Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Good morning. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. We do not have quorum at the moment, so we are going to begin as a Subcommitee. We're going to ask all Members of the Committee please come to room 2200 so we can establish a quorum.

We had a total of 20 bills on the agenda today. Two bills. Have two bills. First file item one, AB66, Tangipa has been pulled and file item has been pulled by the author. In File item number four, AB550, Petrie Norris has been pulled by the Committee.

There will be 18 remaining bills and nine of those bills are on proposed consent. And bills will be heard in file order. If we do not complete our agenda this morning, we will adjourn and come into this room in the afternoon. So with that, we do have here our first author. And so we have.

Sorry, I see Assembly Member Papan here. And so we're going to go ahead and begin with Assembly Member Papan, who has a AB 527. Is that okay? Yes, I think she's waiting. Yeah.

Let's start. Yes. And then we will call your witnesses. Yes.

Building for another matter. So that's why they're not in the building right this second. So good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members that are here on time. I'd like to start by saying we will accept the Committee's amendments. And I want to personally thank Catherine Moore for her diligent efforts on this Bill.

A lot of back and forth happened and she was tremendously patient and creative. So I thank you so much, Ms. Moore, for your assistance on the Bill. So AB 527 will spur geothermal energy development in California and secure our clean energy future. Geothermal energy is a uniquely consistent and reliable source of renewable power.

It runs day and night, no matter the weather, and can provide steady baseload electricity that California needs to complement our solar and our wind endeavors. But before the development of a geothermal project in its entirety, developers need to drill a small number of exploratory wells to understand what's underground. These early phase wells are low impact and temporary.

But under current law, they're treated as separate projects under CEQA, triggering a full environmental review. After exploration, the project at large then needs to go through CEQA again. Put simply, geothermal developments must go, must go through CEQA twice.

This duplicative process slows down development, drives up costs, and pushes developers to go out of state, where the power ends up just sold back to California anyway. AB 527 creates a narrow, narrow CEQA exemption for exploratory geothermal wells that meet strong environmental standards, cutting the red tape while maintaining stewardship.

AB 527 by no means is a blank check. It prohibits projects in wetlands or designated conservation lands, ensures that historical and tribal cultural resources are protected, and mandates full site reclamation. This Bill is about speeding up energy without cutting corners.

It gives geothermal developers the regulatory expediency they need to invest in California, and helps us unlock the up to 30 gigawatts of geothermal energy we'll need to meet our climate goals by 2045. Without this Bill, California will continue to rely on natural gas to power the grid at night and in the winter.

So I see that my witnesses have made it just in the nick of time. So AB 527. With AB 527, we're not lowering our environmental standards. We're just raising our urgency. With me to testify today, who will catch their breath in one quick second is Miles Horton on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power and Mike Pickens with the operating engineers.

So with that, we'll take a breath and we'll turn it over to you. We'll start with you, Mr. Horton.

Thank you, Assembly Member, and thank you to the chair and the Committee staff, Miles Horton with Sonoma Clean Power. We are a publicly owned community power provider serving Sonoma and Mendocino counties. And we really, we're proud to be serving our customers about 90% clean energy today.

But what we're running into is situations where there's no sun, no wind and batteries are empty or depleted. And that's when we're still relying on natural gas. And that's causing, you know, fueling our climate crisis.

But it's also creating a very significant cost for our customers because we're paying to keep these gas plants on life support even though we're using them less and less. And so the cost is really increasing.

And so we identified next generation geothermal power as the right solution for us to get to 100% clean energy around the clock and save money for our customers long term. And increasingly, the state is coming to the same conclusion. So they've handed down procurement orders for gigawatts of new geothermal.

The demand for geothermal in California today is colossal. We have the best workforce, as we'll hear about. We, we actually have the best geology in the country for this kind of technology. But the challenge is the regulatory environment, and that's causing projects not to happen.

And when they do happen, they're happening in places like Nevada and Utah, to serve the California market, creating this permanent export of wealth and jobs.

So this very thoughtful Bill will align California policy with the federal NEPA exemption that was mentioned and put us in a better position to drive new geothermal development projects forward here in California and get, you know, achieve our climate goals in a way that's timely and cost effective. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. Assembly Member, Chairman and panel Members. I'd like to like to speak about the importance of these projects here in California in General and specifically the locality in which I cover, which is the North Bay, so Marin, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino counties where some of these projects are looking at being built for our membership.

It is no stretch of the imagination. These people commute average of 22 and a half hours one way a day for work during the work season. Those that are fortunate enough to work close to home, the jobs are very short, maybe a couple months to the summer.

Having projects like these that can be built, that are multi year projects that have a long impact in the community and also help fund and help them stay living in the community. Sonoma county is very expensive to live in.

Having a project where they can stay there with the tax dollars, stay there, they spend their money locally is impactful. It's going to reduce cars on the road by having these workers stay at home in their community and build something that is going to be better for them and their families and their children in the future.

So with that, I implore you to consider this.

Thank you and thank you very much. We know you rushed to make it here, so thank you. We appreciate that. We're going to invite any other witnesses in support to just do me too. Please state your name, your affiliation and your position.

Morning. Madam Chair Members Mike Monaghan on behalf of the State Building Trades in Support.

Good morning. Brendan Knapp representing San Jose Clean Energy in Support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Cassandra Mar on behalf of Cal CCA in support. Thank you.

Chris with the operating engineers local 3. Back up my brother in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You're welcome to come sit or whichever you'd like.

I'll sit. It'll be a little easier.

Yeah.

Good morning. Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy speaking on the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Center for Biological Diversity and the Mount Shasta Bayer Regional Ecology Center. First, we really appreciate that the author and the sponsor have been working with the Committee on these amendments. And let me just be clear.

We support geothermal as part of our clean energy mix. But unfortunately we're not there yet on this Bill and we must continue to oppose it until it's been amended to address our issues.

First, while we appreciate that the Committee did set a cap of 20 acres of disturbance allowing no more than 12 acres of undisturbed ground, the footprint is still too big for a CEQA exemption, particularly for a CEQA exemption for the use of experimental and untested technology in California for geothermal exploration, including fracking.

The average footprint for a geothermal exploration project in California is currently 5 acres, and therefore we have consistently asked that the CEQA exemption is limited to five acres.

Second, the Bill will allow for a CEQA exemption to apply, even when the project has temporary roads and electrical lines crossing through rivers, streams and riparian corridors that can have permanent impacts.

We believe that a project should not be given a CEQA exemption if they're cutting through roads, I mean through rivers, streams and riparian areas and having permanent impacts.

Finally, while we appreciate that the accepted amendments have included providing for the public disclosure of what is in the fracking fluids and requiring that CALGEM adopt updated regulations, since their regulations have not been updated since the 1970s and as the Committee analysis pointed out when disco was king, we are concerned that the disclosure of the chemical information is not sufficient to protect against impacts to water quality.

We do not believe it is wise to allow such new fracking technology to be used without first ensuring that it does not have adverse impacts on the environment or public health. And a CEQA exemption should not be granted unless the companies can show that there will not be adverse impacts on communities, water supply or quality.

