Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

You never. Well, good morning, everyone. We will call this hearing to order. Thank you for your patience while I was next door with Judic, which started a little earlier. So, to ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today, this hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website.

And Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 444. Let's go ahead with. I don't know that we have a quorum. We do have a quorum. Great. Well, let's take role and establish our quorum. First and foremost.

[Roll Call]

Okay, do we have. Let's get rid of the consent calendar in short order here. Do we have a motion? Great. We'll go ahead and take the vote. Whomever did it.

[Roll Call]

Nice work, people. Okay. Senator Caballero, thank you for your patience. Please come down. You want me to say this now or when? Okay, before you get started, I got a quick. I want to provide just a quick update on the motion for this mill when we get done.

The Committee has been informed that the technical amendments to address a conflict with AB 1250 aren't necessary anymore. So when we. When we start or when we vote on it, it'll be a motion of just do, pass, not do pass, as amended. Okay. And there'll be no Committee amendments. You're in the clear.

I know you didn't seem too worried.

It was a tough amendment.

I know, exactly. We'll straighten it out. Thank you for your pat. Please proceed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm pleased to present SB 72, a bill to modernize the California Water Plan to reflect the state's new climate reality and establish long-term water supply targets that, when met, will ensure sufficient, high-quality water for all beneficial uses in the state and will ensure a drought-proof future.

That's the key to this water plan is a drought-proof future. The California Water Plan is the state's strategic plan for sustainably managing and developing water resources for current and future needs, which is updated every five years and provides an opportunity to inform decision-makers.

Meaningful revisions to the Water Plan have not been made for 20 years, and during those 20 years, extreme weather patterns resulting from climate change has profoundly impacted water supply in the state for virtually all beneficial uses.

SB 72 would set an interim target of nine million acre feet of additional water by 2040 and the Department of Water Resources will develop any further long-term targets needed. Research supports these targets.

A UC research studies, entitled 'The Magnitude of California's Water Challenges,' estimates a shortfall in California's future water supply between 4.6 and nine million acre feet annually. This equates to 50 to 90% of California's urban water use or between 1.5 and three million acres of irrigated farmland.

The bottom line is with SGMA coming, it is estimated that, in the Central Valley, we are going to lose between one million acres of Ag land to three million acres of Ag land because we won't have the water necessary to support agriculture in that region.

This will have an absolute devastating impact on not only the state's economy but on our food supply. The research also supports a conclusion that California must plan for the future and utilize all of the tools in the toolbox. This includes investment in desalination, recycle and reuse, water storage, including groundwater recharge and demand management.

A new UC study entitled, 'Inactions: Economic Costs for California's Water Supply Challenges,' estimates that without better management, California faces up to 14.5 billion a year in economic loss and 67,000 jobs lost annually. Inaction isn't just an environmental risk, it threatens California jobs, market, and economic well-being.

Thousands of California residents already suffer from the lack of clean drinking water, unable to use the water that comes out of their tap and forced to buy bottled water, and I have, in Fresno, a bottle of water that I use as a tool to talk about water that is brown.

It complies with all state testing analyses as clean drinking water, but I venture you wouldn't even wash your clothes in it. You wouldn't give it to an animal to drink. It's just disgusting. So the challenge is with us today, and the longer that we delay, the harder it will be to remediate the problem.

As our population grows amid climate change, it's critical to develop a plan. An updated approach guided by state policy must be implemented to meet the challenge of navigating California's uncertain water future. In closing, without clearly defined water supply targets and strategic planning, the state will continue to experience devastating water shortages with devastating consequences.

SB 72 identifies targets to help us avoid water scarcity and to ensure a drought-proof future. It's a logical next step. With me today to testify is Craig Miller, General Manager for Western Municipal Water District and Paul Helliker, General Manager for San Juan Water District.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Craig Miller. I'm the General Manager at Western Municipal Water District. I'm also the President of California Municipal Utilities Association right now. In my service area, I serve about a million people within Riverside County.

My responsibility as a GM is to--it's simple, but it's all-encompassing. I just have to provide water all the time, no matter what, without fail; not just today, but I'm planning for the future of my grandchildren. It's an awesome responsibility. The job is actually getting a lot harder, and let me give you a real-world example.

