that your sponsor mentioned around transferability?

In other words, the opposition seems to be saying that we don't need a change in law right now and that in fact, we're sort of circumventing the regulatory process.

So, as Mr. Webb, one of my witnesses, will be able to tell you in better detail, but my understanding is that Fish and Game can't take the action that we're taking here today. And I'm going to let him follow up.

But I would point out also the claim that that is a transparent process implies this is not a transparent process.

And I would offer to you that we did a similar Bill last year that had a faster phase out and that Bill did not move forward. Because this is such a transparent process, they were able to come and say the Bill was moving too fast.

So, this is a modification from last year's Bill, based on hearings that we had in the Legislature, and I think this is as transparent a process as any other process and one that everybody has plenty of input on and we've had plenty of conversations with all the stakeholders involved. But Mr. Webb, would you like to just answer that?

I mean, that was great. And Senator Stern, I guess just to put more time into that, we've been involved in that Commission process for, gosh, about 3 years over the review on this.

And I would say just...the person who say it best would probably be post President, Eric Sklar, of the Fish and Game Commission, who actually wrote a really fantastic letter alluding to just that and talking and really enshrining that this is actually an action that has to be taken in the Legislature.

So, you'll see that actually in the materials that President Eric Sklar wrote that letter to the Fish and Game Commission.

And so, the Fish and Game Commission is recommending that we take this step as the Legislature?

No, they're not making that recommendation, but this is a process—typically, they're not going to make that kind of recommendation, but hence why we asked for the letter for that process as well.

Okay, I'm seeing. Yeah. Shaking of the head. I just want to sort of get clear on what's—Madam Chair, if you don't you mind, if I just ask the Opposition, you're saying there is—so, how do you respond to this letter from Sklar that they're referring to?

My understanding is that is about where the authority lies, which I don't think we disagree upon. But whether or not that process that has been gone through that has evaluated this fishery determined this was the appropriate response to that process, that did not happen, in my understanding. So, what did happen were new regulations came out.

The way that set gill nets are used now are different based on that process. There's a change in soak time, there's a change in nets, there's a change in marking, there's new electronic monitoring. So, the fishermen in this process have been impacted and are changing the way that they operate.

And there was not a recommendation to eliminate permits as a solution to the problem. These were the solutions to the problem that came out. If, in fact, there is science that determines there should be less permits, then it should go back to the Fish and Game Commission and give them that authority that they don't have.

So, if I can put a finer point on it—sorry to interrupt you—but just, yes, the Fish and Game Commission does not have authority. We all agree that under existing law, they don't have authority around the transferability of the permits, but the actual timeline has not been set and established by Fish and Game either.

So, this would both give the transferability piece, but the Legislature would be stepping in and setting a phase out. So, I guess that's my only concern. Just from a science basis, when we pick a date as a Legislature versus they just wrapped up their regulatory process. So, I don't know.

I'm always wary of sort of coming in after the fact and changing the rules after that got settled, but.

If I could, the Legislature stepped in many times, right, on this issue. That's how we've gotten to the point where there is not—this doesn't exist except off the coast of Ventura and Santa Barbara. But I have a witness who wants to try to respond to your question also.

But while I just have the floor and turn it over to her and that is, it's correct. They haven't recommended this legislation, but they also have not come out in opposition to this legislation. Agencies generally don't do that. They don't recommend legislation or oppose legislation. But they don't have the ability right now to do this.

And one argument would be to give it to them. But what we've done so many times in California is we've gone this, the by catch here is significant enough that it's time for us, and this, when we talk about coming in and setting a timeline, this timeline is way in the future.

This is about as far out as you could do and have any kind of regulatory impact from the legislative action. But if my witness could.

Yeah, and that actually, that pretty much answers my question there. I mean, I just, I guess I'm trying to weigh the—what kind of charge. I think we should step in and give them missing statutory authorities. I think that part makes sense.

I'm just struggling with exactly the date and timeline and how much discretion to give Fish and Game to work that through. So, I guess that's sort of my lingering concern here today.

And you know, when I go to Santa Barbara Fish Company, or like my guys at Canaloa, it crushes me every time I'm like seeing flown in fish, you know, and you're sitting on these waters and like, I mean the restaurant guys I know in that area want to serve sardine, like they got to go ship it in from Japan and it's sitting there as like permitted bait fish.