Again, we appreciate the engagement from Assembly Member Papan and the Bill sponsors and the many amendments that they have taken through this process. And frankly, I am very appreciative of the fact that a CEQA exemption legislation has gone through the normal policy process.

However, at the heart of our issue with this Bill is the fact that we believe that CEQA exemptions are appropriate only when we are talking about projects and activities that have less than a significant impact on the environment and human health.

And in this case, a CEQA exemption for an untested and relatively new technology such as fracking, without the sideboards that we have requested is not something we can support at this time and we must continue to oppose. And for these reasons, we urge a no vote.

Good morning, Chair, Senators, Assembly Member. Matthew Baker, Policy Director for Planning Conservation League. We continue in respectful opposition and align our comments made here by Kim Delfino. She covered all the bases. I'll speak a little more abstractly. We do really, I want to reiterate, appreciate the author's willingness to work with us and the industry reps, their willingness.

We spent a lot of time talking about this over the course of the spring, and we came in good faith to really try to figure out a way to do this right and responsibly because we do support geothermal. We do want to find a way to expedite renewable energy in these ways.

And we were sincerely trying to find a path and they were sincerely trying to address our concerns. But even though we do appreciate the Committee's amendments, we still don't feel like we're there yet. There's still too many question marks to qualify for a CEQA exemption. These are...

We've gone through and educated ourselves on the technologies involved and how invasive, like the subterranean impacts of this fracking technology could be. It doesn't pass the sniff test to say, okay, we can exempt the environmental review and be confident that there's not going to be really adverse impacts.

We're committed to continue to work with the author here to try to get this right. But unfortunately for the build before you today, we are respectfully asking for a no vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room in opposition, please come forward. Just state your name, affiliation and position.

John Mchale, on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors of California, opposed unless amended.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition in the room, we're going to bring it back to members if there's any questions or comments. We don't have quorum, so we can't make a motion or take a vote. But yes, we'll go with Vice Chair Seyarto.

I guess I can kick it off. We have a little dilemma, don't we? If we don't do this, then we won't have geothermal. If we're going to go through the processes of all the regulatory processes that have been very well laid out here as hampering the ability to go forward.

They will have geothermal perhaps in other states, but they won't have that here. So at some point we have to all kind of compromise a little bit. This is not going to destroy the environment. They're going to figure out whether geothermal is something that can be done in these areas that they have to explore first.

If they find that there are opportunities to add geothermal to the mix of renewable energies, then, yeah, then they have to do a whole CEQA process and that'll put it off for a few more years before we finally get to realize some of that. And it is a little bit more expensive, that's for sure.

But somewhere we have to make strides if we want to go to 100% renewable and in ensuring that we have reliable 100% renewable to replace what we're using now. Because what we're using now, the mix that we're using now, is not as reliable anymore, and we keep transitioning faster than we can create reliability.

And so, you know, while, you know, I understand the concerns by the environmental community about protecting what they see as their mission in life, if the mission in life is to get to 100% renewables, we better darn well do something about getting there. And we better do it here in California, because somebody's going to be doing this.

And when somebody else does it, like somebody else produces oil, we pay more for it. We still need it. We just pay more for it. And that means higher costs. And one of the big things in California today is affordability. So I support your efforts here.

I think when you try to weigh one thing against the other, it needs to fall on the side of innovation and being able to at least explore the potential for that energy being brought online for us.

So, you know, I feel the frustration of people in this whole issue, the bigger issue of energy in California, because from the taxpayer standpoint, my standpoint, we're getting our butts kicked in the wallet because of all this, and we need to stop making it cost more.

And the only way to do that is to produce more and to make sure that we control the production.

Thank you, Vice Chair Seyarto, to any additional comments or questions. All right, so I will say thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. I did want to allow the author maybe to respond to some of the concerns from the opposition that have been raised.

I also want to recognize there was a lot of work put into this Bill over the last week in terms of trying to address some of those concerns. And so I know that the amendments reflect some of that work. And I just don't know if you want to maybe comment a little bit more on that.

Sure. So one of the amendments that we took in the last Committee dealt with doing surveys ahead of time. So we know where we are. That's number one. And then this Committee has talked about getting some regs promulgated eventually.

And I thank the Committee for its input on that, as well as relying on some of the federal seismic regulations in the interim, which makes a lot of sense. I want to caution when we use the word fracking, it is often used in connection with oil and fossil fuels. Fracking in this instance is a different process.

And if you want, I can have my witness sort of describe it. One thing I will say is that the Biden Administration made this same exemption because under NEPA, it was that in 30 years there was not one exploratory geothermal well that was found to have violated NEPA standards.

And so the feds were going through the same thing of putting exploratory wells through the NEPA process. And once you found out that a field was going to yield you sufficient steam, then you went through NEPA all over again. So they did the same kind of exemption for exploratory wells.

So we do have a 30 year track record here with this process not being terribly invasive. But if you would like, I can certainly have Mr. Horton give you just a thumbnail sketch of why this is different than what you see with fracking in the oil industry. So please, Mr. Horton.

Thank you so much Assembly Member. And I'll just actually briefly before that, I'll add to your comment about the NEPA process. So this really was based on the Bureau of Land Management, like you said, looking back over 30 years and finding that that when these are done right, there really is no substantial negative impact on the environment.

And we at Sonoma Clean Power actually went back and found every example of a geothermal exploration project we could find from the last 30 years in California. And again, outside of a couple projects where it was combined with a different element, all of them got a negative declaration after going through the CEQA process.

It just was not something that had a, it was very light touch activity.

So in terms of the differences between fracking for oil and gas, which by the way, we oppose as an organization, and enhanced, what's called enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, which is a new technology that's emerged just in the last couple years that was made possible by learnings from the oil and gas fracking industry.

They really are, like the Assembly Member said, they're very different animals. So with fracking for oil and gas, you are typically sending the water down to the level where the oil and gas is.

There's potential to be interacting with groundwater, sending it down, bringing it up, or at the level where you're extracting oil and gas and the water is typically filled with a number of highly toxic chemicals to sort of scour the oil and gas out of the rock. Right.

And then you bring it back up, you remove the hydrocarbons and then You've got to dispose of that produced water, quote, unquote. And oftentimes, you know, as we know from the news, that can happen in ways that are unsafe or lead to contamination at the surface.

And then obviously the biggest thing there is that then those, that oil or gas is burned, you know, to create energy. And that fuels our ongoing climate crisis. So with enhanced geothermal, you're using basically water.

There's a few additives like lubricants and things to keep the fractures open, but it's not the same kind of Alphabet soup of chemicals that you would have in fracking for oil and gas. You send it down a steel lined pipe and then you essentially reach that area under the surface of solid super hot rock.

And what they'll do is they'll send the water down and then fracture horizontally to allow the water to pass through that solid rock and absorb heat in the process. But that fracture network is surrounded by solid rock, so it really shouldn't be leaking out into the external environment. And this is all happening 10,000 feet down.

This is way below any groundwater basin or aquifer that can come into contact with humans. And then you bring that back up at the back end and another steel lined pipe and it stays in a closed system the entire time.