Three years ago, the State Water Project was not doing well. In 2019, the system was full of water. By 2021, we had a zero allocation on the State Water Project. That's less than three years of resiliency in the state system. That's a pretty sobering example if you're a general manager and you're charged with serving water to a million customers. Sixty percent of my water comes from the State Water Project. That is frightening.

Six million Southern Californians were forced to apply for health and safety water at that time with DWR. My agency was literally one dry year away from cutting off supply to some major employers in the region: Pepsi, Albertsons, JBS Meats, and we'd be watching all of our community turn brown, our landscapes turning brown.

Research also proves we face major water supply gap, as the Senator pointed out, with potential disastrous ramifications to the state of up to $14.5 billion per year. You know, we're trying to put this in terms that people understand. Water supply is related to the economy of this state. That's not resilience.

That's taking on a huge risk if we don't move forward. SB 72 is the turning point. It sets real-world goals and planning requirements to ensure reliability, not just for my district, but for all Californians. It's not about taking water from one use and giving it to someone else. It's developing enough water for all uses, and the water is available. Mother Nature is providing the water. The past three years, an enormous amount of water has been released to the ocean. Why?

Because we haven't done a good job as the water industry in planning for and constructing the infrastructure to capture it and put it to beneficial use. SB 72 is the first step that we need to change this mindset, get out of a crisis mindset, and be planners.

We need to have a climate-resilient strategy. If we want to sustain the economic engine of the world's fourth largest economy, protect the high-quality of life for our communities, for the environment, for agriculture, we must take decisive action now. On behalf of Western Water, I urge your aye vote. I want to thank the Senator for her hard work to bring this forward, and thank you very much.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Paul Helliker. I'm the General Manager at San Juan Water District. We're a wholesale and retail supplier here in this neighborhood up in the Eastern Sacramento County, Western Placer County. We serve about 150,000 people. We rely on Folsom Reservoir, and we've seen firsthand that global warming is affecting the operations of Folsom Reservoir.

It's affecting other reservoirs as well throughout the state. In 2021, we saw almost a million acre feet of water just literally evaporate into the air. Couldn't find it in the snowpack, it didn't run down into the reservoirs, so that was the experience we had that year.

As Craig mentioned, the following year, we had a zero percent allocation on the State Water Project. Many of the agricultural users in the Central Valley also got zero water that year from the surface and they had to use groundwater instead. Then in 2023, we saw 700 inches of snow or more in the Sierra Nevada, and so Governor Newsom and his Administration then started using the term, 'weather whiplash.'

And that's true. We've definitely seen weather whiplash, and it's continuing to increase. So despite the fact that the governor released his water strategy in 2022, which this bill builds on, he mentioned just last week that we're not prepared. Well, the solution, the way to prepare for this is SB 72. It will set a statewide target, but also, more importantly, it will set up a strategic plan to meet that target. So we support it, we appreciate the Senator's leadership on this, and we ask your support.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone from the audience? I think we do to be a #MeToo. Ms. Koepke, start us off.

Great. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, otherwise known as CCEEB. We're pleased to strongly support the bill and offer our [cut audio].

Good morning. Lily MacKay, on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and West Valley Water District, in support. Thank you.

Hello. Kristy Foy with Three Valleys Municipal Water District, in strong support.

Good morning. Pilar Onate-Quintana, here for the Irvine Ranch Water District, in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association, co-sponsor and proud supporter. Thank you.

Good morning. Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of Burbank Department of Water and Power. Support.

Morning, Madam Chair and members. Ed Manning on behalf of Mojave Water Agency and Western Growers, in support.

Good morning. Sharon Gonsalvez, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks and the City of Roseville's Environmental Utility Department, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jaime Minor, on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, Turlock Irrigation District, West Basin Municipal Water District, and Monterey One Water. Pleased to support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cody Boyles, on behalf of Grower Shipper Association and California Fresh Fruit Association, in support.

Good morning. Ross Buckley, on behalf of the City of Sacramento, in support.

Good morning. Catherine Freeman, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, proud co-sponsor and in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition, also in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Waleed Hojeij, representing the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Madison Dwelley with Political Solutions, on behalf of the California Water Association, in support.

Good morning. Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority, in support.