But anyway, it's a tricky situation, so I'm just cautious about—I get it's a long timeline. I just, I wonder what your openness is going forward to thinking about authorizing some discretion for Fish and Game to sort of have a science-based modifier or, I don't know, maybe it's something for your consideration going forward.

Thank you. I guess the other side of that is, you know, you talk about the things that we don't want to have happen, but a 1.7-mile-long fishnet is a lot of bycatch, right?

And so, for the marginal supply gain that we get from this, it's noteworthy that the tackle, somebody representing sort of the tack, the people that are doing the line catching of the halibut, they're not here in opposition to this.

So, there are very functional ways for us to be able to do this and those areas and that fishing supply will increase when this happens, just like it did when we banned the gill nets in other places.

Are there other fishery groups that you were able to get? You mentioned those who were previously opposed that since then you've removed from opposition. Is that some of the folks you mentioned, some of the line catching folks, are there other fishery associations?

The major people that we talked to a year ago were the actual fishermen that were out there. And we've worked hard this whole past year with them. I think it's noteworthy they're not here today. You don't have fishermen standing here saying, you know, this is, you know—so that's the group that I'm referring to.

We have an Association coming here, but we haven't had.

Can I respond to that?

We haven't had them. Now, they didn't come out and say they're in favor of this, but I think many of them have told us this is fair. You're giving us a fair opportunity to be able to move forward. And I'm happy to have my witness try to answer if you'd like, but—you can manage it.

Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, it's only through the Members. All right, Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to hear your response, if you don't mind.

Thank you. I appreciate that. So, I may not have been clear, but we are an association of port associations in every port made up of fishermen, including hook and line fishermen, all gear types, all fisheries, state and federal. We're not—we are made up of commercial fishermen. Our entire board is commercial fishermen.

My son is the fifth generation of my family to commercially fish. We are not just some pie in the sky organization. We are representing boots on the deck.

Thank you. Based on my comment earlier with your previous Bill, I support most district bills. I do not support bills, or I try not to support bills that—where California has an asset that we import it. Just like my colleague said about, you know, going to a restaurant and they have sardines from whatever country, right.

And we have the ability to do this. So, I do have a couple of questions. You know, with the fish and wild—California Fish and Wildlife—involved and the regulations that they put forward, we've gotten a 90% decrease in participation from this particular—the gill net issue that you're trying to address.

We've gone from 700 active permits in 1990 to 40 permits in 2024.

So, when you say it's a mile and a half long gillnet, and I realize that it's still a mile and a half long, but with this regulatory process that has been in place through the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the agency who has not come out in support of this piece of legislation, and they usually don't engage, so I was surprised to hear that someone thought they had engaged.

We've gone from 700 permits to 40 permits. So, we've already severely restricted California's ability to produce in state production or coastal line production of the fishing industry so that we eat, I don't know, California codfish, California, whatever you want to call it, but that we, that we rely on our families and our fisheries and our fishermen families and linemen or net, or whatever it is that we rely on them, and not foreign countries to ship that product to us.

So, I don't like, and it doesn't matter what it is, oil, cement, I don't care what the issue is, if we can produce it here, we should do it here, just like off our coastlines. The other thing that I have questions about, were you aware of that decrease in the permits from 700 to 40?

Okay. And the other question I have is, is that it's my opinion—I'm just curious about you—I mean, I would think that fishermen or fishery, fisher people, I don't know what, what's correct, fishermen.

Yes.

Fishermen's fine.

Okay. I don't care. Fishermen, they have, they're naturally conservationists.

Like if they kill off fish and to a point where we have no access to fish, they lose, I don't know, multiple generations. What'd you say, your son is the fifth generation?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. He's a fifth generation. They kill off that generational thing. When the government steps in and says we have to make sure that farming is sustainable. Farming has been sustainable in this industry, in this state for—since its existence.

When they step in and say we have to make sure that fisheries are sustainable, they know how to be sustainable, I don't think you need to tell them how to sustain the fish population. I think if they put the fish population out of business, then they wouldn't last five generations. So, I have trust in them.