So even at the surface, that water, which again is basically just water or steam, comes back up, the heat is extracted to create electricity and then it's sent right back through. So it really nothing in that system should be coming into contact with the outside world if it's designed. Right. And so it's a really different process.

And again, I think the last point I'll make is, you know, this is that clean baseload power that we really need so that we can Wean off of natural gas. And I think that's the biggest difference.

Thank you. Sure. Senator Laird

A couple of follow up questions. If you have a negative declaration on everything, why do you need a CEQA exemption?

Good question. So what we found is that, so we're not the developer of geothermal. Right. We're the cca, the power provider.

And what we found trying to attract developers to come build in our service area in Sonoma and Mendocino counties, is that the sort of perceived challenges of going through CEQA twice for the project, once in the exploration phase and then once for the bigger build out is just a very significant deterrent.

Especially when in Nevada and Utah, they can use this NEPA exemption. Right.

So I think, you know, we have an example of a geothermal project, you know, this is sort of the poster child where the initial study took over two years because they had to look at different elements at different points in the year and all that, only to find again, you know, hey, you know, there's nothing.

There really is no impact. So there's the timeline and the sort of uncertainty of the timeline, and then obviously there's also the litigation risk. So I think it's. It's the risk, right?

I mean, you can just have this very sort of unknown, uncertain, potentially very lengthy process, even if ultimately the project is found to have no significant impact.

And then let me just clarify, because unfortunately, I know a lot about fracking, and the real issue was, as you said, or maybe the author said, the real issue was the wastewater with the chemicals. And I know that when the voters in Monterey referended it, it was all about the wastewater, even though it was billed as fracking.

And it sounded like you just said that it was a completely closed loop. So if anything is mixed with the water, you're saying there's never a time when it's outside the system, at the surface or anywhere else.

That is how it's designed. I would never say that could never happen. I mean, if, you know, if there's a leak or some sort of error.

You've been very careful about saying properly designed. And that is a red flag because we're removing the review to find out if it's properly designed. And so that's unnerving, even though everything else that's said about the need for this and to fit into the renewable portfolio is right.

So, yeah, if I Assembly Member, should I respond to that?

Sure. Great. Yeah. I think as somebody that's an author all the time, I generally want a trustworthy witness to respond instead of me. Thank you.

So a couple points on that. So one is, I think I would just highlight that even without the CEQA process, this is not the Wild West. Right. There's a number of, as you know, a number of permits that are required from CalGEM, from other entities before you can go forward.

So this isn't just sort of a blank check. We trust you to do this. You still have to go through the normal permitting process. So we think that can kind of address.

Does this remove CEQA from the normal permitting process?

Correct.

And I'm going to interrupt right now just so we can get quorum, because we have quorum, so can we please call the roll? Sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure we get quorum.

[roll call]

Great. We've established quorum. Sorry, Senator Laird, you may proceed.

No, I'll just close and maybe with the author because I am torn on this because of the things on the different side. Are there things you still think you will do in working on this Bill or do you think you're done with the amendments in this Committee?

Well, we've had two committees. We had ESTM or your equivalent and we had this Committee. So in the first Committee we did some requiring of surveys on the front end. Remember this is total reclamation at the back end as well. And I think when you...

And then we also have compliance with federal seismic regulations that must take place. That was added by this Committee as well as mandating that Cal... I think it's CalGen that's going to actually adopt some regulations going forward as well. So even though we are short of a full CEQA, there are certainly safeguards in place.

And I think when you combine that with a 30 year history, as eloquently put, this is not the Wild West, so. And it's only for exploratory wells and this is to allow this fledgling industry to become stronger and stronger because as you know, Senator, it's not reliant on the wind and it's not reliant on the sun.

So we're just trying to make sure that we can at least expedite the exploratory nature of it. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. And I want to thank everybody for testifying.

Certainly we, you know, our Committee spent time working with the author on trying to ensure that while this process was going through, we were also creating regulations that both things were informing each other as we were developing our own set of regulations for the state which we agree that also is important piece to this.

So I want to allow you the opportunity to close.

Thank you for the robust.

Sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. Senator Grove, did you have comments?

I did.

Sorry, I did not see you. Sorry. I apologize and I did not see, Senator Grove

And I apologize, Madam Chair, that I was late and I do have a couple of questions or comments. So I like what you're trying to do, I really do.

Because I have an organization called Geotest in my district that wants to take abandonwell underground. Sealed places, sealed fields in an active oil field, but sealed right in a reservoir underground.

They have the ability in every model that they've tried and every model that they've tested shows that they can heat up the existing water that's in there, have it stimulate, go to the surface, powered by solar plants or solar. And they can create a hundred hours, 100 days of battery storage.

Right now it lasts what, four hours. And it's... They're in negotiations that if they are able to pull this off and get this permitted, but nobody likes to permit new technology, that they'll have a data center that will be able to be off the grid, to be able to operate.

So there's a lot of hope in something like this. I do have one question, and I know it's probably going to get me in a lot of trouble, but why only labor or project labor agreements? Why only. I mean, why not this scientist and this old guy that knows what they're doing and really want to do this?

And it's going to take four of them to do it.

I mean, I kind of feel like it is rather specialized work. And so the other witness that we had here today was the operating engineers. And I would like to leave it in the capable hands of the operating engineers in their union. So that's probably why you're seeing it, at least from my perspective. It's pretty skilled work.

Yeah. No, and there. I do. And there are skilled people out there. Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. Appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you for letting me ask.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

All right, now, would you like to close?

I thank you for the robust discussion. I'm a big believer in geothermal and I thank you for the opportunity to keep moving it forward without a respectful request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have AB527 and we do... The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. But we need a motion none of Senator Grove. No. All right, so we. We need a motion.

No.

All right. Everybody's gone.

Okay.

It's okay. All right, so we will take a motion when we have other Members here, but thank you very much for presenting.

Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Thank you. All right, next, I see Assemblymember Wallis here. Welcome. Assemblymember Wallis has two bills, but one is on consent. So he will be presenting AJR 9. And we do welcome other authors to come. So you may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm here today with Assembly Joint Resolution 9, urging the President and Congress to restore full and consistent funding for the National Park Service. California is home to some of the most treasured and iconic landscapes in the world.

From the towering granite cliffs of Yosemite to the striking deserts of Joshua Tree. Our national parks are not only natural wonders, they're economic engines and cultural landmarks. In 2023 alone, more than 36 million visitors generated over 5 billion in economic output right here in California. Yet despite their immense value, national parks are suffering. Dedicated staff are gone.

Heat positions remain unfilled. Campgrounds have been shuttered. Visitor safety and wildfire prevention efforts are strained, all due to a decline in federal investment. It's not just about budgets and line items. It's about stewardship. It's about protecting our shared heritage, supporting local economies, and honoring the legacy we leave for future generations. I have with me today Tyler Tratten, who represents the National Parks Foundation.

Thank you.

And good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tyler Tratten. Here on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association, which is a nonpartisan nonprofit established in 1919 to advocate for the protection and enhancement of our national park system.

With over 1.6 million members and supporters nationwide, we work to support and advance policies that protect our parks and advocate for adequate funding for our national parks. We first want to thank the author for his work to move forward with this resolution and thank the committee staff for their analysis.

