Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

This begins the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing for today. I was just informed that the senate is currently in session. Hoping senate authors can still get here as quickly as possible. Noticing the absence of a quorum, we'll start as a subcommitee while we wait for quorum.

If you're a member of this committee, please come to the hearing room so that we can establish quorum. I want to especially thank our colleague from Kern, Mr. Ellis, for being the only Republican to make it on time today. And welcome John, our new Republican consultant to the dais.

We have three items that are proposed for consent when we get a quorum. That's item number two, SB 234, in the yellow. Item number three, SB 484 Laird. And item seven, SB 839 Laird. That leaves five bills that will be presented once we have authors and once we have a quorum.

Madam Secretary, it appears that a quorum is now present. Thank you to the members of the committee for being on time. Can we call. Can we call the roll?

[roll call]

Thank you. Quorum is present. We have a motion to move the consent calendar by Mr. Schultz. Seconded by Ms. Pellerin. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Calendar items are SB 234 Niello, SB 484 Laird, SB 839 Laird.

[roll call]

The consent calendar has been moved and is out. We will leave it open for absent members. We have five bills to be presented as soon as our senate colleagues join us.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll on the asset Members for the consent calendar?

[Roll Call]

Just want to make note that our Vice Chair has arrived. Mr. Alanis is here.

He's been saying that your photos need to be photos. I disagree. I told you he'd agree. Natural is the best.

Welcome. That's a good dude. Daughter just graduated from UCLA.

Okay, go through it. We go back.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll on the consent calendar for the absent Members again?

[Roll Call]

Awesome. And we're going to have SB file item one, SB88 Caballero. Presented by her co author, Mr. Flora.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present SB 88 for Senator Caballero. As we all know, California has been battled devastating wildfires in recent years, with most recently the fires in LA causing catastrophic damage.

These fires are fueled in part by overgrown forests, urban inclusion, and can chaparral growth releasing a significant amount of smoke, toxins and carbon particles into the air and accelerating climate change.

Moreover, the burning of agricultural waste, while an established practice, results in massive amounts of harmful emissions, including greenhouse gases, black carbon, substances that significantly contribute to global warming. Open air burn is no longer allowed in San Joaquin Valley Air District. But without alternative solutions, growers will have a hard time to comply.

By converting biomass to a useful product such as biofuels, biochar, and low carbon energy, we can not only avoid these emissions, but also create new economic opportunities for rural communities in agricultural lands, rural areas. Much of the state produces a significant agricultural waste. You know what? My families grew up growing almonds. And this is a great bill.

It's something that we've needed for a long time and we've. We chip, we shred. We have nothing to use this product for. So to put it to good use, I think is a great piece of legislation and I'm just going to turn it over to our expert witnesses. And respectfully ask your I vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Alberto Ayala. I'm the Air Pollution Control Officer and Executive Director of the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District. We are co sponsoring SB 88 and I want to thank senators and the member for your support. My agency is responsible for meeting all air quality standards in the Greater Capital Region.

To protect public health, we seek to reduce air pollution through traditional programs like our cleaner projects, air monitoring, permitting enforcement. We also oversee prescribed and agricultural burning to manage and reduce smoke impacts that come from open burning.

Our agency, along with eight other air districts spanning 11 counties in the northern Sacramento Valley are advocating for alternatives because if we don't burn, we are helping improve air quality. If we don't burn biomass and utilize it, we can increase economic development, especially in rural California, allowing farmers to be a part of the state's clean energy transition.

Using biomass to create useful products like biochar and hydrogen instead of burning makes sense. We support the use of non combustion technologies like acification, what we refer to as biomass energy 2.0 to distinguish it from traditional biomass energy plants. These are smaller scale, more localized conversion facilities that create little excess pollution.

SB 88 promotes the use of biomass for bioenergy by asking CARB to include a strategy in the next scoping plan update to support beneficial carbon storage products like biochar. It also requires the Energy Commission to include any relevant agent. Include in any relevant agency reports the value proposition from utilizing biomass to produce fuels like hydrogen.

