Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Okay. Good morning, everyone. We'll go ahead and start. Thank you for being here. We've got, I think, six bills today, and given our short agenda, we won't impose time limits, but try to be as brief as possible and not repeating other points and filing following primary witnesses.

We'll do the usual and call upon the audience to state their support or opposition. I know that we don't have a quorum, but that's okay. We'll get started as a Subcommitee until we do so. With that, I see that we have Senator Hurtado here. Welcome. Good morning. Come on down. You want to start with 224? Okay. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 224, awesome Bill. I want to start by thanking the Committee and your diligent staff for your work on this measure. I am accepting the amendments and I'm grateful for the thoughtful work that went into refining this measure.

This measure really builds on the groundwork laid by my previous Bill on SB 231, which I carried in 2023. Senate Bill 224 requires the Department of Water Resources to adopt the outstanding recommendations stemming from a 2023 audit conducted by the independent California State Auditor.

And specifically, SB 224 would require DWR to continue implementing its plan to update water supply forecasting models and procedures that address the effects of climate change. It would also ask provide annual updates to the Legislature relating DWR's progress in implementing the new forecasting model.

And it would also request for the implementation of a formal policy and procedures for documenting DWR's operational plans for the state's water supply. So, the whole reason for this Bill is back in water year 2021, there was the modeling errors by DWR led to over release of hundreds of thousands acre feet of water from the reservoir.

And you know, that's billions of gallons of water released to the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta at times when it had no positive impact to humans or wildlife. So, again, this is really a Bill that seeks to strengthen our forecasting, ensures transparency.

And with me today, I have Delano Council Member, former Council Member, Veronica Cruz Vasquez to testify and Rachel Glosser, from the—Executive Director of the Delta View Water Association.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Veronica Cruz Vasquez, former City Council Member from the City of Delano. I am here today to testify in support of SB 224, Hurtado, an important Bill which will require the Department of Water Resources to adopt the outstanding recommendation stemming from a 2023 audit conducted by the independent California State Auditor.

As this Committee is undoubtedly aware, California's Central Valley produces much of the nation's food, yet faces severe water security and allocation challenges.

These water security challenges are amplified by periods of severe drought, and as Senator Hurtado mentioned during her presentation, the City of Coalinga is a prime example of the costs associated with poor water management. In 2023, water restrictions left Coalinga short of 600 acre feet of water.

Thus, the city had to run to the increasingly expensive open market to make up the difference. The city's price tag for the life's most basic necessity was roughly $1.1 million and a city official told CNN the same amount of water used to cost the city $114,000 in previous years.

Unfortunately, many disadvantaged and low-income Central Valley communities already struggling with water security faced increased and unnecessary challenges due to water miscalculations. In my home community of Delano, we have faced severe water quality issues, and across the state, the problem remains severe.

More than 735,000 people are still severed by nearly 400 water systems that fail to meet state requirements for safe and reliable drinking water.

Unfortunately, the majority of these communities are located in California's Central Valley, many of who are primarily Latino farm working communities struggling with poverty and high unemployment. Water is the lifeblood for so many of our Central Valley communities.

This is why SB 224 is very much needed to strengthen California's ability to manage its water resources effectively, enhance the state's resiliency to drought. So, I truly thank you for allowing me to speak today in support of SB 224 and I respectfully ask for an aye vote for this important measure.

Madam Chair and the Committee—I'm not on.

Try to bring it closer and see if you get any...

Okay, there we go. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Rachel Glauser. I'm the Executive Director for the Delta View Water Association. I have the privilege of representing farmers and landowners in Tulare and Kings Counties and pleased to be here to support SB 224.

My growers are currently trying to adapt to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the implementation of that in the heart of the Central Valley. So, it remains a top priority for us, for our group and our growers, to see that our state has the ability to manage the water resources as efficiently as possible.

I also have members in disadvantaged communities and landowners in these communities, so the objectives that are outlined in SB 224 will give residents more confidence in overall water management practices. The Bill could prevent unnecessary water loss, which is obviously a huge component and enhances the state's preparedness in our inevitable drought years.

So, accurate water data modeling, planning, is critical for our communities and the agriculture industry that fuels and feeds all of us. My members always want to see transparency between themselves and their government, and I think that updates requiring DWR to provide those updates to the Legislator provides just that. Thank you for allowing me to speak today and I urge an aye vote in support of SB 224.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, with that, members of the audience who wish to express their support, please come forward.

Good morning. Kasia Hunt with Nossaman, on behalf of a Levenheim Municipal Water District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We're gonna take one quick break to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much. Okay with that, do we have any witnesses in opposition to this Bill? I didn't think so. With that, we'll bring it back. Any members of the audience wish to express opposition? Okay with that, we'll bring it back to the—thank you, Assemblymember Caloza moves the Bill.

Do we have a second? Second from Assemblymember Hart. Any questions? Comments? Vice Chair Gonzalez.

I want to thank the author for this, this Bill, this timely Bill and I appreciate the, the trans—the transparency. As we need more transparency, our growers, our farm workers, our communities absolutely need to know, I would rather say in real time what's going on, but you know, as best as we can get, that—it's important.

My question to the author or to your technical experts is as you, you know, year one, you forecast and then you see that there's a need to change. Is there any action that will be taken because of the—of any of the forecast changes? Do we know anything like that?

Do you want to answer?

Well, the whole idea is to have accurate forecast because that allows with certainty for a grower to plant or knowing just kind of as much in advance how much water they'll have. But when things are kind of unpredictable or up in the air, it makes everything that much more challenging.

And so, ensuring that the models are as accurate as possible and also, in real time, just provides that at least stability to know what is ahead and that there's consistency and not inconsistency from, from year to year.

I'll add to that, if I could. To echo the Senator, more information for our growers is better. So, the more information that they have to plan and prepare would be ideal.

Okay, thank you and I appreciate the response to these questions. And I get it. We're trying to get more information, and I, and I truly appreciate that. And it's because of that I'll be in support of this Bill.

I just want to thank the author. I've seen—oh, Assemblymember Bennett.