The resolution and analysis make clear the dire conditions our national parks are in as a result of indiscriminate cuts to the Park Service's budget. Additionally, California is disproportionately impacted as our state is home to more units of the national park system than any other state.

Ranging from historic sites like Manzanar and Rosie the Riveter to large landscapes like our California desert and Sierra Nevada mountains. These places tell our nation's most important stories and protect our iconic wildlife. Our California national parks are also a multi billion economic engine and contribute to the well being of local residents. For all these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Please come forward.

Good morning. Tyler's very tall. Good morning. Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy, speaking on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California, California Native Plant Society, and the Mojave Desert Land Trust in support.

Great. Thank you.

Good morning. David Bolog, Serving Family Values. We are in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any other witnesses in support? Do we have any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing no witnesses in opposition. We're going to bring it back to the Members. Any comments or questions? All right, seeing none. Thank you for bringing this forward. Certainly am supportive of this AJR and would like to allow you to close.

Thank you. Madam Chair, just respectfully request and aye vote at the appropriate time.

Great. Thank you. Do we have a motion? You are Senator Grove. So I keep looking at you. So we have a motion. So we'll go ahead and call the roll on that. The motion is for AJR 9 to be adopted.

[Roll call].

All right, that is 20. We'll leave that on call. Thank you. Assembly Member Wallis. We welcome any Assemblymembers to Senate Natural Resources. We have several bills. How about we take a motion on the consent calendar? Thank you. Senator Grove has made. Okay. Senate. Senator Grove has made a motion for the consent calendar. So. Yes.

Thank you. Sorry. And on the consent calendar today, we have File Item 2 AB 372 Bennett, File item 7 AB 580 Wallis, File item 9 AB 638 Celeste Rodriguez, File item 11 AB 975 Gallagher, File item 12 AB 982 Carrillo. File Item 16 AB 1457 Brian, File item 17 AB 1139 Rogers, File item 18 AB 1169. Jeff Gonzalez, File item 19 AB 1227 Ellis.

[Roll call].

All right, so that is 2,0 on consent. And Senator Grove has also made a motion for the Papin Bill. And that was file item three AB 527. So can we please call the roll on that?

[Roll call].

All right, that is 2,0. And we will go. We're just waiting for authors in the Assembly. Authors in the Assembly. We're going to go ahead and recess until we get some authors in the room. Thank you.

All right. The Senate Natural Resources Committee is reconvening. We have here with us today Assemblymember Carrillo. Assemblymember Carrillo, you have two bills. One was on consent, and the Other one is AB 1089. So you're welcome to begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1089. I would like to thank the Committee Chair and her staff for their work on this bill and accept the committee's amendments. The western yasha tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecologically and culturally important.

In our region, western joshua trees span across a large portion of California's desert. In my hometown of Palmdale, where I serve as a city planner and later as a Council Member, we have been requiring developers to mitigate and preserve joshua trees for decades.

The Western Yashua Tree Preservation act that was passed in 2023 set up a framework where anyone who cuts down a joshua tree must pay a fee, and that fee goes into a conservation fund to protect joshua tree habitat.

The current Western Yashua Tree Conservation act allows the department to enter into an agreement with any county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a western joshua tree associated with single family residential, multi family residential, and renewable energy projects.

This Bill, AB 1089, simply adds that commercial and industrial projects be added to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. This should be a win, win, a win for everyone involved.

The department, which has been chronically understaffed for decades, can pass on the responsibility to local governments, and the local government will have more control over the timing and efficiency of delivering these desperately needed economic development projects.

Additionally, thanks to the hard work of the committee staff and our partners in the environmental community, we have recently reached an agreement that would allow single family homeowners to remove joshua trees within 100ft of their home consistent with defensible space requirements, without having to pay the conservation fee.

Madam Chair and Senators, I believe that we need to take steps to preserve the joshua tree, and that's why I support the act in the first place. But my district is a disadvantaged community, and it's not fair to ask homeowners to bear the brunt of the conservation cost.

I'm grateful to our partners in the environmental community who have helped us reach this compromise, and I hope that you will support this very important bill for my region. My principal witness is not here yet, but I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Any I know your lead witness is not here. Any other witnesses in support that want to just state your name, affiliation, and position on this bill?

Sure. Good morning. Delilah Clay, on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials, excuse me, Association. We're very much in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. Horacio Gonzalez, on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance, very grateful and thankful to the author for carrying this bill, but would encourage the committee to really take a look at the act in those oversight hearings. There are problems with the act for our members. They're actually causing cost to balloon up. To $2.6 million per project in disadvantaged communities. So we look forward to being part of those oversight discussions. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Kim Delfino, Earth Advocacy, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Mojave Desert Land Trust, California Native Plant Society, Audubon California. We're removing our opposition. We really thank the Committee for their Amendments and thank the author for taking the amendments and working with us, and therefore, we're removing our opposition.

Thank you.

Matthew Baker, Planning and Conservation League. Align our comments with Kim Delafino. Appreciate the work of the Committee and the author moving our position. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other witnesses in the room in opposition or in support, I'm going to bring it back. And I think Senator Grove had questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for addressing this. Before redistricting took place, I represented the Yucca Valley area. We have an average income of 45 to $55,000 a year. And they were required to hook up to sewer through the sewer project that was going. They had city sewer and some of the mitigation, because they're succulents.

They're everywhere. They're just everywhere. So we looked, and I even walked through a side by side, like a little buggy, like, down the road, because houses are kind of dense or not dense, but.

And when you go, it's like this poor family, and a poor family, you know, $46,000 a year is hard to live on in the State of California. And they had 11 trees between their house and going to the sewer hookup. And it was like $3,500 a tree. Like, where do they come up with that kind of money?

So I really appreciate this. I know that we had said from the beginning, this goes way too far. And I appreciate you trying to bring it back in a little bit. I appreciate you working with the opposition so that it could get out of the building. I've been screaming from the rooftops about oil for 10 years.

And I've been screaming from the rooftops about cement plants for the last two years when this process all started in the listing, and then turning it over to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And if we don't address that issue, we are going to have some serious issues with the supply of cement.

I mean, 11 million tons of cement and 9.5 million tons are affected by the joshua tree, the western joshua tree. And I'm not talking about the national park. It's beautiful. It's gorgeous. If you haven't had an opportunity to go to see that, it's the most incredible, one of the most incredible national parks that we have.

So I appreciate you bringing this forward and at least reigning in some of this for our constituents who could never come up with $47,000 or even $10,000 out of a disposable income of $45,000 or $47,000. I appreciate the bill. Thank you.

Thank you for those comments, Senator.

Thank you.

All right, so I want to thank you for working with the committee. I know that we went back and forth and we were trying to figure out, you know, exactly where to land. The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is only 18 months old, and so it's still in the process of being implemented.

We do know that this bill provides two new methods to promote compliance with the act, and I think that that's important and providing relief for homeowners to remove joshua trees for defensible space purposes is progress. So I want to, again, thank you for the work that you've done and allow you to close.

Thank you for that. Madam Chair. I just respectfully asked for an aye vote when the appropriate moment comes.