We believe California needs to embrace a multitude of energy solutions to meet our collective air quality and climate goals, and biomass utilization should be included in the array of options. Thank you for allowing us to testify.

Hello, Good afternoon, my name is Christiana Darlington. Sorry for those that are behind me. I'm with the Placer County Air Pollution Control District and we're co sponsoring this bill this afternoon.

I'd like to focus one study that we conducted in 2011 where our district demonstrated that there is a significant air quality benefit to using wood that would all otherwise be open pile burned and instead using it in a biomass facility that showed that we would have a 98% reduction in PM as well as a 60% reduction in NOx, which is the harmful pollutant that causes smog.

These benefits would be even more significant if the wood is processed through an advanced technology system that uses, for example, ceramic filters. It is important to emphasize that forest biomass residuals that we are referring to in this bill are specifically wood that is being removed for wildfire mitigation, not for trees that are grown for power.

That is not what we're talking about in terms of wood in this case and we are happy to be moving this bill forward.

We see that this is going to help CARB include this issue of biochar and looking at the value of biochar in the next scoping plan, which we think is a really good research effort as well as another part of the bill that hasn't been mentioned yet is directing CAL FIRE to look specifically at quantifying how much biomass should come out from different projects that it's funding right now.

The projects are required to consider waste, but there really isn't a lot of direction to the project proponents to figure out how much can be burned in prescribed fire versus how much of it should not be burned and how much of it could come out to be used in different circumstances.

So that is another really important focus of the bill. If you have other questions, please feel free to ask. Thank you very much.

Awesome. Any persons in opposition? Or, well. Go ahead sport. I see y' all, come on.

I was coming up with some yesterday there. Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in support.

Good afternoon. Also in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of Humboldt Redwood Company and Mendocino Redwood Company in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Dominic Di Mare here standing in for Matt Klopfenstein who couldn't make it. On behalf of the California Bioenergy Association and Aqua in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Taylor Triffo on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers, California Citrus Mutual, California Fresh Fruit Association, Nisei Farmers League and Ag Energy Consumers Association in support.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento in support.

Dylan Elliott on behalf of Fresno County in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and members. Jon Kenrdick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

George Kavinta on behalf of the Almond Alliance. In support.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition in the room? Thank you for joining.

Thank you, Chair Bryan and Committee Members. Do I have two minutes or four minutes to to present my testimony?

About two minutes, but if you go a little over, I'm willing to be generous. Okay.

I'm Shaye Wolf. I'm a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. We and 13 other groups strongly oppose SB 88's provisions which incorrectly assume that woody biomass energy and products are beneficial and which mandate CARB to entrench and incentivize the biomass products industry in the next scoping plant.

It's because the evidence is clear that making woody biomass products like electricity, hydrogen, methane, bio oil and biochar is dirty and expensive. The main processes used, combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis, are major emitters of carbon dioxide and air pollution.

Making these woody biomass products worsens the climate crisis, harms public health often in environmental justice communities, industrializes and depletes our carbon storing forests, and burdens taxpayers because these products are so expensive. Biomass energy is California's most expensive electricity source. Biomass proponents push many false justifications for their products.

They claim that forests must be logged and thin for wildfire safety. Yet the most effective way to protect communities during wildfire is making homes and other structures more ignition resistant by investing in hardening. Vegetation management in the ignition zone immediately surrounding homes and other structures is what matters, not logging distant forest.

Logging and thinning can even be counterproductive by making forests hotter, drier and more wind prone, causing fires to burn faster and hotter. Another claim is the false choice that making biomass products is the only alternative to pile burning.

But where logging and thinning is happening, cut trees can be lopped, scattered, and left on the forest floor. We don't need to pile burn or to make dirty biomass products. We ask that SB 88 be amended into a study bill. All bill provisions that mandate and promote woody biomass products should be struck.

Woody biomass products are a bad investment in the wrong answer for California. We support requiring CARB to develop methods to quantify life cycle emissions from biomass products and the bill should add requirements for robust public participation and expert input in developing those methods. Thank you.

Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition?

I've been asked to note opposed unless amended position from the following organizations in alignment with the lead speaker, Valley Improvement Projects, Green America. Sorry, My list went 350. Humboldt Biofuel Watch, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Climate Action California, Earth Justice, Environmental Protection Information Center, Forest Forever, Forest Unlimited, Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center. NRDC, Sierra Club California, Partnership for Policy Integrity, and Sonoma County Climate Activist Network. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to committee members. Questions? Comments from committee members? Mr. Ellis.

I have a question for the scientists. Do you know what activated carbon is?

Activated carbon? Would you describe what you're referring to?

It's water purification and air purification made from pyrolysis of organic matter.

So I am very familiar with the pyrolysis process, including fast pyrolysis and slow pyrolysis and what it entails and what the pollution products are from that process.

And the products that derive, that's derived from the process.

Yeah. So I'm familiar with the process of pyrolysis taking trees or agricultural material woody biomass at high heat with no oxygen and turning that into gases, liquids, and solids. And the main gases are going to be carbon dioxide. There can be methane and hydrogen and carbon monoxide. But carbon dioxide, climate pollutant, is a main product.

It also converts those trees into some kind of nasty liquids like bio oil that are toxic tar. It makes also some solids like ash and particulate matter. So a lot of the air pollution that's coming off that process includes particulate matter, NOx, stocks, and carcinogens like benzene. So I am familiar familiar with that pyrolysis.

And you also make from the assist pyrolysis products like the activated carbon which purify air intake organic compounds out of the air and also purify water in many organic situations. So thank you.

Seeing no other questions comments from committee members. Mr. Flor, would you like to close? And also, are you accepting the amendments on behalf of Senator Caballero?

Seems like a reasonable thing to do. We are. And I just respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you, sir. Motion. Second by Mr. Garcia. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll as a do pass reco from the chair?

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[roll call]

That bill is out.

Assembly Member Kalra, on behalf of Senator Cortese. Both on behalf of San Jose. Whenever you're ready, sir.

San Jose is representing today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SB653 defines the term environmentally sensitive vegetation management, or ESVM, to mean vegetation management that reduces catastrophic wildfire risk over the long term while supporting native wildlife and biodiversity. Establishing a definition for this term will set the stage for future legislation that can cross reference the definition.

This Bill also encourages any state entity that funds ESVM programs to consider prioritizing practices that align with the definition established by this Bill. ESVM will help protect our state's unique and globally significant biodiversity. This Bill is sponsored by the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and has received bipartisan support.

With us here today is Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist from Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, and Doug Johnson, Executive Director of the California Invasive Plant Council.

Two minutes each.

Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak on support of SB653. My name is Cody Sifuentes-Winter, and I'm the Supervisory Vegetation Ecologist for Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, which stewards over 70,000 acres of public lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains, part of one of the world's recognized biodiversity hotspots.

For over the last 50 years, Midpen has combined ecological restoration with wildfire fuel reductions to protect both communities and ecosystems. SB653 supports this dual purpose approach by establishing a clear science based definition for environmentally sensitive vegetation management, also known as ESVM. This definition does not change how vegetation. Management for wildfire mitigation is conducted.

Rather, it provides a consistent voluntary framework for funding agencies and partners to recognize when a project may also deliver ecologically co benefits such as restoring native habitats, protecting biodiversity, and increasing ecosystem resiliency. Importantly, SB653 imposes no mandates, no new costs, and does not interfere with existing tools and programs.

It simply offers optional guidance for agencies developing grant opportunities and seeks to support ESBM projects. Clarity like this matters. When we can align around shared principles and language, we can move faster and more effectively, accelerating the work that protects both our communities and California's extraordinary natural heritage. I respectfully urge you aye vote on SB 653.

Thank you for your time and leadership.

Great. Thanks Coty. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and Committee Members. Doug Johnson I'm the Executive Director of the nonprofit conservation group California Invasive Plant Council. People sometimes get us confused with the California Native Plant Society. We work very closely together. Invasive plants harm native plants. We're trying to protect native plants and native habitat for wildlife.