Just quickly, could you describe your interactions with DWR, in terms of interactions concerning this Bill? What's DWR's sort of feedback for you?

I have not heard from DWR. I mean, obviously DWR has stated the response to the audit, which could be found in the audit, but I have, I have not heard from DWR.

Then, how about the groundwater agencies in the, in the area? What kind of response or reaction are you getting from them?

I would say that individual folks within my Senate district have been very supportive. I haven't really heard any opposition, to be honest with you. If it exists, if it's out there, I'd be eager to know what the issue is. Always willing to work.

But for the most part, I think this, again, this is looking to bring some stability to planning.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. So, there's four locations that are specified in the Committee's amendments where two public meetings have to happen. How were those four locations chosen?

We tried to ensure that there were—that those locations were throughout the state, not just in one part. But I know that we did work with the Chair and her Committee to refine that.

And are you open to further refining that? I ask because if the intention of this is to get throughout the state, there's one that says nebulously one meeting in Southern California. Other than that, the most northern this goes is Santa Clara, which there's still nine hours of driving north of that in the State of California that isn't represented.

And in fact, one of the early opposition letters that I think has been removed was the Delta, as a suggestion.

I think I have the most current iteration of the Bill. I've got City of Redding, City and County of San Francisco, City of Tulare.

I'm looking at the Committee's amendments that strike the City of Redding and the County of Santa in San Francisco.

This is not the most current? Okay.

Yeah. These are the Committee amendments that are being proposed. I'm happy to support the Bill. I would also like to see an option that goes north into actual Northern California.

I understand that. Absolutely.

You done? Okay.

Well, I just want to thank the author. And perhaps we can get something a little more north. I don't think that should be a big issue, but I do want to thank you for bringing it. You know, climate change presents so much unpredictability as we have these deluges of rain and then periods of drought.

So, an annual assessment with new forecasting techniques, I think we can't go wrong. You're right. First of all, thank you to both witnesses for being here and sharing your stories, because I too believe about the import of water and how it touches all of us in any number of ways.

So, I think we can't go wrong with more attempts to address models based on climate change and then to do it more frequently. And I'm sure you'll work with Assemblymember Rogers about the remaining northern part of the state. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Excellent. We got a motion, a second. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out and we'll leave it open for other Members who may wish to come and vote. With that, Senator Hurtado, would you like to present your second Bill?

Yes.

Okay. So SB 556. I want to start by accepting the committee amendments. And once again, Madam Chair, thank you so much for working with us on this measure. As you know, the flooding that struck the southern San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Basin during the historic winter of 2023 was a stark reminder of the need for major improvements in the region's flood management capacity.

Both problems are worsened by the growing likelihood of more frequent and intense storms, extended droughts, declining surface water supplies, and loss of snowpack in the mountains. Fortunately, these challenges have a common solution. Multi-benefit floodplain restoration that gives rivers and floodwaters room to spread out, slow down, and sink into the region's overstressed aquifers.

Rather than harming people, crops, and property. Floodplain restoration projects similar to Those proposed in SB 556 produced numerous co-benefits beyond improved flood safety and groundwater recharge. Some of these benefits include fish and wildlife habitat restoration, creation of good paying jobs, which we desperately need in the Central Valley.

Natural carbon sequestration, clean water, and recreational opportunities for underserved Central Valley communities. Floodplain restoration is a common sense, proven, and scalable solution that has already been implemented across tens of thousands of acres of land throughout Central Valley.

And without action in our region, the Tulare Basin is left vulnerable to billions of dollars of future damage and sacrificing major opportunities to recharge groundwater and support the local ag community. SB 556 has been embraced by farmers, environmentalists, local communities, irrigation districts, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I am confident that the effects of SB 556 will serve to enhance the environment, the economy, and most importantly, the quality of life for residents throughout the southern Central Valley. And with me today, I have Mayor Saul Ayon of the City of McFarland and Julie Rentner, President of River Partners. Bill Eisenstein, Planning Director at River Partners, is also available for any answers to technical questions.

Good morning, Assembly Members. Can you hear me? And thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I stand before you not only as the Mayor of the City of McFarland, but the voice of a small, resilient community that has endured more than 40 years of hardship due to this repeated flooding from Poso Creek.

For decades, our community has lived with the devastating impacts of flood waters. These floods disrupt our daily lives, threaten our homes, our schools, our streets for a low income, underserved community. The source of flooding lies beyond our city limits.

When Poso Creek overflows, floodwaters pass through a large animal confinement, which is a dairy, a feedlot housing thousands of cattle before entering our community. This is simply not just stormwater. It's water contaminated with animal waste, creating serious public health and environmental hazard. And this contaminated runoff doesn't just stop at our city edge.

It goes through our low income, underserved community. McFarland has done everything in its power to address this issue. We work with landowners, sought patchwork funding, and responded best we can with limited resources. But the truth is, we cannot do it by ourselves.

With SB 556, the Floodplain Restoration Bill, Senator Melissa Hurtado has demonstrated true leadership and a deep commitment to the Central Valley. This bill proposes a $20 million investment toward flood mitigation source of the problem, which is Poso Creek. This is not a bill. It's a long overdue, comprehensive solution to the crisis that has plagued our city for generations.

This funding represents more than dollars. It represents hope. Keeping our children safe. Our families no longer live in constant threat. It's a step towards environmental justice for the community that has long been overlooked. To the Members of this Committee, I say this. Approving SB and supporting 556 is more than a matter of infrastructure.

It's a matter of justice, health, and safety. It's the chance to correct a long standing wrong to ensure that small communities are performing are not forgotten in California's broader flood management efforts. On behalf of our community, I respectfully urge you to approve the Senate Bill 556.

Together, let's end this flooding, this cycle of flooding, and build a safer, stronger, more resilient McFarland. I just want to add, the financial burden is crushing for close to 40% of our residents live under the poverty line. They have to get flood insurance due to the fact that we're in a floodplain.

And just fixing this infrastructure would save a lot of thousands per year what these families could do with it. Also, when I mentioned our streets, homes, and you know, our kids, let's not forget about our beloved animals. We have to find a place for them as well.