Great. So we don't have Committee Members here, so we will take. Yes, thank you. All right, thank you. Sorry. So we do. Senator Grove has been the champion of motions today in Senate Natural Resources. So thank you, Senator Grove, for making the motion. The motion for AB 1089 is do pass as amended, to appropriation.

Can we please call the roll?

[Roll call].

All right, we will leave that on call with one. Thank you. We have Assemblymember Petrie Norris here today. Thank you. Assembly Member Petrie Norris. We have you for file item five, AB 915.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair. Pleased to join you this morning to present AB915 and want to begin by accepting the Committee amendments. Thank you to you and your team for your work on this measure. AB915 provides jurisdictional clarity to allow long duration energy storage projects to move through the normal CEC permitting process.

AB915 enables water storage facilities associated with a long duration energy storage project using compressed air technology to be regulated by the same Department that oversees nearly identical wastewater treatment and storage ponds at other types of industrial projects.

Clearly, identifying the appropriate permitting authority is critical for emerging clean energy technologies that are essential to California meeting our clean energy and climate goals. AB915 ensures that the CEC can use its long standing authority and established process to review these compressed air energy storage projects and their various components over the next decade.

California must install over 15 gigawatts of energy storage in order to meet our renewable energy targets. If successful, California will demonstrate to the world that this transition is possible both technically and economically. Pleased to be joined today by Delaney Hunter on behalf of hydrostar.

Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Delaney Hunter on behalf of Hydrostor. Hydrostor is developing the Willow Rock Clean Energy center in Kern. County. It entails a big cavern dug in the ground and uses a water retention pond to hydrostatically keep pressure in that cavern.

The pond, for lack of a better term, looks like more like an Olympic swimming pool than a dam like Oroville or Shasta. And so my tagline on this Bill is we're not a dam, we're a pond. And as such we don't believe we should be treated like a dam in the way that Oroville or Shasta would be.

This bill essentially clarifies that in statute and allows the CEC to continue its process, which is pretty arduous. And we are trying to get this project done to not only meet California's clean energy goals, but we were lucky enough to get a federal loan guarantee of $1.8 billion.

To main that loan guarantee, we have got to meet timeline goals and requirements and having to go through double permitting processes would blow through that and we'd lose all that federal guarantee money. So for California, for our ratepayers and for our clean energy goals, we ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses and support.

Good morning. Maria Gavidia, here on behalf of Climate Action California in support of this bill.

Great, thank you. All right, see no additional witnesses in the room and support any witnesses in opposition. All right, see no witnesses in opposition. I want to thank you some repetri Norris. We don't have other Members, so I'd bring it to Members, but it's just me right now.

I want to thank you for this and certainly, you know, you've, you've put some time into this and I'll let you close. Well, thank you Madam Chair.

Respond respectfully, ask for your Aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. And when we have Members, we will take a motion. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have Assemblymember Macedo here to present for us. File item six. That's AB568.

Good morning, Madam Chair, and I would say Members, but they're probably watching from their offices somewhere. So hi to you too.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 568 on behalf of my home county, Tulare County, and I would like to begin by thanking the staff for all their hard work and accepting the amendments.

AB568 establishes a new Groundwater Sustainability Agency for Tulare county after other cities and irrigation districts broke off from the previous Joint powers authority. In 2014, the Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management act to manage groundwater by requiring local agencies to form Groundwater sustainability agencies. Since SGMA's implementation, GSA's throughout the state have been making every effort to comply.

In the Central Valley, we do not have access to adequate surface water to recharge our groundwater. Many communities are without clean and reliable drinking water, which in the fourth largest economy in the world I won't understand. But that's a different fight for a different day.

This Bill will help the region comply with SGMA by providing a functional GSA. I am pleased to be joined by Denise England, the Grants and Resource Manager for Tulare County, who can speak more to the need for this measure and answer technical questions. Denise.

Thank you. Good morning.

Denise England, Grants and Resources Manager with County of Tulare. Good morning Chair and Members listening in. I've been Tulare County's water expert for the past 15 years, been with the county for 20 years.

SGMA allowed public agencies to become GSA's and in 2014, at the passage of SGMA, there were more than 30 SGMA eligible public agencies in Tulare County. In an effort to work collaboratively and promote coordinated groundwater management, I worked diligently with our local public agencies to form GSAs.

Tulare county is a Member of five GSAs in three critically overdrafted basins. SGMA required GSA's to be formed by July of 2017 and I worked with eligible agencies to work together to become single GSA's wherever possible.

In 2017, at that deadline, there were four public agencies functioning as standalone GSA's and two joint power authorities functioning as GSA's in the Tule Subbasin. The Eastern Tule GSA was formed via JPA and encompassed almost all of the undistricted land in in the Tule Subbasin.

During the probationary hearings in September 2024, the state board chose to enact the Good actor provision for two GSA's in the Tule Subbasin. That decision by the State Board resulted in GSA eligible public agencies to leave the Eastern Thule JPA and become their own GSA in hopes of also benefiting their landowners with the "good actor" provision.

This resulted in Tulare county being the only Member left in the Eastern Tule JPA. The county doesn't have the capacity or resources to function as a standalone GSA and we need an agency outside of the county that can be governed by local landowners and representative of that area to be a GSA.

The county is a Member of the Kings River East GSA which was formed by SB 37 in 2016 and the SB 37 model has worked very well administratively. The county can and is working on entering into a new JPA with Hope and Ducor water districts.

And the new JPA is a gap stop, but it does not cure the underlying issue of finding ourselves in the same position should the partner agencies opt to leave the JPA in the future.

A legislative fix to provide a long term stable entity to implement SGMA for this region is paramount to groundwater sustainability in order to fund a form a functioning GSA and guard against future withdrawals in the Tule Subbasin. The county is very supportive of AB 568 and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. All right, any other witnesses in support, please come forward.

Good morning Chair and Senator. Matteo Kushner from Community Water Center.

On behalf of Clean Water Action Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, Central California Environmental Justice Network and the Community Water Leaders Network. We are removing our opposition from the Bill and want to thank the Committee staff as well as the Member for working with us towards reaching amendments.

And we look forward to seeing community collaboration and community engagement in this new GSA. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, David Bollog with Serving Family Values. We are in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. All right, seeing no witnesses on opposition. We'll bring it back to Members. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Assembly woman Macedo for bringing this Bill forward. Obviously being the Senator over the area, I'm just very proud of you for addressing this issue.

Because Tulare kind of waffles back and forth between Fresno and Kern about being the top food producing county in the world and without a manageable GSA with sustainable water, we won't be able to do that, especially with denial of surface water.

So I appreciate you taking on this challenge, and I appreciate your background in environmental policy and working with the opposition to make it happen.

Well, it's an honor to serve with you, Senator. And fighting for the water is something I know we're both passionate about. So thank you for all the work you've done as well.

Thank you, and I want to echo the thanks for working with all sides of folks on this particular Bill and coming to an agreement on amendments. Good job there. Would you like to close?

Great. Thank you, Senator Grove.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you guys for all of your hard work on this Bill.

Thank you, Senator Grove. The queen of motions in Senate Natural Resources, y'all. So the motion for AB 568 is do pass as amended to appropriations.