Good morning. Dana Nichol with Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of our clients: Bellflower-Somerset Mutual Water Company, Desert Water Agency, El Dorado Irrigation District, Palmdale Water District, Puente Basin Water Agency, Rowland Water District, Solano County Water Agency, Walnut Valley Water District, and Water Replenishment District of Southern California, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Obed Franco, here on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District, the Fire District Association of California, and the California Fire Chiefs Association, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Mark Smith, on behalf of Zone 7 Water Agency, El Dorado Water Agency, Patterson Irrigation District, and the Grassland Water District, in support. Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nossaman, here on behalf of Olivenhain Municipal Water District and County of Monterey Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Vivian Zirkel with Valley Water, in support.

Good morning. Jared Moss, on behalf of the City of Riverside, in support.

Good morning, members. Jason Ikerd, on behalf of the Rancho California Water District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and Orange County Water District, all in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Cucamonga Valley Water District, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley, and on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair, committee members. Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California, in support.

I'm sure there was some segment of California that wasn't covered, but I couldn't imagine. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Morning.

Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee. We have, still, two main objections to this Bill. First, we see it as actually going backwards.

I first got involved in the water plan process back in 1998 where the process was they would forecast how much water demand there was going to be, they would forecast how much water was available under current operations, and would then come up with a plan to fill that gap.

The problem is that there's a lot more to having an efficient water system than just water. For example, the Senator talked about the water in her bottle that's dark and people won't drink it. It doesn't do you any good to have water if you can't drink it or if you can't afford it.

Which leads to our second issue. We're very much concerned that the 9 million acre feet estimate or target in this Bill is too high. The consequences of having too much of over projecting your water demand is that you will tend to over build or over invest in your water system, which makes water much more expensive.

We're seeing this problem already down in San Diego County and it's quite likely to start happening in other counties as well. For all intents and purposes, all of California's rivers and streams are either fully or over appropriated. To accommodate this—the targets—in this Bill, it's going to have to come from someplace.

We're already having problems establishing minimum in stream flows to support our ecosystem and this Bill is likely to make that even more challenging. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in the audience in opposition? Not witnesses, but you know what I mean.

Natalie Browning from the Planning Conservation League, sharing opposition. Thank you.

Gabriel Tolson on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the Golden Gate Salmon Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay with that, thank you so much. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions, comments? Assemblymember Rogers.

Thanks so much, Chair. And thank you, Senator for bringing the Bill. I did have a question that was related to the 9 million acre feet. As was mentioned in the testimony in the governor's 2022 strategy, the target was set at 7 million acre feet. And then, you subsequently brought a Bill in 2023 that was vetoed.

Here we are two years later. So, kind of two questions. One, where's that 9 million acre feet target coming from? What's the science behind it? And then two, given the Governor's previous veto, why do you think things will be different with this Bill?

So, let me answer the last question first. Who knows? I mean, I really have to—I'm being a little facetious.

But the challenge, I think, in terms of trying to figure out where the Governor is coming from is because water bills that I've been able to put on his desk that give us information end up getting vetoed because of cost.

And as an example, and I'll draw our attention to the year that there was snow up in the mountains and then, by the time that that snow started to melt, it dissipated. It didn't do anything for the rivers. And I want to call the attention to Turlock Irrigation District.

They are very forward thinking and they have made some expenditures to know, with precision, what resources are coming from snowmelt for their system. Because if they make a miscalculation, then they don't have it. They're in trouble because they run an energy system and a water system and you need the water for the energy.

And what they did is they used lidar technology to go up and do a couple of runs over the snow melt and that's how they repurposed their dams. So, when we talk about additional acre feet, it doesn't all have to be in the rivers, as was alleged.

I'm not looking to get more water to starve fish out of the rivers. I'm looking to get more water so that people have it and the business community have it when they need it during the droughts.

So, so, the question in regards to the Governor, I'm hoping that at some point there's a recognition that when we do water bonds, the question, and I've been intimately involved in working on water bonds, you need to know what's the infrastructure in place in order to be able to move water from one area that may have water to another area or that may be using recycled water and can be used on agriculture in a way that's different than potable—at a potable level.

In other words, we need to know where we need to go with the infrastructure in order to be able to plan this. We would have known that that snow melt was not worth anything had we done the lidar technology.