But I want to end by sharing a personal moment that has stayed with me for a while. In March 2023, we had our last flood incident. I received a call from my father at about one or two in the morning. He tells me, hey, why do I have to relocate? The police officers are making me evacuate.

And he says. And I said, well, that's what you have to do because the water might, you know, flood the home. And he goes, what have you done? You're the mayor, you know. And let me share. I've only been in office for three months, right? So we're supposed to fix the problem right away. And at that time he's like, hey, go get a 100 residence. Go and get shoveled and tractors and divert that water elsewhere. Obviously we can't because of liability litigation.

And like I told our Senators and now Assembly Member, that we're here, I want to tell them now that approving supporting this bill, we have the whole state helping our underserved community. So with that, I just want to thank you for the time, and if you have any questions. We've personally endured this since in the 1990s. It's a problem that hasn't been addressed over decades. And now we're here to get this finally fixed. But thank you for your time.

Good morning. It's an honor to address you this morning. I'm Julie Rentner. I'm the President of River Partners, which is a nonprofit whose mission is to create wildlife habitat for the benefit of people and the environment. And since 1998, we've had the honor of leading about 20,000 acres of floodplain restoration projects just like those conceived of in SB 556 in largely rural communities across the Central Valley, but also across California.

These projects have been designed and installed in collaboration with many experts. So engineering experts, flood experts, groundwater recharge experts, and technical experts in ecological restoration, all of whom look at the floodplains of our creeks and streams in the Central Valley as an untapped resource for water storage and for community safety across the entire Central Valley. Amazing local leadership like that displayed here is necessary to deliver projects now to urgently fix problems that cause harm for humans and communities all over the Central Valley.

Frankly, the issues, the joint issues that climate change is bringing upon the Central Valley in increased intensity of flooding and increased severity of droughts, long duration droughts, make this climate resilient solution very urgent and important. We need to get to work.

And there's no doubt that there are, you know, many more floodplain restoration projects than could even be funded under SB 556 that are needed. And the voters approved climate resilience in Proposition 4 just last fall. Right. As a real endorsement that California sees a future that's innovative and integrated. Nature, wildlife, water system improvements, good paying jobs.

Frankly, a floodplain restoration program is needed at the state budget, but we don't have one. And frankly, deeper investment in the Tulare Basin is needed as well, and we don't have that. This bill would support floodplain restoration in the Tulare Basin in particular, which is a geography that is deeply underinvested in and of statewide importance. The cost of disaster recovery, as the Mayor just described, is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of investment in prevention of those disasters, which is what this bill does.

As we saw in the news just over this past weekend, paying attention to our floodplains and making sure that we have space to let water flow where it needs to flow can avoid catastrophe, loss of life, and loss of property in huge magnitude. I want to thank the entire Committee for your attention to this important bill. I want to thank Senator Hurtado for your leadership on this bill and invite you all to come out and visit the river and see what this climate resilience solution really looks like on the ground.

The launch of California's first new state park in over a decade last year at Dos Rios State Park is actually a component of the state's largest floodplain restoration project in history. It's over 2,000 acres of restored floodplains that's now a park that's open to public access for nature access, education, and recreation. It also hosts recovery of endangered wildlife and populations of wildlife that are on the brink of becoming endangered. So thank you for your support, and I appreciate your attention to this.

Thank you so much. Do we have members of the audience to express support?

Thank you very much. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Justin Fanslau on behalf of River Partners. Just wanted to add my personal thank you to you and your staff for working with us on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Pamela Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokut Tribe. Our council wishes they could have been here today, but very grateful for the work and the partnership. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay. Do we have witnesses in opposition? We do. Did you want to come to the table? You want to do it from there?

I get to be a tweener now based on the conversation. Reed Addis on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. We had concerns not with the policy of the bill but its implications on Prop 4. Understanding what the Chair and Committee and the Senator just worked out and what the Senator just accepted, we will move from opposition to neutral. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Good morning. I'm Jeff Stump with Save the Redwoods League. And we're in the same position. So thank the author for working with the Committee and remove our opposition.

Rachel Dann with Sempervirens Fund. We also remove our opposition for the same reasons. Thank you.

Well, look at that. Okay, with that, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Assembly Member Macedo.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. You guys were all saying things that I have been screaming since I got here. So thank you for not making me be the squeaky wheel today. It's critical, right? I don't think a lot of people up here in Sacramento understand the critical point that the Tulare Basin area is and that we're decades overdue for investment.

So this is much, much needed investment. For those of you that don't know, when the floods were happening, we were under drought and flood protocols at the exact same time. That's how crucial it is, this investment is. So hopefully this is just the beginning of a long line of investments. I will be on that tour, by the way, and I'll rally the troops to get more people there. So thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I'd be honored if you added me as a co-author.

Thank you, Assembly Macedo. Thank you, Assembly Member Gonzalez. Any other comments, questions? Okay, well, just thank you for bringing the bill. I love the story about your father. I got a lot of constituents like that too, that are just have my number in many ways. So anyway, would you like to close?

Thank you. I know the Mayor always has a great story, the story of his dad. And similarly, my parents give me a hard time. They want me to fix the insurance crisis, though, so. But I'm happy to work towards...

Before noon, I might add.

Yeah, exactly. But I'm happy to be able to at least contribute towards an effort that will provide a solution to communities that desperately need it. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. With that, we'll take a vote. Madam Secretary.

Item number three, SB 556. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll leave it open if anyone wants to add on. I'm not seeing any other authors here. If you can hear me, please come to room... What room are we in? 444. We're waiting.

Good morning, Senator Allen. Ready for you whenever you're ready. We'll take SB. Yours, SPC 630 first.

All right. Well, good morning, Madam Chair, and Members. Let me just start by thanking the Committee for working with us, and I'm accepting the Committee amendments with the commitment that we will be continuing some discussions. We move forward. We, I don't know if you want to outline the.

Our conversations, Madam Chair, at some point, but I, I think the Members have been apprised. So this ultimately was centered on the effort to try to help our Parks Department do more to protect communities and the environment, including helping our state reach its 30 by 30 goals.