The other thing is that restrictions on the permits, I guess is a question. If you restrict their permit transfers from great grandpa to grandpa to father to son, then you destroy those family businesses. And is that your intent to do that? Because that's what's going to happen.

I mean, it may not be your intent, but that's what's going to happen.

No, that's not my intent, but my intent is to phase out one fishing practice that has found, that I believe clearly, the benefits of that fishing practice are far outweighed by the disadvantages of that, that fishing practice. The amount of bycatch does not justify the supply that is coming in by.

I think that's the fishing practice and that's why this fishing practice has been banned every place else. And that's why, because we're at 40 families that are still doing this, we're trying to do a very responsible, slow, gradual phase out. We're not trying to stop them from fishing, but we want sustainable fishing.

And I would offer to you that 1.7-mile gill nets are not part of sustainable fishing.

Okay, so just, with all due respect, sir, the numbers that I gave you earlier, a 90% decrease in permits, that has to decrease the bycatch. There's no way you can have a 90% decrease in permits and not effectively impact.

No question—it's decreased the bycatch.

It has. So, so, and then, over 800 active fishermen since the 1980s, and we only have 28 active groups or organizations now. That decreases the bycatch. If every other country in the entire continent, in the entire world, is able to use this type of fishing stuff and we go line by line, or however, or they don't, you know, they—we're not responsible for them, but they are allowed to do that and ship us the fish that we eat in our restaurants.

That doesn't benefit our local communities, our local businesses, our local restaurants, our coastal facilities—and I don't represent a coastal area, but I represent people in the State of California.

And I want to protect California's industry and not allow it to be imported from other places. And I think that the natural progression of where this has gone under the California Fish and Wildlife, a 90% decrease in just a few years, again, from 700 active permits to 40.

And then, eliminating fisher families, fishermen families, then not being able to transfer from generation to generation.

That's like saying the ranch that we've had in our family for, you know, I don't know, 120 years, when our great, great, great grandfather came and settled the property, when they allowed people to do that, would not be able to be transferred to our children's children, or in this case, my grandkids, and it would go back to the state or some other organization or foreign operator, as what's happening in some cases in the Central Valley.

Have you guys worked with Department of Fish and Wildlife that oversee these resources, ensuring renewal commercial fisherman's permits? I mean, they look like they're decreasing the bycatch just because of the permits that are offered. So, why not let that course—the regulatory agency, instead of us interfering? I find it really weird that we agree a lot, Senator.

Yeah, I'm looking at—looking at Laird. Sorry, not at Stern. I'm not looking at Stern. I'm finding myself agreeing with Senator Stern again. And it's just, it's just uncanny. But the California Fish and Wildlife Commission sets policies and adopts regulations for this permit industry, for the fisher industry.

And then, it's like we've gone from here down to here on bycatch, and you have two people sitting, no offense, with their opinion that is trying to eliminate that last bit of bycatch that is almost impossible for us to survive as an industry off the coast of California, but it's not affecting any other part of the world.

So, you're going to destroy our industry in order to import stuff that we need, because line fishing is not going to be able to sustain what we eat. We eat fish and we eat more than what's going to be able to be caught on line fishing. Sorry.

I think it's very clear this is not going to destroy the halibut fishing industry in California.

Where's the data that shows that?

Well, I'd be happy to be able to provide that to you. I don't have it right here in front of me, but I'll be happy to provide it to you. They've already identified this is only 18%. Go ahead—I have a witness who can answer that question.

It's only 18%? It's already affected 90. There's not 18% left. It's already affected 90%.

I think you're mixing up—the 90% is the decrease. But while line catching has gone down, I mean, while gillnet fishing has gone down, line catching has gone up significantly, and...

I'm going to interrupt just a little bit on some of the data, not all, is page—in the analysis. Just there's some charts there, just, just to have that as a little bit of background.

I'm sorry. Sorry, Madam Chair.

It's okay. Go ahead. I'm listening. Ma' am. Oh, you're just pointing out the chart to me. Oh, yeah, no, I apologize. Yeah, no, I saw the chart. I just. I saw the chart.

So in response to your- your- your question about data, just overall, I, I spent a lot of time on the East Coast. I watched.

And when you say that if we just trust them, they won't bring any species to distinction, they won't overfish a species, the data is completely clear that that's not what happened on the East Coast. Over and over again, the science would come in and say we need a 40% cut.