We work to support folks like Coty across the state working to protect our natural areas, whether through local land trusts, national parks, and everything in between. Invasive plants are one of the significant conservation concerns that Coty and fellow land managers need to deal with, and so we provide a lot of resources to help them in that work.

One of the things that invasive plants really like is disturbed areas, and so vegetation management, which often needs to be done for wildlife, excuse me, for wildfire fuels reduction, can cause disturbance.

And so this is something where we need to get as much vegetation management done as possible, and we also need to be aware of the disturbance and the possibility that that provides the means for weeds to spread. And sometimes the weeds are themselves the fuels. So you don't want to do that.

So as Coty said, this definition in this Bill is voluntary. It allows agencies that want to put together special programs to undertake projects to do vegetation management in a more environmentally sensitive way with special funds to undertake that, and it gives them something to refer to in order to do that. So we strongly support this Bill.

Thank you sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure now turn to Committee Members. Any questions? Comments? Question by Ms. Pellerin.

Love the Bill. And I'D like to be added as a co author. Thank you.

Amazing. I imagine that is because of today's presentation. We have a motion by Vice Chair Alanis and a second by Ms. Pellerin. Are you accepting the amendments on behalf of Mr. Cortese?

I will be accepting those amendments.

Thank you, sir. Would you like to close?

I would. I would like to respectfully ask for an aye vote. And would also like to be added as co author.

I think you have earned that. Madam Secretary. Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you. Mr. Kalra, on behalf of Mr. Stern, the Member who most closely resembles him. Mr. Schultz, whenever you're ready, sir.

All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair and Members, on behalf of State Senator Henry Stern, pleased to present SCR50. SCR50 urges the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to exercise other regulatory efforts to define maladaption and suggest criteria where agencies review their climate responsive policies investments.

Maladaption refers to actions that may lead to increased risk of adverse climate related outcomes including via increased greenhouse gas emissions, increase or shifted vulnerability to climate change, more inequitable outcomes or diminished welfare now or in the future. Most often, maladaption is an unintended consequence. The critical Los Angeles river is an example of maladaption.

When the region attempted to re to resolve devastating floods by building a concrete waterway system that whisked stormwater out to the Pacific Ocean. It did not consider the need of stormwater capture, groundwater recharge and extreme heat resiliency. State of California lacks consistent criteria for assessing strengths weaknesses of climate resilience planning efforts.

It is in the interest of the state to ensure that all of our policies are supporting climate resiliency. In order to use state funding wisely to address climate change impacts, State of California must focus on communities, climate resilience and preparation for climate related catastrophes instead of resigning to purely recovery oriented efforts efforts.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, for each dollar invested in climate resiliency preparation, $13 are saved in economic costs, damages and cleanup that would be spent if not for the investment in community climate resilience.

According to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation study, the recent fires in Los Angeles alone could lead to reductions in labor income of up to $3.7 billion.

While federal, state and local governments could experience tax revenue losses starting from 730 million dollars projected up to as high as $1.4 billion, the total cost to rebuild and recover are estimated at $270 billion. The total cumulative cost of seven extreme heat events which affected many Californians amounts to $7.7 billion.

Roughly one in five Californians are at risk of flooding and all 58 counties have had severe flood emergencies. Floods have the capacity to have more economic impact than wildfires or earthquakes, with a large statewide flood potentially leading to $1 trillion in damages.

As the impacts of climate change increasingly disrupt California's well being and our economy, efforts to plan and implement climate resilience and adaption strategies must accelerate. In closing, SCR50 is a call to Action for government efficiency measures to poise California to make informed and cost effective decisions to strengthen its climate adaption strategies.

With that, I'll now turn to our witness in support, Enrique Huerta, Legislative Director for Climate Resolve.