The Parks Department has limited funds available to purchase critical lands needed to increase outdoor access and protect habitat. And after spending a bit of time on this issue, I've really come to the strong conclusion that we need to remove some bureaucratic barriers that are currently impacting our ability to stretch every dollar.

Even simple acquisitions by the Department have routinely taken multiple years due to onerous and oftentimes duplicative requirements in review by DGS and the Public Works Board.

Both of those departments have significant backlogs, sometimes in some cases years worth of backlog just in terms of processing their acquisition packages from all the different state departments that they have to approve.

Now, the standard review process for purchases might make sense when considering significant transactions, but it really does impose an outsized burden on simpler transactions, including DGS staff costs that, you know, can reach $90,000 per per purchase, and we've had some very small purchases that have gotten backlogged significantly as a result of this situation.

So, and there's a, there's a problem on our hands. As a result, the State Parks has a backlog of simple, straightforward acquisitions. Senator Allen. There we go. That's him. All right. I was monitoring the Back to the Future here. Okay, yeah, but, but, but State Parks has, has amassed this, this, this.

There's a backlog of simple, straightforward acquisitions, sometimes referred to as no brainer transactions, including 52 projects of donations of small acreage. And the other kind of aspect of this is that the public has lost an untold number of opportunities to secure critical parcels as a result of a protracted and duplicative process.

Some property owners won't even consider bringing projects to State Parks because they just can't hold onto the properties indefinitely while awaiting approval. And the word's gotten out as to the problems associated with giving property to parks.

And in addition, while existing law authorizes DGS to waive its review and approve an approval for any real estate acquisition or conveyance involving less than $150,000. This amount has not been adjusted since 1998 and it simply doesn't. So there's been no, there's no cost of living escalator.

We all know how much land values have incredible have increased incredibly since 1998. And so we're stuck with these old numbers. And it's really impacting states of state park's ability to grow.

So this Bill would streamline state parks real property transactions by removing duplicative review for simple acquisitions, allowing the parks to be more responsive and in working with local agencies and nonprofit partners to address pressing needs for park access, infrastructure and operations. Existing oversight requirements would remain for more significant acquisitions that meet any of the following criteria.

The creation of a new state park. Of course, transaction requiring state parks to expend more than $1 million or the property would require capital improvements or additional financial resources beyond the state park's budgeted resources.

In addition, the Bill would raise the threshold at which DGS is authorized to waive its review and approval of state park real estate transactions. And this will reduce the backlog over there and allow DGs to focus on larger and more complex acquisitions that require additional review.

So testifying with me in support of the Bill today, we have Michael Jarrett, who's associate Director at the Nature Conservancy, and also Jeff Stump, who's the Director of Land Protection at Save the Redwoods League.

Great. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Michael Jarrett, Associate Director with the Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is proud to support this important Bill and thanks the author for his leadership on this issue.

SB 630 is a vital piece of legislation that supports the state's 30 by 30 goals by making it easier for state parks to acquire conservation lands. TNC has worked closely with state parks on the Bowtie Project, which is part of the Rio De Los Angeles State Park.

The project will provide significant stormwater capture benefits, habitat and important public access. We believe state parks can provide many benefits to Californians by expanding existing state parks, and SB 630 supports that work. Senator Allen's SB 867, which became Proposition 4, made historic investments in the protection and conservation of nature.

SB630 builds on that legacy by reducing the cost and time to make those investments at state parks and offers an opportunity to receive smaller parcels, often at little or no cost to the state.

Specifically, SB630 will streamline the approval of acquisition of smaller or lower cost conservation properties by utilizing state parks approval process while foregoing DGS and the State Public Works Board's review, which adds significant cost and can take years to complete.

Many of these properties are immediately adjacent to existing state parks and offer important connectivity opportunities for both recreation and wildlife.

Accepting these properties will also reduce the burdens of managing state park units by lowering or eliminating the operational complications of in holdings and unlocking the final vision of the State park which will increase visitation and revenue generation opportunities. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today and I urge your aye vote on SB630. Thank you.

Good morning Chair Papan and Committee Members. I'm Jeff Stump, Director of Land Protection for Save the Redwoods League. I'm not sure why I'm here. The author gave such a great introduction and discussion of this Bill, but we're going to talk I'm going to talk a little bit about our first person experience.

The League has been working in partnership with California State Parks for more than 100 years. Our mission and in those hundred years we protected more than 220,000 acres of Coast Redwoods and Giant Sequoia creating helping to create more than 66 local, state and federal parks.

Our mission is to protect, restore and connect people to these incredible resources in the modern era. The League and our Conservation Organization Partners in coordination with Parks will step in to acquire in holdings and other important properties adjacent to existing parks and reserves as they come on the market and are available.

Conservation groups like the League can act quickly to secure these properties when the State cannot. Of course, the goal is to convey these properties to state parks, but right now the system is broken.

Essentially, the League currently owns monitors, stewards and 16 properties throughout the Redwood and Giant Sequoia Range that we acquired at the request of state parks one as far back as 1997. 12 of these properties would qualify for the process that would be created by Senator Allen's Bill.

Of those 12, 8 we are prepared to transfer at no cost to the State at all. So donation the acquisition process requires Department of General Services to duplicate the work that we do in partnership with State Parks, both regional and state acquisition staff. That includes site visits, title work, environmental review and other real estate functions.

This adds time and cost to the State and to partners like the league. Since 2008, the league is only been able to transfer 180 acre in holding within Montgomery Woods State Reserve up in Mendocino county to the State Park system.

Our team has been working to transfer 31/2 acre in holdings within existing state parks to the State Park system. These are projects I've been working on personally since 2022. Today, none of these projects has made it to the public workforce agenda for approval.

The ineffective and inefficient process has started to really affect our apart our ability to partner with state parks. This last year we had to pass on two important acquisition opportunities because the league's board of directors is hesitant to continue to buy more land.

When we can't transfer the land we own into the park system, these properties take time to monitor, et cetera. So this is not only our story, this is the story of dozens of nonprofit partners of our colleagues across the state. So it's affecting all state park units up and down California.

So on behalf of Save the Reds League and our conservation partners, we urge you to support this Bill.