But instead, because it was a 9 or $10 million price tag at a time when we had significant resources, it was vetoed. It's my hope that in the final year of his governorship, that Governor Newsom recognizes that we're going to need some new tools in the toolbox and the public supports water bonds fairly significantly.

We're going to need to do another water bond in the near future, and if we have the plan, that's going to be really important. So, that's to the second Question. The first question?

How did you come up with a 9 million acre feet?

Yes. So, the first year there were a number of studies out that estimated up to about $9 million.

But what we ended up doing is we commissioned a study that took a look at all the water needs in the state and the number that they landed on, looking at all the studies, kind of peer reviewing everything, that the number was 9 million acre feet.

And so, we've gone with that number, again, because initially, if you look back at the original Bill that I did, I had 15 million acre—or 10 million acre feet—and then it was 15 million acre feet by 2050 and we got rid of that as too far out to make an analysis and we stuck with the 9 million based on what came out of our study as well.

Okay, so your study, which was done just a year or so later than the Governor's was off by 2 million from what the Governor's study did? Correct. Okay. Yeah. You mentioned fish minimum flows. It's really important to me in my district.

Me too.

Particularly when we talk about things like the climate.

How did you account for local ecology in that process or how will you, if this Bill moves forward and you have this process that you're—this planning process—how are you going to account for the needs of fish and the local ecology in those streams?

So, this Bill does not designate how or where that resource is going to come from.

In other words, it is, it is a plan that takes into consideration all of the needs in the state and doesn't pick winners or losers, in terms of adjusting flows or making. What it is, is it's a recognition that we have all of these needs in the state and that if we're going to meet the future needs, we're going to have to do something different.

Let me just say that one of the biggest challenges I think we're going to have to the, the ability to operate in a way that protects fish. Up in your area, you get a significant amount of rainfall.

But in my area, we depend, which is the Central Valley, we depend on snow melt and if we don't have snow melt, we're going to run into issues. And that's part of what's happened already is that the snow melt is such that it is nonexistent in drought years.

And in those drought years, you don't have the water temperature or the water turbidity that's required to be able to sustain the fish life that travels upriver and spawns and then comes back down. It's a problem.

We've got to figure out how we're going to deal with because it's predicted that by 2040, we will have no more snow melt. That's devastating.

Yeah, I mean, I think you're hitting it on the head too, that it's not even a question of how much water. It's also a question of when. And obviously, we see that with managing fish populations and when they need that minimum flows in those streams, frankly, for temperature control as well.

Could I add as a footnote, part of what I think is our opportunity is to use technology to give us information.

And I have a Bill that's on consent today and that deals with atmospheric rivers and there is modeling that's being done, as we speak, that can tell us when those atmospheric rivers are likely to hit our shores, how much water they—when they're going to hit, how active they are.

So, will they move through, or will they stay for a while and, and how much water are they going to drop? The reason this becomes important, in my district, is because we had significant flooding the last wet year.

And the challenge was, is all that water, if we could have saved it, if we could have captured it, set up the infrastructure to save it, put it on ag land, we could get it underground fairly economically. But we have fundamentally changed how we do agriculture.

It's drip irrigation now, so all the weirs and the gates and everything that used to be in place have been taken out. We need that data to be able to tell us where should we put that back in again.

One, so that we don't flood, and two, so that when the water comes, we're able to divert it in a way that creates an opportunity for us to store it.

And so, it's a whole series of things that I think we need to prepare for, in order for us to be wise stewards of a really limited, precious resource.

Yeah, well, I'm going to support the Bill today. I do note that there's an Advisory Committee that already had interests like agriculture and business. You are adding in a couple of, I think, good additional representatives, like tribal communities and labor representatives. I just ask that you also consider perhaps putting in a spot for the fishing community.

Okay.

So that, especially as you have these conversations about regional differences—you're right, my district gets a lot more water than other parts of the state, but that doesn't mean that those folks shouldn't have a voice in how this is being played out. So, with that, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Tangipa.

I just wanted to make sure I took a moment to say thank you to the Senator. You have always prioritized the Central Valley. You have always looked at water. I even mimicked one of my bills that unfortunately died after one of yours, because of your dedication and what you've seen and something that we all talk about, especially in the valley is where water flows, life grows.