And it would be fought by the fishing industry. And they would say we're only going to take a 10% cut. And then the fish population would drop more. And then the science would come in and say, now we have to have a 75% cut. And they would say, oh, now we'll take a 40% cut.

And they chased species after species after species to the point where it collapsed on the East Coast. So I don't think you can rely on that, that concept that just. We don't need regulations. We obviously.

I'm not saying we don't need regulations. I'm telling you, we have regulations in place by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, we have reduced these permits by 90%. If you have a reduction of 90% in the permits, there would be a reduction in the netting that's going there. It's common sense.

If you reduce the fishing families, it's reducing that fishing population that's being. But we're still consuming that fish, so it's coming from someplace.

So what I'm trying to make the point across is we're destroying the lives of the individuals that this, that this witness represents in order to import what we consume every day from a foreign country or foreign operator. And, and I don't think that's right for California.

We can say we're eliminating all gill catch or all gill by catch. Right? Every bit of it. But if we're getting it from foreign countries that are doing the exact same thing that affect the fish population while destroying our businesses, that makes no sense for Californians. That's picking foreign operators over our own businesses.

And that's one thing I just can't ever agree with. So I just, I apologize for going on a rant. It happens far too often that we destroy our own California businesses and California families that have been in existence forever. Whether it's the fisheries, the ranchers, it doesn't matter.

Wine, grape growers, cement plants, you go on down the list. And we destroy our own in state family and businesses in order to produce or purchase from foreign countries on things that we consume every day. And I just. I can't agree with that. So I'll respectfully oppose your bill, but wanted to make my point. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Senator Grove. We're going to go to Senator Laird and then I think we're going to wrap up.

Yes, thank you very much. To step back to the higher level of this. In some ways, we're relitigating in this conversation our entire fisheries policy. And I think that the state has clearly said we want sustainable fisheries, we just want sustainable fisheries. If the fisheries crash, we'll import much more.

And the real idea is to get to sustainable fisheries and do it in a way that- that it is understood what is there, it is understood what is takeable.

And what this is, is this is sort of an adjustment within that because it says that we will not have the bycatch, but at the same time will probably increase the number of fish from line fishing. And in its entirety, it'll be within our sustainable fisheries policy that- that we hope will get there. And.

And I am sympathetic to some of the comments of my colleague from Bakersfield because when it comes to ranching, we have worked really hard through the conservation easement process to try to facilitate intergenerational transfers so that we can protect that kind of ranching through the generations.

And I think it's hard to do here if in fact there's many more permits or many more people fishing than there are fish available. And so. But that has been litigated. And we're just trying to make sure that there's not the bycatch in this. And it probably adjusts how people catch fish within the sustainable fisheries we have.

So this makes sense. I move the bill.

Thank you. So we have a motion. I appreciate the robust debate and I'm going to allow you to close.

I respectfully asked for an aye vote simply trying to answer questions.

Thank you so much. AB 1056. The recommendation is do pass to appropriations. Can we please call the roll?

[roll call]

Alright, that has three O. And that is on call. Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. Thank you for the conversation, everybody. We have five more bills and we have approximately an hour. If we are not done, I just want to let everyone know that we will recess and come back at 1:30 so in room 113.

So if we do have to. If we're not done with these five bills, we will go back to room 113 at 1:30. So maybe that's a motivation. Alright, so we have some Boerner who's been so patient waiting. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members, it's been a wild morning in natural resources. I want to thank the chair and your amazing staff Committee Work Committee staff for working with me on this Bill. I accept the Committee amendments.

AB399 would authorize the California Coastal Commission to add carbon sequestration to the suite of factors it considers for potential mitigation when approving coastal development permits where feasible by authorizing blue carbon demonstration projects. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Love it. Thank you Assemblymember Boerner. All right, any.

Oh sorry. This is Tasha B. Special. There are no witnesses. It's just me.

Oh, thank you. Tasha B. All the way. All right, let's go. Any other witnesses meet you in support, please come forward. Just state your name.

Rocky Rushing on behalf of Alta Sea at the Port of Los Angeles in support.

All right, thank you. And I think we have some folks coming up still. Here we go.