If state parks can use the streamlined process to clear the backlog of properties that meet the criteria, it will free DGS, Department of Finance and the Public Works Board to focus their efforts on larger, more important, you know, really important projects and on behalf that will really work to advance the goals of the 30x30 and and connect our people to the parks.

So thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Members of the audience in support.

Good morning. Kim Delfino on behalf of Sonoma Land Trust in support. Thank you.

Rachel Dan from the Sempervirens Fund in support.

Good morning. Jake Schultz on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you.

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

Rachel Norton, California State Parks foundation in support.

Reid Addis on behalf of the Statewide Association of Local Conservation Corps in support.

Good morning. Madam Chair Members. Doug Houston representing Save Mountain Diablo, we're in support.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to the state spending money faster? Okay, with that we'll bring it back to the. I see Assembly Member Rogers Bennett and Berner will go in there. Thank you. We have second from Hart and then we'll go Rogers, Bennett and then Assembly Member Caloza.

I'd just like to be added as a co author. Thank you.

Thank you. oh, go for it.

I think the Bill is, is way overdue in terms of being needed going all the way back to 1998. I'm not very concerned about the state parks Director getting out of control and accepting too many properties inappropriately.

And so I encourage the author to next year consider this Bill again and perhaps more exceptions, for example, like for the in holdings. That ought to be a much more a real streamlined process. You know, we want to try to get rid of those in holdings, those kind of things.

And potentially, if you look at it, if you go from 1998 in terms of $150,000 and you, you put the real estate inflation factor on there, I would, I would come back and see if people are going to be comfortable with a higher amount because I don't think you're going to clear the backlog at $500,000.

And so we've negotiated up to 750,000, but you know, I'd love it to be higher, but that's where we are, and sure, and so.

Yeah. And so and, and I support this Bill as it is. I just think that we just with more information and stuff that may be, it may be, may be appropriate and we may have the Committee, you know, be willing to look at that after a year when we get more data in terms of that.

So I'd like to be a co author of this Bill but encourage us because I think in the long run we want to try to clear these things because nonprofit agencies won't, won't want to hold on to these properties for a long period of time if they can't get them over to state parks and if they, if they aren't good properties, pretty confident that the State Park Director not going to be accepting properties that are going to cause, you know, undue expense for the state, etc.

So with that, I appreciate the work of the Committee and author and I just think in the long run we've got more work to do here with. Thank you.

Thank you, and it sounds like just the makings of a Bennett-Allen Bill next year on this topic. Yeah.

Thank you so much. Chair Papan, I just wanted to thank the author for bringing this forward and all the stakeholders that came out to do a me too in support. I actually serve on the state Public Works Board. So thank you for bringing this issue to light.

Assembly Member Coloza.

Would love to maybe work on a Bennett-Allen-Coloza Bill next year. That's right. To continue to meet our 30 by 30 goals. I also have some Parksville as well as inspired by our chair and would also love to be as a co author. Thank you.

Assembly Member Tangipa

Yes, thank you. And so I know there's a lot of focus on the state parks portion of it, but just for clarity, this raises the DGS waiver for all state agencies, not just state parks.

So state parks will go up to a million and DGS would go up to 750,000 under the terms of our negotiated settlement, and then the Seven year sunset.

For all state agencies, though, not just state parks.

Effectively, yes, it's a yes. Again, it's more generous to state parks. But again, the median.

DGS reviewed their past five years of appraisal review data and they found that the median was about $1.0 million. So we found that there's a massive kind of statewide problem.

Now DGS would still maintain its waiver authority, so it would only grant it for departments that had met the requisite experience for the simplicity or complexity of the acquisition.

So DGS could still review any project under 750,000 if they wanted to, but it just gives them the ability to take a look at the project and say we're not going to have to go through the lengthy review for these smaller projects.

Yeah, I don't think CARBs in the land acquisition business. But, but, but I, I mean, I guess if they were, and

And just for clarity on my part, do these state agencies, do they have a cap on what they're allowed to, you know, I mean, could CARB find 10 properties at $400,000 apiece and spend $4 million with just DGS review?

I understand. That, I'm just looking at it from, from all,

I mean, you could, if they were all separate purchases, again, DGS would, would take an initial review of each of those purchases. DGS would still do an initial review, but this would provide that opportunity for them to not have to go through that, trigger the more lengthy review.

And I understand on that part, I just have, I have concerns with a lot of, and I understand on the state park side too, it's just the differences for all agencies for that, I just have some concerns there, especially on the fiscal side of things.

Yeah, the reason why, the way it kind of got in on the fiscal side of things, remember the review we found sometimes costs up to $100,000 for a $200,000 purchase. So that's a wild problem we have.

And the reason why we ended up expanding it out is because we found, even though we started this out with the parks conversation, is that the backlog of DGS in general has created massive problems for parks. So that if we can lower their backlog for the larger purchases, that will still be subject to the robust review.

Over $1.0 million at parks, those will hopefully get sped up as a result of giving more flexibility for these smaller purchases.

I understand that part. There's, you know, there's been some, some issues with like High Speed Rail Authority, when they have some acquisition, they don't have as many barriers in place.

And that's what the goal of this Bill is to actually expedite so that way we're not caught up in that long process that actually costs more just from the labor side just to get it done.

But some of the issues that we've seen with high speed rail is that there wasn't an additional oversight to make sure part of the review or even some pieces in place to make sure that there was actual fiscal plan, which actually we all just voted on yesterday in place for high speed rail to get to those points.

And so it's just concerns on that part I completely understand especially the goal more on the state parks portion of it. It's more of the other agencies, that part and some of the waivers I think allows less oversight on that, especially just moving into more of a fiscally troubling times for the future outcast. Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, yeah. I mean there's plenty to criticize about high speed rail, of course, but, but there's a, that's a, that was a kind of a macro decision made for better, for worse, you know, and lots of those purchases happen regardless of the adequacy of the fiscal review. So here we're talking about, about kind of smaller standalone purchases.

So. Yeah.

Thank you and thank. You for your work on this. I think it's, there's a lot of merit to this proposal. I'm just trying to understand from the analysis the, the amounts will be limited to. You had mentioned 750,000 for DGS and a million for parks, is that correct?