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

All right, that is 2-0. And we'll leave that on call for absent Members. Thank you. We are looking for more Assembly authors, if there's any Assembly authors out there. We're going to go ahead and take a short recess until we have Assembly- Assembly authors in the room.

We'll reconvene in 30 seconds. All right. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will reconvene. Thank you, Chair Bryan, for joining us.

I apologize. No, please don't. For you being on recess. But I'm glad to be here to present two bills. Can I start with AB 1075, please?

Thank you.

Thank you. For the better part of 10 years, the Legislature has grappled with the role of private fire protection sources and how that works in partnership or in conflict with our public professional firefighters.

It's why there have been regulations put on the books that prevent them from looking like our professional firefighters or driving types of emergency vehicles that could confuse the public needing to check in with incident command.

One of the things that is still ambiguous in state law is whether they can connect to public water sources without having a conversation or getting the approval of our public firefighters. And this wouldn't be an issue except the scarcity of water resources.

And questions around the best usage of those resources, as we've seen in Los Angeles with the recent fires, especially in the Palisades, have called for us to clear up that ambiguity and provide kind of greater clarity on what should happen when both our public professional firefighters and private fire protection sources arrive to the same scenes.

This Bill is sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters, and with me to testify as Doug Stuber. It would require that private firefighting resources check in with our professional firefighters before accessing public water uses.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, we're pleased to sponsor and strongly support AB 1075. We'd like to thank the author for bringing this important measure forward.

As noted by the author, the measure is about safety and ensuring there are clear controls that are put in place on an active fire incident.

In 2018, CPF was proud to sponsor AB 2380, which established clear rules that were mentioned by the author in his open including connecting private resources with incident command, ensuring they follow all orders, are labeled non emergency, and other critical requirements. And these are in place to both protect firefighters and the public on an active fire incident.

And when there have been reports over the years of private resources hooking up to public water supplies, it's unclear if they receive any authority to do so. But it is critical that we understand what resources are operating on any active fire incident and what they are doing and where they are on that incident.

And so this measure to create a clear prohibition on private resources from hooking up to public water supplies unless they have approval from incident command is critical to Ensure we are continuing to evolve and provide better protections for our firefighters who are operating for the public good and for the citizens who may be evacuating a fire zone.

And we want it to be clear who is connecting to protect water systems, to protect them. And for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses and support in the room? All right. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? None. I'll bring it back to Members, which is Senator Grove.

Thank you. I just spent three days at Huntington Lake. I know probably not familiar with my district, but there's a main water reservoir that goes from Edison Lake. It's like a water power storage. Then it drops down to Huntington, drops down to Shaver, drops down to Millerton, and.

And it actually generates a lot of power for Los Angeles. There was after 4th of July, there was the volunteer fire Department put on a barbecue. And I'm just pulling up the website. They have like, you know, regular trucks that look like fire trucks.

And it says the Huntington Lake Volunteer fire Department is incorporated as a nonprofit corporation that responds to fire and medical emergencies in the High Sierra Valley. So if there's a fire up there, they can't connect to any. It wouldn't be city water or county water.

I guess what I'm saying is that we just had the Creek fire and it burnt down a lot of our forest. I mean, you drive the road through Shaver and up through Huntington now in Fresno county, and it's like a Dr. Seuss movie. It's so sad. It is just really sad.

And so I guess my question is, is that this all volunteer fire Department? I mean, they have uniforms and have a fire truck and everything. A fire station. I don't even know if it's connected to the CAL FIRE. I don't know anything about it other than I saw it in your Bill.

Made me think of, like, does this disenfranchise them from being able to put out a fire that starts.

Not at all.

Okay.

Not at all.

Go ahead. I should have asked. I apologize.

No, it's all good. My grandfather started a volunteer fire Department in Missouri, so. So I also have a soft spot for volunteer firefighters.

zero, I was just agreeing with you. Assemblymember. These are when private entities hire private resources. So volunteer fire agencies are under law.

They're regulated under law. Right.

Like volunteer fire departments are. And they're part of a public agency.

Prather, too. Like the. It's. I think it's not CAL FIRE, but it's another volunteer thing that I see CAL FIRE people are there all the time. So that's different than what you guys are trying to do. Yeah. Just wanted to confirm. Absolutely. No, we're talking about for profit. Sorry. For profit firefighters. Sorry.

I was like, no worries.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. And I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I mean, we have seen over the last decade, more private firefighting services, and certainly the Eaton and Palisades Flyer have highlighted the importance of this work. I will say that we saw this after the Thomas fire as well.

And there were really, you know, concerning coordination issues that were not happening. And so I appreciate legislation to refine some of what we've seen an increase of over the last 10 years. So thank you for bringing it forward. Would you like to close?

Absolutely. Firefighting is a public good. We all deserve to benefit from it.

And should a case ever arise where there are questions about whether there's enough water in a particular area to fight a fire, I know that folks in the community would rather ensure that their homes are protected and not private entities relying on that same water source. This ensures that.

That communication between public good and private interests is maintained for the good of everybody. And I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you very much. This is AB 1075. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Senator Grove, can we get a motion? Thank you. Senator Grove has made the motion. All right. And we'll call the roll.

All right. [Roll Call]

All right, that's 2-0. We'll leave that on call. Your next Bill is AB 1456.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and the Senator from Kern County. I think you may like this one as well. I'm pleased to present AB 1456, which requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to expand the treatable landscape under the California Vegetation Treatment Program, also known as Cal VTP.

Before I begin, I will be accepting the Committee amendments. I want to thank the staff for their incredibly hard and diligent and thoughtful work.

CalVTP was developed and approved by the board in 2019 to streamline CEQA for vegetation management projects, including prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, manual treatments as tools to reduce hazardous vegetation around communities and to restore healthy ecological fire regimes.

In the Governor's emergency proclamation following the LA fires, the Governor acknowledged that even with the success of CalVTP, more is needed to expedite critical fuel reduction projects in more areas of the state, including those not yet covered by CalVTP.

The proclamation directs the board to Take immediate steps to update the CalVTP FPEIR to increase CalVTP's efficiency and utilization in order to continue promoting rapid environmental review for large wildfire risk reduction treatments.

To facilitate greater vegetation management projects under this program, this Bill requires the Board to expand areas across the state with where the programmatic EII under CEQA can be applied. This Bill also integrates indigenous knowledge and tribal ecological knowledge by including provisions that recognize the dual objectives of cultural and ecological restoration through vegetation management activities.

This Bill has received bipartisan support and has no no votes. Here with me to testify is Kris Rosa representing the California Forestry Association and Heather Blair from Ascent to answer any technical questions.

Great. Thank you. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Grove. Kris Rosa on behalf of Cal Forest, The California Forestry Association, in support of AB 1456, since its launch in late 2019, the California Vegetation Management Program, CalVTP has become a vital tool in the state's wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts.

The Programmatic Impact Report approved by the California Board of Forestry currently enables state, local governments, NGOs, local governments, private landowners and tribes to carry out critical fuel reduction projects across 650,000 acres in the state responsibility area. With another 450,000 acres currently pending approval.