Thank you Assemblymember Schultz. Good afternoon Chair Bryan and Members of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. I am Enrique Huerta, Legislative Director at Climate Resolve. We are a nonprofit organization based in Los Angeles, California who inclusively develop practical initiatives that reduce climate pollution and prepare for climate impacts.

Thank you for the opportunity to support SCR50, authored by Senator Henry Stern and sponsored by Climate Resolve. I'd like to make three points. First, year after year climate change leaves its devastating mark on communities all over the state and each year the cost to rebuild significantly increase.

Second, projections of climate change show that even under the best case scenario for global emission reductions, additional climate change impacts are inevitable and these impacts pose tremendous risks to the state's people, agriculture, economy, infrastructure and the environment.

Third, thankfully, state leadership answered this call to action by issuing Executive order B3015, which called for taking climate change into account in planning and decision making as it will help the state make more informed decisions and avoid high costs in the future. However, the state lacks consistent criteria for assessing strengths and weaknesses of climate resilience planning efforts.

SCR50 will urge the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to examine other regulatory efforts to define maladaptation and suggest criteria where agencies review their policies and investments to be future safe. For these reasons, I respectfully request an aye vote on SCR50. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure. Any opposition to this measure, seeing none, will now turn it back to Committee Members. Questions? Comments? Concerns? Mr. Schultz on behalf of Mr. Stern would you like to close

We respectfully ask for your aye vote Mr. Chair

Thank you do we have a motion motion by Mr. Alanis second by Mr. Garcia before we call this roll this measure was proposed for consent and I'm only throwing that out as we have a new consultant in the building so if this vote goes how I suspect it might question should be raised why it was not on consent as we move forward down this process but with that Madam Secretary can we call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The resolution is out thank you

Thank you Mr. Chair.

To close us out on behalf of pro tem elect Limon we have Assembly Members of Zbur.

Whenever you're ready, sir.

SP 567 first? Great. Okay, perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, proud to present SB 567 on behalf of Senator Limon. The California Energy Commission has projected that we need 52,000 megawatts of energy storage by 2045 to meet electricity demand.

To reach this goal, we'll need a variety of types of energy storage, large and small, across the state. The State has nearly 39,000 idle oil wells. SB567 would create a pathway to pilot and study the use of gravity wells and how this technology may be able to take advantage of idle oil wells to create more energy storage.

It will allow the permitting of gravity wells with appropriate and rigorous testing and reporting afterwards to determine the impacts of this new technology. This includes assessing the mechanical integrity no less than annually and continuous monitoring and reporting for any leaks.

After eight years, CalEPA will create recommendations to the Legislature on a framework for continuing the usage of gravity wells.

And to create these recommendations, CalEPA will work with relevant stakeholders, including the State Water Resources Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the State Air Resources Board, the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, local jurisdictions, environmental and environmental justice organizations and tribes.

I have with me today in support Pete Montgomery with Renew Well Energy. Go ahead, Pete.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Members. Pete Montgomery, on behalf of Renewell Energy, we're the sponsor of SB567, also the operator of the world's first commercial scale gravity energy storage well located in Mr. Ellis's district. We are very grateful to Senator Limone for authoring this important legislation.

Again, as Assemblymembers of mentioned, SB 567 sets us on the path to addressing two really important challenges.

Converting idle and orphan wells to gravity energy storage wells will increase the rate in which these wells gets plugged and monitored for emissions and leakage and will also provide critical and flexible energy storage that enables the deployment of more renewable energy.

Although this bill is only a pilot program for converting auto wells to gravity wells, it's much needed because it sets a - there's a set of criteria that's created with safeguards and analysis of the benefits of well conversion.

I just want to point out I greatly appreciate the work of the Committee in addressing the concerns of the opposition in the analysis by pointing out that SB 567 already contains strong provisions for site selection and monitoring that will provide strong environmental protections.

A nearly identical version of this measure passes committee on consent last year, and the bill enjoys support from a diverse group of stakeholders, including business, labor, local governments, and environmental groups respectfully ask for an aye vote today.

Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and embers. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Mike Monaghan on behalf of the State Building Trades; appreciate working with Mr. Montgomery on this bill. Ask for your aye vote.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Bob Reeb with Reeb Government Relations appearing on behalf of the Water Replenishment District who is opposed unless amended. So, the districts not opposed to creation of a pilot program with 250 of these repurposed idle oil and gas wells.

We are concerned, however, that these experimental wells, if you will, should not be placed in the Central and West Coast basins. These are two groundwater basins that the Legislature created the Water Replenishment District to replenish and manage and protect. In terms of groundwater quality, they provide 50% of the water supply for 4 million Californians.

Now, we understand that the bill does have some standards that would have to be met. However, the bill notes that if a well loses mechanical integrity, it shall cease operation as a gravity-based energy storage well until that mechanical integrity is restored.

And the bill says that a gravity-based energy storage well has lost its mechanical integrity shall be plugged and abandoned within one year. So, whatever caused the breach of this well and the resulting contamination to flow into the groundwater aquifer can continue for up to a year.

We're dealing here with communities, disadvantaged communities that have had to deal with legacy pollution for decades. There are, as you heard, about 35,000 of these idle oil and gas wells in California. Within the service area, the Water Replenishment District.

In these two basins, there's 1868 wells located in the cities of Compton, Englewood, Lawndale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Montebello, Santa Fe Springs, Torrance and Whittier. Most of these are on the CalEnviroScreen SB 535 disadvantaged communities list.

If the Legislature amends this bill, there would still be 1375 idle oil and gas wells in Los Angeles County alone that could be eligible for these 250 wells, not to mention 32,000 other idle oil and gas wells in California.

So, we don't think it's too much to ask for during the duration of this eight-year pilot program that these two groundwater basins be protected.

The second amendment we're seeking is that when you heard that if there's a leak that the operator shall notify a number of entities, we're simply asking that that list includes a groundwater sustainability agency, a water master, since there's no GSAs and adjudicated basins like this and the public water system. Why?

Because if a groundwater well for drinking water purposes continues to be operated and there's a release of contamination, the well field, that contamination is going to be drawn to that drinking water well. It's like a straw and a glass of water. It brings everything to that well.

We're already dealing with 61 wells in the central basin that have PFAS contamination. It's going to cost upwards of $300 million.

Well over three minutes.

And so that cost now is being borne by the Water Replenishment District and these disadvantaged communities. We want to protect these groundwater basins. If it comes back that these are okay and they haven't had any releases or leaks in eight years, then the Legislature will revisit at that point in time.

Thank you, sir.

Absent these two amendments, we'd ask for a no vote.

Thank you, sir. Any person in the hearing room in opposition. Seeing none. Turn to committee members. Questions, comments? Mr. Ellis?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. So, I spent 40 years in the oil and gas industry. You, you have make some good points I would like to bring up.

Probably the most significant point is that when most of those wells in that basin that are oil and gas are under pressured and really because of all the depletion over the years and all the pumping.

So, I would say that in comment to your comments, the likelihood of any migration of oil and gas into the water table would be pretty highly unlikely unless it was a truly mechanical failure of the casing or, you know, the apparatus that we're rubbing.

But from a, from a pragmatic standpoint, when there's no pressure, there should be no migration and they've been depleted over the that's why there's not much drilling activity anymore because they're all depleted. So, thank you very much for your comments.

Any other questions, comments from committee members? Do we have a motion? A motion and a second? Would you like to close? Mr. Zbur.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

So interestingly enough, I agree with my colleague from Kern County and this, this idea was first brought to me, I don't know, three or four years ago by an old friend and colleague who's now in Congress.

A good significant number of the wells in the LA basin are in fact in my district and I've been pretty aggressive in trying to shut them down and think through what can and might need to happen in that space.

I don't know that this is the exact answer, but I think Senator Limon raising the idea of piloting this process and exploring what potential benefits there could be is something worth bipartisan consideration. So, there's a do pass recommendation today and Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

Mr. Zbur, would you like to close us out on behalf of Senator Simone? Yes. Limon.