That's correct, yeah. Okay.

Assembly Member Alvarez.

Those are just for clarify, those are proposed amendments that will take place after this Committee.

Oh, thank you.

If you have confusion, that's why.

Okay, I, I appreciate that. Okay, so there are proposed amendments to, to reduce that then, Madam Chair, the proposed amendment is to reduce that to 500,000.

So for non state property, non park properties, it's 750,000. The threshold for park properties is still a million.

Okay, thank you. And I hear my colleague's concern on the potential well intentioned misuse of the authority. Is there going to be any specific reporting requirements on this? I know there's a sunset provision which is, which is helpful, that can review it then. But an annual report either to the Legislature on which properties use the waiver, how.

What is the transparency measures around that?

Yeah, that was part of, in fact we probably should have just, I don't know the procedure for announcing our deal, I suppose, but that was part of it was, was regular reporting requirements to the Legislature. So you chat with your. With our wonderful staff just to your left, who could tell you about it, but we've got a.

That's part of our negotiated deal that's going to be adopted in Appropriations.

You would love your engagement on crafting language.

Okay. Well, I certainly would specifically look to that component of it. Appreciate your.

I think just, you know, for. For transparency sake and certainly for accountability. While sunset is good, also an annual just notification on which types of transactions took place would be helpful. So look forward to those amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Fair enough. Anyone else? Okay, well, anytime you're taking, if I may, this much in a statue and making it this much in a statue, perhaps we've accomplished something with cutting some, some green tape. So would you like to close?

That said, appreciate the thoughtful conversation and sounds like we got some more work to do to improve the situation in the future and respect for that, and.

I appreciate your willingness to engage on this so that we could make it a tad more workable. So with that, we'll go ahead and take a vote, Madam Secretary.

Roll Call

So that bill is out, and we'll leave the remainder for add ons. And we're gonna do just a little bit of cleanup here, Madam Secretary, so that we can get votes on the record for folks that weren't here and the ones we voted on so far.

And you know. And I'm also presenting.

Oh, yes, And I'll be right with you. Thank you, senator. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. So we'll start with Hurtado.

Okay. Item number one, SB 224. [roll call]. Item number three, SB 556. [roll call]. Item number three, SB 556. [roll call]

Okay. With that, we'll come back to Senator Allen, who's going to be presenting Senator Dahles' bill, SB 718.

All right. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'm here presenting SB 718, which is a bill that--I'm a joint author with Senator Dahle--and this is a bill that is--my wife and I like to call Ziggy's Law because it's at least partially inspired by my father-in-law who we sadly lost a couple of years ago who spent significant portions of his life in deep poverty and relied on subsistence hunting and fishing to feed himself and his daughters at certain points in his life.

A lot of people think of hunting and fishing as a sport, and certainly lots of people get great enjoyment out of those experiences, but, but it also is a very meaningful, important source of food for a lot of people around our country when it's an age-old practice back to the dawn of time and certainly it's a phenomenon in our state. We've got a lot of very low-resource folks, especially in rural areas, who rely on hunting and fishing.

And this bill basically reduces the cost of licenses for folks with very little resources so as to give them access to this kind of--to hunting and fishing in a way that's both responsible; we want them to comply with the law, we want them to work with the department, but we also want to make sure it's affordable to them. We want to recognize the fact that these are folks with very few resources, so I approached Senator Dahle and we decided to do this bill together.

It's been a fun experience and I'm hopeful this will make a difference for, for folks, especially in our, in rural parts of our state who rely on hunting and fishing for subsistence and that will make a difference for them, and with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Senator Dahle and myself.

Okay, we got a motion and a second. Let--do we have any other witnesses in support? Anyone from the audience? Okay. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Assembly Member Rodriguez.

Yes, I was going to move the bill but I'm glad that that already happened. I want to thank you for bringing this. I think it's a really wonderful proposal and I'd love to be added as a co-author.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

I just want to confirm you're accepting the committee amendments?

We are accepting the committee amendments. Yes we are.

Excellent. Assembly Member Tangipa.

Yeah. I just, again, also want to iterate saying thank you. This is something that my family utilized and used and made a pretty big difference when if you can get a buck and you can keep it in a freezer for a long time, you've actually got some meat for, for a little bit.

And especially growing up in a low-income family--I'm looking at the household size; my family, especially my younger brother, still qualify for it. So, you know, for us, I just wanted to say thank you, and if you are looking for co-authors, would love to join on this one.

We'd love, we'd love to have you on.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. With that, would you like to close?

Yeah. I mean, this is something we provide to disabled veterans and also to seniors. We wanted to extend this to low-income Californians, and I just appreciate your recognition and I just want to send a shout-out to my wife, Melanie, and to the legacy of her wonderful father, Michael Ziggy Luther. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Love it. Thank you so much. With that, we'll take a vote.

Item Number Seven: SB 718. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Thank you, members.

The bill is out. Thank you so much, Senator Allen. Have a good day. Okay. Senator Blakespear, come on down. Good morning. Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and colleagues. Hello. Good morning.

Hello.

I'm happy to be here with you to present bill SB 427. Since 1990, the Habitat Conservation Fund, which is otherwise known as HCF, has been a highly effective program for implementing a wide range of vital conservation efforts. To date, the fund has protected more than 1.2 million acres of wildlife habitat throughout California.

The 35 year track record of providing resiliency to the effects of climate change, creating new jobs, increasing outdoor access in communities and supporting a robust tourism economy is something that we should support.

This was initially created $30 million a year by a voter approved Proposition 117, the California Wildlife Protection act, and what it funds are critical ecosystems, open spaces, wildlife corridors and public access to natural areas. Senate Bill 427 will extend the existing sunset date on the funding from July 1, 2030 to July 1, 2035.

In my district alone, the Wildlife Conservation board has allocated 13.9 million in HCF money for projects, including 1.9 million for habitat linkages, 2.2 million for the acquisition of 134 acres along the Buena Vista Creek and Carlsbad and Oceanside, and 1.3 million for the Trabuco Creek Fish Passage project in South Orange County.