These projects are already reducing wildfire risk, but much more work needs to be done. The January wildfires in LA were a stark reminder that callous catastrophic wildfire is now a year round statewide threat. To meet this challenge, California must leverage all available tools.

In March, Governor Newsom issued an Executive order directing the Board of Forestry to expand CalVTP beyond the state responsibility areas. And this expansion will improve the program's efficiency and allow more local governments, tribes and partners to implement essential fuel reduction and ecological restoration projects.

For these reasons, Cal Forest is proud to support AB 1456 and look forward to working with all parties to refine legislation to ensure it achieves our mutual goals of reducing wildfire risk by expediting critical fuel reduction projects without jeopardizing important environmental protections. We ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Technical. Okay, Perfect. All right. Any additional witnesses and support in the room? All right. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Senator Grove, any comments or questions or motion? I know Senator Grove is like the Senate Natural Resources motion allstar today. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Grove.

Chair Bryan. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote on this CEQA streamlining measure for vegetation management being carried by the Assembly Natural Resource Chair.

There we go. All right. And with that, we have AB 1456. Senator Grove has made the motion. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

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

All right, that has two votes. We'll leave that on call for absent Members. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we have two more bills and we are going to do file orders. So we're going to start with Assemblymember Pellerin. Assembly Member Pellerin has AB 679.

Good morning. Good morning. So thank you, Madam Chair, and Committee staff, for working so diligently with us on amendments that enable public engagement about land transfers while affording flexibility to the Department of State Parks to facilitate this engagement. I accept those amendments.

In August 2020, a lightning storm caused three large fires in the vicinity of Big Basin State park in my district. These three fires converged into one massive inferno that burned over 87,000 acres and decimated 97% of the properties in Ano Nuevo, Big Basin and Buteno State Parks.

Almost all recreational facilities were destroyed in this fire, including the visitor center, shops, residences, trails, and the nature museum that was new to the park at that time. Although almost five years have passed since the fire, still much of Big Basin remains closed to the public.

Following the CZU lightning complex fire, the California Department of Parks and Recreation partnered with various conservation organizations with the mutual goal of transferring ownership of land parcels to the Department for cohesive rebuilding, permanent land preservation, and wildfire prevention planning. However, these acquisitions have been held back by the extensive Public Works Board approval process for land acquisitions.

This delay often leaves conservation partners in a vulnerable position as they must continue to own and manage high conservation value lands for unplanned and long periods of time.

AB679 will provide certainty of timely land transfers from acquisition partners to the Department of Parks and and Recreation by adding property acquired for Big banks and Redwoods, Ano Nuevo and but State Parks to the list of exemptions from the Public Works Board process.

The Committee's amendments create a public notification and public participation process prior to the close of escrow on these properties, which is a feasible task for the State Parks Department. With me to testify in support is Rachel Dan representing the Semper Vibrance Fund and another, Rachel Norton representing the State Parks Foundation.

Thank you. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Limon. Members, my name is Rachel Dan and I'm the Director of Government relations for Sempervirens Fund. Sempervirens Fund is a conservation organization that has been working to protect redwood forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains for 125 years. And we're the proud sponsor of this bill.

As the Assembly Member noted, In August of 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex for burned more than 86,000 acres in the Santa Cruz Mountains, including 97% of Big Basin State Park. And the fire also burned through parts of Butno and Ano Nuevo.

After the fire, State parks embarked on a revisioning process for Big Basin to reimagine what rebuilding this iconic park could be.

And the vision centers around taking the parking, the visitor center and other development away from the old growth forest and putting it where it was located before the fire and rebuilding these facilities on adjacent properties in order to better protect the old growth redwoods, but also to provide a superior visitor experience for the park.

And so our organization worked quickly to acquire these identified properties and have been holding them and stewarding them in advance of transfer. The reason why I'm here before you today is because the transfer process is often slow and inefficient.

In the past, our organization has experienced long delays once the process gets to the Department of General Services and the Public Works Board. In one case waiting over a year and a half to get acquisitions just calendared on that agenda.

AB679 is a common sense bill that will streamline this process for parks that were devastated by the CZU fire. The Bill helps parks work more efficiently with trusted conservation partners to acquire and then transfer land to Big Basin, Anuevo and Butno.

By removing just one step in the process and allowing state parks to acquire property directly like many other state agencies already do, with appropriate oversight by Department of General Services. AB679 supports the very type of collaboration that made Big Basin State park possible in the first place.

By enabling a more efficient partnerships with organizations like ours, this Bill ensures California can continue to protect iconic landscapes, recover from natural disasters like catastrophic fire, ensure that Californians and people from all over the world can continue to enjoy the magnificence of Big Basin Redwood State Park. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Good morning, Chair Limon and Members of the Committee. I am Rachel Norton. I am the Executive Director of California State Parks Foundation. And I'm honored to be here in support of AB679, sponsored by our friends at Sempervirens.

As you've heard, there is a tremendous need to address the inefficiency of the current acquisition process for the Department of Parks and Recreation as it works with partners to reimagine and restore Big Basin State park after the devastating CZU fire almost five years ago, as well as neighboring sites in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

AB679 provides a targeted set of exemptions from the current cumbersome process for a limited period of time and in an area with a lot of pent up need for additional acquisition, it begins to test a framework that could be very useful for state parks and its conservation partners in other parts of the state.

The Committee's analysis makes clear that the Legislature has been working on trying to streamline the acquisition process for state park lands for quite some time. AB679 represents a small step forward, and we look forward to continuing that conversation with the Legislature on how that process might change. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Please come forward. Just state your name, affiliation and position.

Good morning. Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy in support on the behalf of Sonoma Land Trust.

Good morning. Jake Schultz, on behalf of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County and Save the Redwoods League and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Tasha Newman, on behalf of the California Council of Land Trusts and the Peninsula Open Space Trust, in support.

Good morning Chair. Reid Addis on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to Members. Senator Allen.

Yeah, Let me just start by saying how enthusiastically supportive I am of this Bill. I mean, it's close to home because while it's not in my district, we're facing a similar situation, though unfortunately more recent in a catastrophic wildfire that just destroyed two beautiful state parks that I grew up going to and loving.

And so, you know, I just want to thank the author. This issue came up at our sub 2 hearing as well as we were talking about, you know, wildfire recovery funding, both on the park side and also on the fireside. This particular issue came up in our discussion with the state parks chair.

So I've got a related bill, SB630, which shares the same goal of making it easier for state parks to acquire land. Of course, it's a statewide program, but we're all working closely together with your sponsors here on this bill, too.

You know, different scope of both bills, but both bills seek to remove unnecessary costs and delays and bolster the department's ability to do more to protect communities and the environment and help our State reach its 30 by 30 goals and make sure there's more access to really great wholesome experiences in our parks.

So I know our staffs have been working the two committees on the. On the Assembly and Senate side to make sure that the bills complement. We work on chaptering out even though Erwin Nowak isn't here anymore. He's around. He's around. He is. Actually I saw him yesterday. I did too. There was an Irwin sighting.

I think he made sure that we all saw him. But I just want to say I'm really committed to working with this wonderful Committee and your office and the Assembly Committee as the two bills move forward. It came up a little bit in the context of our bill yesterday. I spoke to the Chair about it.