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

Awesome. All right. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Lead witnesses may sit at the table. If it's just me too, at the mic.

Good morning. Thank you. John Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, my colleague Skyler Wanikott of the California Business Properties Association has also asked me to speak on behalf of CBPA, BOMA California and NAOP California. Just want to thank the author and staff and also the Committee consultant for helping find an amendment that would bring.

Our organizations to neutral on this. So as proposed to be amended in. The Committee analysis, we would be neutral. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anybody else? All right, Members, we'll bring it back. I moved the Bill.

Are we member again? I moved the Bill.

Great. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Tasha B. Special. Here we go. And with that, this Bill is AB399. The recommendation is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's 2-0, and we will put that on call. Thank you very much and we have Assemblymember Wilson here with us. Assemblymember Wilson, you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Senator Laird, I'm pleased to present AB524 the Farmland Access and Conservation for Thriving Communities Act. This Bill would create a new land access program at the Department of Conservation to address one of the largest challenges of California's beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers are facing land tenure today.

Land access has never been more unattainable as we see rapid rates of land loss and soaring land prices. The Department of Conservation estimates nearly 50,000 acres of agricultural land is lost annually, weakening our rural economies and ecosystems. Utilizing the foundation and funding for this program is Prop.

4 AB 524 will require the Department of Conservation in collaboration with the California Agriculture Land Equity Task Force to provide financial and technical assistance to support agricultural land acquisition protection and provide long term leases to qualified farmers.

Participants I'm glad that this Bill has enjoyed bipartisan support in the Assembly and today with me is Jamie Fanouse, the Policy and Organizing Director for the Community Alliance with Family Farmers.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Member. My name is Jamie Fanouse. I'm the Policy and Organizing Director at the Community alliance with family farmers or CAF. CAF currently represents over 8,000 small and mid scale family farmers in California and has worked for over 45 years to preserve family scale agriculture and promote environmental sustainability in California.

Nearly 75% of farmers operate on less than $100,000 in annual gross sales and we are losing at least four small farmers a day. The challenges facing small farmers are overwhelming and make the simple act of growing food to feed local communities a nearly impossible task.

The realities of the climate crisis, existing supply chain and economy disproportionately affect people who are making a living producing food, which includes the one in five California farmers who identify as socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

What doesn't help is that in California, cropland is owned by the few, making land completely out of reach to beginning and underserved farmers. Today, the top 5% of all cropland owners own over half of California's agricultural land. Meanwhile, 85% of the smallest properties account for only 25% of cropland.

And finally, nearly 40% of Farmland is rented or leased by non farming landowners. Most, if not all historically underserved and beginning farmers primarily lease their land.

Farmers who lease cannot comfortably invest in the land that they manage and are regularly at risk of being kicked off unless you've gained access from your family or have several $1.0 million available access to secure land is 100% impossible.

Without security, farmers have limited access to private resources and existing state and federal programs as well as such as climate smart agriculture programs. Here in California, the erosion of family scale farms jeopardizes not only rural livelihoods, but the state's food security, environmental sustainability and cultural heritage.

Without intervention, the decline of these farms will accelerate deepening disparities in land access and weakening local food systems. California currently has no state program providing land tenure to support beginning and underserved farmers. AB 524 addresses this critical gap.

This bold legislation will create the first statewide land security program offering real pathways to stability for beginning and underserved farmers while strengthening our agricultural future. Thank you very much. And I support. I support this Bill. Request your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support, please come forward. Just name, affiliation and position.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Josh Gagar on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of American Farmland Trust and the California Climate and Agriculture Network in support. Thank you.

Kathy Mossberg on behalf of Roots of Chains in support.

Mark Fenstermaker for the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in support.

Great, thank you. All right. Seeing no additional witnesses in support. Anybody in opposition, please come forward. If there's lead opposition, you're welcome to come sit here. See no lead opposition. Any additional opposition? All right, so then we're going to bring it back to Members. Senator Laird.

Thank you. I appreciate this bill. I think the analysis does a good job of laying out the existing efforts and why this is something.

In addition, and I know as one of the major architects of the Sustainable Land Conservation Program, there are different pieces that have been put together and I am not sure there is adequate advice sometimes to people that really need to do this. This just came up in a previous bill.