Nearly 1,000 projects statewide have been supported by HCF Dollars, including acquiring 235 acres by the Santa Clara Open Space Authority for protection of migration corridors to acquire land and enhance habitat as part of the Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead restoration project in Shasta and Tahama counties and to preserve and manage local open space, coastal access, parklands, watersheds and trails in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange County.

Since the legislature and the Governor agreed in 2019 to extend the Habitat Conservation Fund through 2030, the Department of Finance has proposed to sweep the HCF twice and to terminate it once, putting this critical funding at risk.

The legislature rejected those efforts, but the point of this bill is to make it entirely clear that The Habitat Conservation Fund, $30 million every year, is an important priority and that we reject future efforts that may be proposed by the Department of Finance to sweep this critical funding stream. So with that, I have two witnesses in support.

Natalie Brown on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League, and Michael Chen on behalf of the Audubon California.

Well, we should let them present because they came, right? Okay.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Natalie Brown. I'm an environmental policy advocate with the Planning and Conservation League, which is the California State affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation, which is a co sponsor of SB 427.

When California voters passed Prop 117 in 1990, they did so with the intent of creating a permanent source of funding for open space acquisition and the conservation of lands and waters in California.

This measure created the Habitat Conservation Fund, a unique pot of funding that has since protected 1.2 million acres of habitat across California, supported hundreds of local and regional parks projects, and preserved some of our state's most treasured landmarks.

In the districts represented by this committee alone, the Habitat Conservation Fund has protected nearly 200,000 acres of wildlife habitat and invested over 160 million in wildlife habitat conservation and local park projects since its creation. Importantly, the benefits of the Habitat Conservation Fund are not limited to these actual grant dollars themselves.

When conservancies, park districts and other recipients receive HCF funding, it can create opportunities for private investment and matching grants that go well beyond the benefits of the state's upfront contributions, which creates a huge economic impetus for critical conservation projects.

Extending the Habitat Conservation Fund helps project proponents strategize for long range projects, knowing that these funds will continue to exist into the future.

Humboldt Bay Coastal Reserve, Imperial Wildlife Area along the Salton Sea, Bear island in San Mateo county, and hundreds upon hundreds more projects in every corner of our state provide everyday benefits to California's people and ecosystems. Thanks to the Habitat Conservation Fund support, this program has proven itself and it deserves to be extended by SB 427.

I want to thank Senator Blakespear and Senator Stern for their leadership, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Michael Chen, Senior Manager for Government relations for Audubon California co sponsor SB 427. Thank you to Senator Blakespear and Senator Stern for bringing this measure forward this session. The HCF was created in 1990 and has for nearly 40 years been an important fund source for protecting critical ecosystems throughout the state.

We are the most diverse state in the country, yet we are rapidly losing species and seeing once common species in decline. We have been going through massive changes in our ecosystem. In the past 170 years.

We have lost approximately 95% of our historic wetlands, resulting in significant declines of populations of migratory birds which includes ducks, geese, shorebirds and songbirds. The primary cause of population decline in birds and other wildlife is the loss of habitat. This is what makes the HCF Fund so essential.

In addition to providing habitat for wildlife, HDF funded projects provide many other public benefits including recreation, flood protection, scientific research, climate resilience and nature based recreation.

Since its inception, the HCF has been vital and instrumental in restoring habitats and extending the HCF shows our commitment to preserving its biodiversity, building climate resilience and expanding access to nature for more Californians. Since 1990, the HCF has protected close to 1.2 million acres of wildlife and has provided benefits throughout the state.

The fund itself has demonstrated its efficacy and deserves a more permanent commitment moving forward. This will be even more important going forward as California strives towards meeting its 30 by 30 goals, implementing nature based climate solutions and improving more equitable access to nature. Thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Do we have Members of the audience that wish to express their support. Come on down.

Good morning. Kim Delfino, on behalf of CalTrout, Defenders of Wildlife, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sonoma Land Trust, California Native Plant Society, and Trout Unlimited, all in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, San Diego Humane Society, and the Surfrider Foundation, in strong support of SB 427.

Rico Mastrodonato, Legislative Director for the Trust for Public Land. Sadly, conservation has depended on bonds for decades, and sometimes bonds aren't there, but the HCF is. This is a really, incredibly important bill. Thank you, for the author.

Michael Jarred with the Nature Conservancy and support, thank you.

Steve Wallach, on behalf of the California Tahoe Alliance, in support.

Reed Addis, on behalf of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County and the Statewide Association of NCCPs, in support.

Gabriel Tolson, on behalf of the Resource Renewal Institute as well as the Pacific Forest Trust, in support, thank you.

Rachel Norton, California State Parks foundation, in support.

Rachel Dann, Sempervirens Fund and support.

Jake Schultz, on behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and East Bay Regional Park District, in support. Thank you.

Doug Houston, on behalf of the Sierra Business Council, Sierra Consortium and the Tahoe Water Partnership, all in support. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Jeff Stump, Save the Redwoods League, in support, thank you.

Thank you so much. Do I have to ask, do we have any witnesses in opposition. With that I'll bring it back to the Committee. Comments, questions. Vice Chair Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair Papan. This specifically impacts my district, with the Salton Sea. And I see that there's an organization in support here. Let me just clarify what, what this also means, right. People think this is about birds and plants right, and it's the end of the conversation.

But the reality is, in the Salton Sea region, with the exposed playa, when we conserve that region, we are actually impacting the air, the quality of air that we breathe in.

So I want to make sure that, you know, folks who are watching and listening that, you know, might be in opposition to this, that this is not just about, if you will, a bird and a plant. This is about a whole ecosystem, us included inside of this. So that's very important.

Recently I was with the Natural with, I can't remember his title, Natural Resources Board, sorry. And we were at the Salton Sea, and water was released into a specific region. And for years people thought, what's going to happen you know, this is kind of, it's a dying area and they've just let it go.

When water was released a few short days after birds started coming and nesting. Look, I'm a Marine. I'm a tough guy. But I was like crying because this was just a group of people coming together not only to save a region, but to save, you know, kids who are breathing in bad air because of what's going on.