And you know, I think about, you know, a lot of your priorities here in this Bill do focus on just creating a full, long-term plan and making the adjustments necessary that we need.

And I mean, I think about the additional $9 million—or 9 million acre feet—that we need. If we think about it, this year alone we're about 117% to 119% waterfall that happened this year. That would mean on average, California is at 200 million acre feet. We had 34 million acre feet of waterfall in this state.

How do we store, how do we capture it? We could find the 9 million acre feet right there pretty easily. Same thing for happening in 2023, and especially when we start long term Planning on the 40 Year Wet Cycle that we have here in California.

I think that you see that. You factored in a lot, but you also bring in again, and I join my colleague, a lot of the other additional groups, tribes, to have a say in this. So, I think it's a full, comprehensive plan.

And I also just wanted to make sure I was saying thank you always for your dedication in Central Valley and I always wish you good luck in future endeavors as well, as I heard your announcement. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Any other questions? Comments? Oh, Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've, I think I've made it pretty known to a few of you that water is very important, especially us desert folks in the Inland Empire, Imperial County, San Bernardino, and Riverside County. It's really important, but more so the thinking about the future.

And we had a great conversation about how do we really start working towards the future of water. My colleague already talked a lot about the issues. I'm thankful that my other colleague talked about all the players involved. You did that. So, thank you for your leadership and your continued leadership. I have one question, Mr. Miller.

I understand there was a recent UC research conducted that shows billions in economic risk if the state continues the status quo on water supply. How would SB 72 address these concerns?

Yeah, when we try and articulate the risk of not having enough water supply, it's really hard to get 9 million acre feet into terminology that normal people that are not in the water industry understand. And so, we really want to put a financial spin on that.

And so, what would that mean to this economy, this huge economy that California drives? And if we're not building the 9 million acre feet, we asked the University of California to do a study and said, well, what would happen to the economy? Because we know, as water managers, we're the ones that evaluate not approving housing tracts.

A lot of information and news on housing yesterday. And it comes to us to approve housing starts and if we have to start, you know, cutting back because we don't have the water supply that's going to be available for the next 20 years, we can't approve those.

So, this is all about enough water for all uses, not just population, not just the economy, but the environment and everything. And UC backed us up and did this very, very comprehensive evaluation of literature and said it's up to a 14.5 billion dollar annual impact.

So, we think about the expensive cost of reservoirs and conveyance systems at, you know, five or $10 billion. It sounds expensive. The cost of inaction pales those costs. And so, we need to move projects and have a plan to do that. And this Bill is all about a long-term plan.

And that's, that's what I wanted to make sure that I asked that question so that way everyone can hear what's going on.

This Bill is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately, we have to continue to fight for this type of plan every year to make sure that we get the appropriate amount of attention and funding so that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish. Because you know, we're going to come up to a cliff, right?

Yes, we have to look at the conservation side of things, but we have to look at the cliff of reality of if we don't, if we don't capture this water, the loss is much greater than, than the investment of what we're talking about. So, again, thank you, Senator. I appreciate your, your leadership.

Any backup you need on this, my House is here to support. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other Members wishing to comment? Then I guess that leaves me. You know, this—that phrase—fail to plan, plan to fail comes to mind, as it relates to this Bill. So, I want to thank the author for bringing the Bill and I think you're on the right track.

Management is a huge priority, given our climate swings. It's not will we have enough water one day, it's will we not have enough water one day? And we're going to be in real trouble if we can't be nimble, if we can't be flexible, if we can't harness the good times, and that does include building infrastructure.

And it may seem at times that it is too much, but it also may seem when we have these deluges of water and seeing it going and then we, we haven't harnessed it for the bad times that we didn't plan. And I just don't want our kids to say that.

And I, I make these comments that, you know, in the last century, there were a lot of folks that had a lot of foresight to build our roads, to build our wastewater treatment plants.

And, and some of you may know that when I first ran for office at my local City Council, where we were about to take on a $1 billion wastewater treatment plant, which is big for any municipality that is of average size, and my tagline was I was going to make sewers sexy because so much of our infrastructure is not sexy and people are not—my contemporaries are not—paying attention like they did in post war, you know, 1945—5, 6, 7, as we came back from the war.