We were talking about this and I know that it's really tough across the state. It's really tough for people moving into it. And we figure out ways, like with UC Cooperative Ag Extension, how we can provide support, whether it's on pesticides or water or farm practices. But we don't provide the kind of support that this bill does.

So I think it's a good direction and I would move the bill.

Great, thank you. Any additional comments? Senator Grove?

I, I don't. I don't like. I don't want to say the approach, but I appreciate what you're trying to do. I'm going to support the bill, because I think overall that's the, it's the best of what we have right now.

And the reason why I say that is like Solano county, which I went out and just confirmed with that witness.

There are multi billionaire and I'm not against people making money, but there are multi billionaire individuals who are buying up a tremendous amount of land from people that have no resources to be able to do that and actually filing lawsuits to put people out of business just so they can take their land, which I think is wrong and needs to be addressed.

I think that your bill addresses part of that or that, but in a way that I don't think is going to be significant enough as, I don't know, maybe doing something. I don't know what the answer is. I don't know what the answer is. I know there's a problem. I don't think this is the complete answer.

I don't think, you know, taxpayers should be taxpayers statewide. Taxpayers should be funding certain people to fight other people that have resources to do that.

I think that we need to figure out a process that works that where our, our farmland, our precious, valuable farmland is not foreign owned and not controlled mostly by just one or two entities that will hold us captive for things.

I think they're, you know, I think that, I think that the best way to address issues like this in other industries as well as is a variety of people at the table versus one person at the table that can hold people captive, if that makes sense.

So I'm going to support the bill and I appreciate what you're trying to do. I don't think it's the whole answer, but I do think it's a step in the right direction. So thank you, thank you, thank you.

And I actually agree with Senator Grove. I know there's a lot of interesting things happening today.

So, you know, and certainly having a district that's really mixed, right, Having a district where we have rural and we actually see a lot of that, we are struggling I think in California on how families and individuals keep their farmland or smaller entities keep their farmland and the investments.

But I do appreciate the effort and I think anything helps. So with that I would like to allow you to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And you know, I appreciate Senator Larratt's comment. Thank you for moving the bill and your leadership in this space, you know, has been pretty amazing and helpful. Agriculture across the board.

And to Senator Grove's comment, I agree, like this is not the end all or the silver bullet, but it does Add another tool to the toolbox.

And one thing in particular that was pretty apparent when we were having the issue in Solano County where there was this gobbling up of land prior to knowing who it was, is we had land tenants. I mean, people who were tenants on the farmland that now are losing their ability to farm that land.

And this would be a tool for them to another option for that landowner to say, okay, I'm going to give it to the tenant versus this outside entity. And that tool didn't exist.

And so this would allow that tool to exist where people who are ready to get out of owning this land have options to be able to, you know, sell it to someone who is a tenant, especially if they fit within one of these categories, and get that support for that. So thank you.

And with that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Wilson. We have a motion made by Senator Laird. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Agriculture and we will call the roll.

[Roll call]

All right, that bill is 3:1. And we'll put it on call. Thank you very much. And I do see. Assemblymember Elhawari, you are welcome to come forward. Thank you, Assembly Member.

We're not done with public safety yet, so I'll finish here and then go back.

Good morning still. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB13, which creates a permanent, dignified pathway into firefighting careers for formerly incarcerated individuals who served on Cal Fire hand crews. California has relied on incarcerated firefighters for nearly a century.

Men and women who risk their lives clearing brush, cutting fire lines and supporting fire suppression across the state. These individuals are carefully screened, limited to low level non violent offenders with good behavior and low security classifications.

These are folks who went through Cal Fire's rigorous hands on training, risked their lives on the front lines, and came home with no certificate, no job prospects, and $250 in gate money. AB 1380 changes that. It ensures that they leave with an official certificate and a fair shot at a real job.

This Bill is about more than a job. It's about recognition, dignity, and a real shot at rebuilding their lives. For communities like mine in South Central. This is about showing people that if you do the work, you deserve the opportunity. And we have the power to open those doors instead of keeping them locked.

While nepotism often helps some individuals enter the firefighting profession, Those who have fought in actual fires face significant barriers to joining the force. Joining me today is Christine Soto Duberry, board Member of the South Marin Fire Protection District and the Executive Director of Prosecutors Alliance Action.