So I'm sure we can figure out a really good path so as to ensure that we are, you know, make it easier for state parks, which, you know, I love to bits. And yet I think we've all. We all want to. We want to help them get. Be more efficient in. In their. In their.

In their sacred service to the public. And so I'll. I'll move the bill when appropriate.

Thank you. Thank you. Any additional comments? All right. Senator Grove is looking at me because she has been the all Star Committee Member today. So I want to thank you and the sponsors.

We've gone back and forth to try to find how to achieve your goal of expediting the process, but also letting the public know what that process looks like and what is happening in their community. So I want to thank you for that work.

It was a little back and forth and you've been very committed and focused on making sure. And so we want to be really supportive of where this is headed and also committed to make sure that there's alignment and congruency between both bills going forward.

They do slightly different things or the focus is slightly different, but certainly want to make sure that they complement each other as well. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Again, once again, I appreciate your involvement and advice and direction. And you know, Big Basin is our oldest state park in the State of California.

And this bill is a district bill to help them achieve their goal of reimagining rebuilding this amazing state park for everyone to enjoy and to help us reach our 30 by 30 goals. So I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you. And yes, you're all invited.

And this is AB679. The motion was made by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, that is three. And we'll leave that on call for absent Members. Three. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right, now we have Assemblymember Stefani. Thank you. Assembly Member Stefani. You have AB 1417. You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, today I'm proud to present AB 1417, which ensures that as California develops offshore wind, we also build with transparency and equity. This Bill requires offshore wind developers to report to the California Energy Commission any funding they provide directly to local and tribal communities, specifically for the purposes of capacity building.

In addition, AB 1417 expands the scope of the existing voluntary offshore wind and coastal resources protection program, allowing capacity building activities and grants in local and tribal communities to be eligible uses of any voluntary donations to that program.

Offshore wind is a cornerstone of California's clean energy future, but we can't build that future without including the voices of the communities who live closest to the impacts. I've always said in all of my representation of communities that we don't do things to the communities, we do things with the communities.

The CEC's own strategic plan makes it clear community participation, especially from tribes and frontline communities, is not optional, it's essential. Right now, too many of those communities are shut out of the process, not because they lack interest, but because they lack resources. They need support to attend workshops, respond to technical documents and engage with developers and agencies.

Without that capacity, we risk repeating past mistakes where large scale development moved forward without community voice or buy in AB 1417 moves us toward a cleaner grid and a more just one. It helps ensure that California's offshore wind rollout is not just fast, but that it's fair.

With me today, I have Alexis Sutterman with Brightline Defense and Jennifer Fearing with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, who will be testifying in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Alexis Sutterman speaking on behalf of Brightline Defense. We are an environmental justice organization that's supportive of clean energy policies in California. We're in strong support of AB 1417 and the proud sponsor of this Bill.

Glad to be working on a productive measure that can increase transparency, awareness and support for local and tribal capacity building on clean energy development. We, in addition to proactively ensuring future donations to the state's voluntary offshore wind program can be eligible for capacity building.

We're glad to see AB 1417 would also require public disclosure on the level of financial support that developers are making in local regions impacted by offshore wind this will enable folks who are the most impacted to have a seat at the planning table for offshore wind.

It will also help California make progress on its clean energy goals with frontline communities and tribes leading the way. And this Bill is supported by a broad diverse coalition of stakeholders, including environmental advocates, tribal governments, labor unions, scientific institutions and community based and environmental justice organizations. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Good morning and thank you Chair Limon and Members. Jennifer Fearing I'm here on behalf of Monterey Bay Aquarium, but also the National Wildlife Federation and Surfrider in strong support of AB 1417.

And I'd just like to say how honored I am to be the the last primary witness to testify in support of a Bill during this Chair's excellent leadership of this Committee.

It is critical that the public have capacity to engage and provide input into the offshore wind planning process to ensure that this new energy resource does not adversely impact our ocean and marine life or our communities.

AB 1417's thoughtful framework helps ensure capacity building for communities that will be impacted by offshore wind development so that they can productively and thoroughly engaged. We urge your aye vote on AB 1417 and thank the Assembly woman for her leadership.

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

Will do. Thank you. Madam Chair. Eduardo Martinez. I'm conveying the support of Climate First, Replacing Oil and Gas, Sea Frog, Clean Power Campaign, Environmental Protection Information Center, EPIC and Elected Officials Protecting America, EOPA Code Blue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Delfino for Audubon California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Good morning again. I'm Maria Gavidia. I'm a constituent of a Assemblymember Stefani here on behalf of Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Gabriela Fasio with Sierra Club California in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? All right, seeing no witnesses in opposition in the room. We'll bring it back to the Members. Any questions or comments? All right, seeing no questions or comments, we have a motion by Senator Stern. Thank you Member Stefani for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Yes, thanks. Madam Chair. You'll note there's no opposition and that's by no accident. We worked hard with American Clean Power and all the stakeholders to remove the concerns. So this Bill comes to you without any opposition.

And as Assemblymember or the chair Assembly woman Cottie Petrie-Norris said in the Committee where this was heard that if you want to go fast, go alone. And if you want to go far, go together. And I think this Bill is a represent of that. And I really just ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion by Senator Stern for AB 1417. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Can we please call the roll?

Senator Limon?

Aye.

Limon, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, no. Alan? Alan, aye. Grove? Senator Hurtado? Hurtado, aye. Laird? Stern? Stern, aye.

All right, that is 4:1. And we'll leave that Bill on call for absent Members. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Members, we have heard every Bill. So we're going to begin with the file, starting from file item 2. And just as a reminder, file item 1 was pulled by the authority, so we will. 3. Sorry, my numbers are different.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 60. And we'll leave that on call for absent Members. We need a motion for file item five. That's AB915. Petrie Morris. The motion is due. Passed as amended to Appropriations. Do we have motion? Motion so moved. All right, so that motion. Sorry, it was made by Senator Hurtado.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 5-0. We'll leave that Bill on call.

[Roll Call]

Our right, that is 6-0. We'll leave that Bill on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that motion is 6-0. We will leave that on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 4:1 On a call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 5-0.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 6-0. We'll leave that on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 6-0 on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's 4:1.

[Roll Call]

That is 6-0 on call. Thank you. Members that are here. We're going to leave the call open for absent Members. But the Members that are here have voted on everything. Thank you.

We're going to go on recess as we wait for absent Members.

All right, so the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is going to do some add on votes and we will go ahead and begin.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is out. That is 7-0.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 6-0. We'll leave that on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 7-0. That Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 7-0 out.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is 5:1. We will actually. So that was AB679. We're going to leave that on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 60. That is out.

[Roll Call]

That is 7-0. That is out.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 7-0 out.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 5:1. We'll leave that on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is 7-0. And that the consent calendar is 70. And the consent calendar is out. Thank you very much. And so we're going to go ahead and recess again and just leave it. Well, Reese set it Natural resources and water and wait for just some add on votes. Thank you.

All right, we're going to go ahead and open the roll on the remaining items.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 7-0, and that is out.

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 52. That is out. All right. And so that concludes our hearing. We will go ahead and adjourn.