We were focused on infrastructure. We haven't been for a long time. And now, with climate change, that urgency cannot be understated. It just really can't. So, I want to thank the Senator for having some vision here.

It's not going to be perf, but it allows us to be flexible. And whether that's going to be through recycling water, increased conservation efforts, groundwater recharge, whatever it takes, I think we need to be flexible. We need to be nimble and setting the target. I'm not afraid of a target. It's aspirational.

But I think that it is imperative to management. So, I appreciate you bringing the Bill. I appreciate you taking this on. I'm hoping that the Administration hears our call and that we can do bright. I don't have grandchildren, but you mentioned this idea of our grandchildren, even our children, and we got to have some foresight here.

So, I'm very much in favor of planning so that we do get there. And I wish you Godspeed. So, with that, would you like to close?

I'll accept your last statement as, as my closing. Honest to goodness, this is about planning. It's about not waiting until we're in a crisis like flooding, severe flooding, where we spend $20 million in a small, little—actually twice—in small, little farm worker communities because we didn't see excess water coming through an atmospheric river.

We have an opportunity here, and I think we need to plan way beyond our own time here in the Capitol so that people that are like us in the future don't say, what were they thinking? They had the opportunity to do the right thing, and they just didn't do it. So, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. With that, we'll go ahead and do we have a motion? Motion. Second. Great. Let's take a vote.

[Roll Call]

That'll get out and we'll leave it on call for.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator.

I appreciate it. Thank you for the lively discussion. It was really great. Really appreciate it.

My pleasure. Senator Padilla, I see you. Come on down.

It kills me to have to oppose the bill.

I appreciate that.

How are you? Good to see you.

Welcome, Senator Padilla.

Take it away.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB369 dealing with the Salton Sea restoration and skilled and trained workforce standards. This Bill will statutorily require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce for all restoration work at the Salton Sea.

As many of you know, our largest inland body of water, the Salton Sea, has been rapidly depleted and due to decreased water inflow. As a result, the lake is becoming increasingly saline and releasing dust particles that further worsen some of the worst air quality in our state.

In the Inland Empire, the state and the Federal Governments have provided funds to work on restoration projects at the Salton Sea, which is critical to ensuring the health and well being of the sea itself, the overall ecosystem and both the public health, air quality and even economic viability of the region.

Workers performing restoration projects face exposures at high levels to toxic substances because of their proximity and and their interaction with the lake bed. The Imperial Valley already has high unemployment rates and many residents face poor working conditions and low wages given the risk to workers.

The State Natural Resources Agency, the Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife are utilizing a statute for design Bill projects that contractors on restoration projects utilize a skilled and trained workforce. These workforce requirements ensure that a certain percentage of workers engaged on covered projects have graduated from a state registered apprenticeship program.

It also ensures local workers participating on projects are paid living wages and provided with health and welfare benefits for themselves and for their families. Skilled and trained requirements establish a pipeline, a long term pipeline for workers for future projects that will benefit the residents of the Imperial Valley for years to come.

The state is currently administratively ensuring that protection of these workers at Salton Sea restoration projects. And there's currently nothing in statute that guarantees this in the long term.

This is relevant particularly because of the level of liability, frankly, and financial investment the State of California has made in the past and will made in the future on these restoration efforts. Without these protections, in the long run, they can be a potential great public safety and public health risk to citizens and workers in the region.

In an effort to ensure these protections and a workforce pipeline for residents Imperial Valley and the rapid completion of Salton Sea restoration projects, this Bill would statutorily require the use of a local, skilled and trained workforce for all restoration projects of the Salton Sea.

With me today I have Matthew Cremins with California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Keith Dunn on behalf of the state building trades.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of SB369, which as the Senator mentions, seeks to ensure the protection of workers at the Salton Sea and the rapid completion of Salton Sea restoration projects.

As I know Members of this Committee know well, and as outlined in your Committee analysis, the toxic nature of the declining lake bed at the Salton Sea has resulted in poor air quality across the Imperial Valley that is harming both wildlife and residents of the surrounding community.

Coupled with that is the fact that as of last month, Imperial County, Imperial County, excuse me, had a 17.4% unemployment rate, which unfortunately is the highest in the state. Given the severity of the situation down at the Salton Sea. The state and the Federal Government have expended significant resources to restore this toxic body of water.