And Troy Senegal, a former CDCR camp firefighter and now a fire apparatus engineer with CAL FIRE.

You may begin. You have two minutes.

Ladies and gentlemen of the State Senate, when disaster struck my life, Cal Fire rescued it. I'm not speaking on behalf of Cal Fire. I'm speaking on behalf of myself. And it is an honor to stand before you today to present a bold vision for AB 1380. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Conservation Camp program is a vision that position it as a catalyst for careers in wildland firefighting and a pathway to lives of purpose and redemption. This is not merely a program of training. It is a program of transformation into a profession that can uplift individuals society has overlooked and empower them to become guardians of our communities.

California confronts twin challenges that demand our attention. The escalating threat of wildfires and the persistent cycle of recidivism within our justice system. Year after year, wildfires grow more frequent and ferocious, endangering lives, devastating landscapes and straining our resources. Simultaneously, too many individuals leave incarceration without the skills or opportunities to reintegrate successfully.

The Conservation Camp program offers a solution and at this critical intersection, a practical and humane approach to both public safety and rehabilitation. The vision of transformation Imagine a program that takes those who have been marginalized and equips them with the tools to protect our state. This is about more than teaching firefighting techniques.

It is about instilling value, affirming worth, and illuminating a future worth striving for. Participants in this program can emerge not just as skilled professionals, but as respectable individuals who have faced their past and forged a new legacy through service. Cal Fire exemplifies these values. It is not merely an agency.

It is a transformative force where people from all backgrounds unite to serve a greater good, to safeguard our communities and build a stronger tomorrow. The Conservation Camp program must embody these same principles. Courage in the face of adversity, honor and dedication to others, and integrity in every action.

It should challenge its participants to rise to their potential, not because it is easy, but because we believe they are capable of excellence, the power of challenge and reward. Let me be clear. This will not be a program without rigor. It will demand hard work, test resolve, and push participants beyond their limits.

Yet it is precisely this difficulty that makes it meaningful. Through adversity, character is built. Through service, purpose is discovered. This program offers not just employment, but a career, not just a second chance, but a fresh start. Research supports this approach. Vocational training and corrections reduces recidivism while the discipline of firefighting fosters resilience and growth.

By investing in this initiative, we address the wildfire crisis with the skilled workforce and break the cycle of re offense with opportunity. Esteemed Senators, I urge you to join me in realizing this vision. Let us create a conservation camp program where remarkable transformations occur. A program that turns challenges into opportunities and the potential into achievement.

We owe it to the people of California to protect our state from wildfires. We owe it to our participants to offer them a chance to reclaim their dignity. And we owe it to ourselves to build a legacy of hope and service. The moment to act is now.

Together, let us establish a program that reflects Cal Fire's highest values. A place of courage, a place of honor and a place of integrity. Let us make it the best it can be for our participants and for our communities and for the future of our state.

Thank you so much for that powerful testimony. That was about three and a half minutes, so I'm going to ask if you can just summarize in about 30 seconds. Thank you.

Good morning, Committee Members. Christine Soto-Deberry with the Prosecutors Alliance Action. Proud to be here today with all of you. Also in my personal capacity, serve on the Southern Marin Fire Protection District. And we are proud to co sponsor 1380, a powerful investment in jobs, justice and community safety.

This Committee knows very well what climate change has done to our state and the need for more firefighters. And 42% currently of Cal Fire's work is performed by incarcerated firefighters.

And this is an incredible opportunity for us to meet both a public safety challenge and a wildfire challenge by providing the opportunity for men and women that have been incarcerated and provided that safety infrastructure to do so when they are released. We're asking for your aye vote to turn that courage into a career. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any additional witnesses in support, please come forward. Just name affiliation.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in proud support.

Great. Thank you.

Shervin Aazami with Initiate Justice Action, a proud co sponsor and on behalf of the VER Institute of Justice in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair Members. Kathy McBride on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy, also a co sponsor in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kris Rosa on behalf of Cal Forest, the California Forestry Association, in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? All right. See no witnesses in opposition. We're going to move it to the Members. Senator Laird, then Senator Grove.

You always go that way.