Proud to present SB831 on behalf of Senator Limon. California has a notorious history of destructive natural disasters, including devastating earthquakes, landslides and wildfires. To mitigate the potential impacts from these disasters, the Department of Conservation performs essential functions related to geographic hazard mapping, providing vital information for the hazard prone areas.

Prioritizing the mapping of geologic hazards is an important step for state and local planning, further ensuring public health and safety protections. SB 831 clarifies the scope of current law by including in the definition of geologic hazards certain conditions that may occur in relation to natural disasters and climate change.

As the effects of a changing climate become more apparent, mineral hazards, post fire debris flow subsidence and inland coastal erosion must be clarified as potential dangers to life and property under the definition.

Acknowledging the exacerbating influence of climate change stressors on geologic hazards ensures the state has more clarity on when and where to focus vital resources to better plan for hazards in the future. We have with us today Adam Harper with the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association to offer testimony in support of the Bill.

Chair Members of the Committee Adam Harper, Senior Director of Policy with the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association strong support of SB831. The Bill adds clarity to the essential duties of an unheralded but important state institution, the California Geological Survey.

As a representative of the mineral and mining industry, I have had the great benefit of the knowledge and publications of the survey throughout my career. I have also heard countless briefings from the state geologists to the Mining Board on the many services the survey provides.

There is, of course, the post fire Slope Stability Analysis where the survey gets on the ground quickly after fires, identifying slopes and hillsides that need to be stabilized. There is their work identifying minerals of statewide and regional importance, helping to ensure we know where minerals critical for human well being may be developed.

A personal favorite, there is also the work identifying and mapping areas of the state which may have geologic and mineral hazards, such as radon gas and earthquake falls, and slopes subject to landslides. By a coincidence of timing, I heard the survey briefing the state mining board on an earthquake cluster in the Sea of Japan.

They were monitoring closely. Fukushima happened the next morning. I've also heard briefings on each earthquake that has hit California over the past two decades and the work the survey does identifying new faults and hazards such as liquefaction zones.

As a result of those events, our state's diverse geology has created a wealth of habitat and opportunity for the people of California. It is the Geological Survey, which was first established in 1860, that has enabled us to understand, adapt and thrive upon this diverse and complex geology.

CalCIMA is pleased to support SB831 and clarify the important roles served by the survey in helping us understand our environment so we can build a safer society. Thank you. And we ask for your aye vote on SB831.

Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Seeing none. Any persons here in opposition to this measure. Seeing none. Will now turn it back to Committee Members. Any questions? Comments? Mr. Muratsuchi?

Thank you. Mr. Zbur, I know you're presenting this on behalf of Senator Limon, but I have a situation that you may be aware of. The Palos Verdes landslide movement that. That has been exacerbated by the severe rainstorms over the past two winters. It sounds like this would be clarifying the scope of the Geological Survey's work. Is that your understanding of the Bill?

My understanding that it would clarify information related to coastal erosion.

Okay. All right, sir. All right. With Senator Limon's permission, I would like to be added as a co author and happy to make the motion for the Bill.

Motion by Mr. Muratsuchi. Second by Mr. Alanis. Thank you, sir. This Bill enjoys a do pass recommendation from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

The Bill has 10 votes. It is out. Members of this Committee who may have recently stepped out, now would be a great time to step back in. Yeah, absolutely. Mr. Vice Chair. You had an announcement?

Yes. Mr. Chair, I just want to say, obviously. As we all know, this is a good Committee where we did good Committee work. Good, robust Committee. We have a new consultant here, John Fitzpatrick. We'd like to welcome you to our family here. Thank you.

Welcome, John. With that, Madam Secretary, can we go through the roll and call absent Members? Yeah, starting with Mr. Hoover. And if we see others, let's wrangle them back in.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

I'm Sorry, this is file 8.

[Roll Call]

I was saying, I sat in this. Chair my first day.

We'll start turning up. Can we call the roll for the absent member?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The measure's out. And this concludes today's Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing. Thank you to our incredible team and Paige, who subbed in for Lawrence.