And they have done so in an effort to protect the ecosystem and residents of the Imperial Valley. Importantly, these critical projects present an opportunity for the state to ensure workforce development opportunities for local construction workers and aspiring construction workers as apprentices who are seeking to learn a trade and pave their way to the middle class.

It's important to note, as the Senator also mentioned, that the state has already taken active steps to ensure the protection of workers on these projects and are currently requiring that for design build construction projects at the Salton Sea. Skilled and trained workforce must be utilized.

So with all that being said, SB369 would ensure that a skilled and trained workforce would be utilized for all construction at the Salton Sea, regardless of how the project is procured and by codifying these labor standards.

And the state will be taking an active step to ensure that these products are completed in a timely manner, provide high quality jobs and create a pipeline of workers that will benefit residents of the Imperial Valley for years to come. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades of California. Matt did a great job of laying it out. I like to make it a little easier. I've been involved in, I think almost every design build procurement law for the last 25 years.

We put skilled and trained in there because oftentimes those projects are complex. With regards to the Salton Sea, I like to bring down even a little lower. We put first responders into situations with chemicals and other types of materials. We make sure those first responders are trained and have the specific skills to operate safely.

The Salton Sea, as you've just heard, has dangers that not only expose residents and our environment, but also those that are doing work there.

So whether they're doing a design build project specifically in our procurement there, or whether it's just a design bid build project, it's imperative that we're providing those workers with the ability to maintain some safety.

I would also say and agree that having the skilled and trained workforce does provide that hand up to give individuals not only opportunity to get trained in a trade and have a career with retirement and benefits, but also this specific project.

It's critical that we provide the safety that a skilled and trained workforce will receive in training to operate in an area that is dangerous not only for them directly, but also for the community. So I'd ask for your support. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you so much. Members of the audience in support.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Todd Bloomstein representing the Southern California Contractors Association. Our Members would perform this type of work. Thank you so much.

Aloha. Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the District Council of Iron Workers in support.

Morning Chair and Members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Well, there you have it. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions? Comments?

Move the bell.

We got a second. Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Got a couple question. Thank you. I've got a couple questions. First and foremost, thank you for doing this. You know, as, as the Assembly Member for the, for that area. I live a few miles away, literally a few miles away. So what impacts the Salton Sea impacts my house literally.

I mean, when it's a good day we know it's a good day when it's a bad day, we absolutely feel that. So this is very, very important to me. I'm. I'm a. I'm a little. I need a little bit of clarity, though. What is the Riverside County's or Imperial County's position on this?

There's been no opposition.

Yeah, yeah, no, no, I'm aware, Mr. Madam Chair and Assemblymember, I'm not aware of any registered opposition to this Bill. Okay.

Was there any conversation with them?

There have been a number of conversations around the restoration of the Salton Sea, and I think they're well aware based on those numerous conversations in the years I've been in the Legislature, that there are varying opinions on each body about the value of skilled and trained requirements.

Okay, and Coachella Valley Water District or the authority, what is their position on this? I'm asking that because these are the legislative bodies in that region, and I don't see anything on the support or opposed. So I'm just wondering if there was conversations that took place with respect to this. Same thing with the. With the tribes there.

So if you can enlighten us on that, please.

Madam Chair and Mr. Vice Chair, thank you for the question. And as you should welcome. Know each of those agencies maintain government relations, staff and personnel, at least in our case, they are regularly in conversation with my office. They track all of the bills that we run.

We have regular conversations about our policy goals and objectives with those agencies all the time. I'm not aware that any of the agencies that you articulated chose to take a position on this Bill, either in support or opposition.

Okay. And last comment is absolutely 17% unemployment. I talk about having skilled and trained there. We've got to do that. There is no question about that. We need generational jobs and generational good jobs where they're paid a good wage, they're trained, their kids are trained, so on, so forth.

That's really the way that this is going to work out specifically for that region. We need to have that right. So I'm in favor, definitely in favor of having our skilled and trained workforce there. We need it across that whole region because they're hurting.

Imperial county is hurting, and then Eastern Riverside County is also hurting pretty bad to include some of San Bernardino. So thank you for your involvement in this. Thank you for your leadership in this. And with that, thank you.

Certainly. Anyone else? Okay, we got a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Appreciate the Bill. Let's Go ahead.

[Roll Call]

The bill gets out. We'll leave it for anybody that comes back. Thank you so much for the Bill. Senator Laird, I see you. Come on down. We're going.

Senator Laird, please welcome.

Good morning. I'm presenting Senate Bill 697. I want to begin by accepting the committee amendments and thank the chair and the staff for working on this. This bill streamlines and modernizes the stream system adjudication process by allowing the State Water Board to utilize modern technology when conducting investigations into water rights claims.

This section has not been updated since 1976. And the world has change digitally and, currently, in person visits are required for the stages in this process. And now there's stream gauges, there's digitization of other materials.

And this bill gives the water board the flexibility to use other ways than a personal visit that's hundreds of miles away from somebody's office to be able to do that. And it helps with real time data, increasing efficiency and continuing to authorize field investigations if needed. There were. There was a concern with stakeholders. We amended the bill.

They removed their letter of concern. So there's no opposition. There have been no votes, no no votes in the process. And at the appropriate time I would respectfully ask for an I vote. And I don't have any witnesses. So Senator Blakespear better get here quickly.

Move the bill.

Second.

Great. Do we have any witnesses from the audience that are in favor of Senator Laird's bill to bring use technology? I see none. Do we have any witnesses that will come forth in opposition? Yeah.

Well, I wish my all of them were like this.

That's right. That's right. Okay with that. I'm not seeing any witnesses. Anybody from the audience that would like to stake their claim? No. Okay. And we're talking water rights. Members of the Committee. Assembly Member Tangipa. Questions, comments?

I just have one question. Do you think that this bill at all could be used to determine large scale changes to pre 1914 water rights?

No. That is a thermonuclear issue. This bill does not veer into that territory. That's all I needed. But if, you know, if somebody makes any application, this is useful. In any application. But this doesn't deal with pre 1914 water rights.

See, that's all I needed. So I just wanted to make sure, because I know, like you said, it's a thermonuclear issue, and I've spent a lot of time talking to different individuals, whether it comes unimpaired flows, their water rights.

I even got to see a water right that was actually assigned to somebody in Stanislaus County signed by President Abraham Lincoln. So I always wanted to make sure that I'm asking that question.

That's definitely pre 1914.

Yeah.

Any other members of the committee? Comments? Well, lucky for you, Senator Laird, we already had a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

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

Thank you so much. Okay, let's go ahead and take a vote.

Item number six, SB 697. Motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee.

[roll call] Not voting. Not voting.

Looks like that'll get out. We'll leave it open for other people that might want to add on. Thank you, Senator Laird. So it may be that Senator Blakespear can make it within the next few minutes while I allow some folks to add on. If that's not the case, then we will have Senator Blakespear's bill next time.

So if you all want to give me just about 10 minutes, I know Assembly Member Rogers might want to come add on. And after that, we will adjourn. Oh, well, let's allow Assembly Member Bennett to add on. We got time.

So on the consent calendar.

[roll call]

Okay, and then item number one, SB 72.

[roll call]

Item number two, SB 369.

[roll call]

Yes. Okay, I think we are all set.

Assembly Member Bains, we'll allow you to add on right now if you're ready. Okay, great. Thank you.

On the consent calendar, Bains. Bains, I. Caloza. Macedo. And item number one, SB 72. Bains. Bains, I. Caloza. Macedo. Rogers. Item number two, SB 369. Bains. Bains, I. Caloza. Rogers. Item number six, SB 697. Bains. Bains, I. Caloza. Macedo. And Rogers.

Okay, we're going to put Blakespear's bill over to the next time. So thank you all for sticking it out, and I'll just wait for Rogers and maybe Caloza. Thank you. Have a great day, everyone.

Oh, no problem. Welcome. We'll take the votes of Assembly Member Caloza and Rogers says he's coming shortly.

[Roll Call]

Thank you Assembly Member Caloza. Appreciate it. Some real issues there. Welcome back Assemblymember Rogers. We'll get your votes on these items. Take it away.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you Assemblymember Rogers.

Okay, we're informed that Assemblymember Macedo is not going to be able to join us if she's predisposed in another hearing. So with that we will adjourn.