So I thank the author for this. I don't know if you're looking at me like oh my gosh, he's going to, he's going to oppose this. I'm in great support of this because of the direct impact that I get to see is specifically a couple miles down from my house.

So with that, I'm in full support of that and I asked to be a co-author.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other Members. I believe we had a motion and a second already. Thank you so much to the author for making sure that this funding stays alive.

I don't know if you've learned, but certainly I've learned that there's a lot of moving around of funds and once they get designated, preserving them really is the key. So, I thank you for your savvy in bringing this forward. Would you like to close.

Yes, thank you. Yes, I appreciate that. And I very much appreciate the testimony from Assemblymember Gonzalez about his personal emotional experience of seeing basically habitat come back to life. It's important to contextualize this.

So it's only $30 million, but that's a lot of money when it can be leveraged against other grants and private philanthropic commitments and all of the supporters that we had today, all those organizations and the work they do. And this money came perilously close to being swept year.

And the number of legislators who had it on their radar was very, very few because things are moving around really quickly and many of us are involved in a lot of different fights.

And so, you know, if it wasn't for advocates who raised it to an alarm level of red to me, I wouldn't have been speaking against it at the budget Subcommitee, and wouldn't have realized what it was that this particular Fund did.

So it's really important as we're doing so much CEQA streamlining and we're considering major projects that we'll be developing in our currently wild areas that we are preserving habitat and wildlife and corridors and the ability for us to have all the many co-benefits of protecting species that might be at risk of going extinct.

And also Just natural open wild places for people to visit and for animals to thrive and plants to live, and all the things that we know are great about wild places. So it's just - this is a relatively small because it's extending a sunset by five years from 2030 to 2035.

But it does clearly send the message that the Legislature cares about this and that we do not. I think it says we do not want this swept in future years because it has gone through a legislative process and we've established it as a priority.

So I'm grateful for the support of this Committee and I think, you know, we all need to be vigilant about funding streams like this, as you said, Chair, to make sure that they retain because they very much can be threatened if we don't protect them.

Excellent. Thank you so much. With that, we'll take a vote. Madam Secretary.

Item number two, SB 427. Motion is Do Pass to Appropriations. Papan. Papan, aye. Jeff Gonzalez. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias. Bains. Bennett. Bennett, aye. Boerner. Caloza. Hart. Hart, aye. Macedo. Macedo, aye. Celeste Rodriguez. Celeste Rodriguez, aye. Rogers. Rogers, aye. Tangipa. Tangipa, not voting.

Okay, the Bill is out. We'll leave it open for additional add ons. Additional add ons. I think that's a little repetitive. Okay, Senator Jones, come on down. Thank you.

Get this show on the road.

Okay. We have a motion and a second already on your first Bill.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And I'll let you know what you just made the motion on and the second for. Senate Bill 586 on e-moto OHVs. Let me consult with my witness real quick and see if he's determined to make his presentation or if he's happy to yield to the motion and the second.

I, I just want to be seen.

He's happy to yield to the motion and the second. We appreciate your support.

And you are.

Let me just say one thing though, that the Committee staff really did—this, this Bill is so collaborative, and the Committee staff did a really wonderful job of bringing everybody together. We were ice cream and cake away from a party. It was really well done.

Outstanding. Thank you for the feedback. Thank you for the feedback. Do we have any me toos from the audience? Any witnesses in opposition? Anybody from the audience in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments? We do have a motion and a second.

I'm sorry? Yes, you got it. Thank you.

Okay, so, and again, this was a motion and a second on SB 586, correct? Okay. Thank you for confirming, Macedo and Tangipa. Madam Secretary, we'll take a vote.

[Roll Call]

The Bill will be out. We'll leave it open for—do you have enough votes? Just want to confirm you accept this Committee.

I should have opened them with that. Yes, absolutely.

And you have enough votes and we'll leave it open for add ons.

Appreciate it.

Okay. Thank you for your willingness to present, Ashby. Okay, we have a motion and a second on Ashby's 639.

Madam Chair, I'm also here--it's bipartisan day in Assembly Natural Resources. I'm here to present Senator Ashby's SB 639, the Sacramento Flood Control Authorization Bill, and she does have two witnesses: Remi Mendoza, Senior Planner with the City of Sacramento, Nick Romo, representing the County of Sacramento. If, gentlemen, if you'd like to present briefly, that'd be great.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Remi Mendoza with the City of Sacramento. I would like to thank Senator Ashby for sponsoring Senate Bill 639. The city is a co-sponsor of this bill. This bill aims to ensure that the entire city achieves an urban level of flood protection.

The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the city have been working diligently with our state and federal partners, investing billions of dollars in important flood improvement projects. We anticipate that these urban level flood protection projects will be substantially completed by the December 2025 deadline.

However, despite everyone's best efforts, it's possible that three flood improvement projects may require additional time to be completed. SB 639 only applies to two subareas within the city known as the Natomas Basin and the Beach Lake subareas.

This bill proposes extending the deadline for these areas to achieve an urban level of flood protection by an additional five years, moving the target from 2025 to 2030. This timeline extension is crucial for our community as it will allow us to continue complying with state laws that require adequate progress findings for new development.

Simultaneously, it supports our commitment to addressing the statewide housing crisis by preventing potential delays in issuing permits due to flood management, regulatory, or construction issues. Without this bill and the proposed timeline extension, approximately 2,000 new infill housing units could be hindered. With this bill, we can continue to develop responsibly and in a sustainable manner.

We can meet our climate goals and support the provision of much-needed infill housing. Thank you for your time. I respectfully request the committee to vote in support of Senate Bill 639.

I'll be brief. Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Nick Romo from Cruz Strategies, on behalf of Sacramento County, here today in support of SB 639. This bill is a critical measure that extends the statutory deadline as mentioned for specific areas within the City and County of Sacramento to achieve the urban level of flood protection from 2025 to 2030.

SB 639 provides a reasonable and narrowly tailored extension to allow for final certification of the remaining projects. This timeline ensures that we can responsibly complete our flood protection efforts while avoiding unintended economic disruption or halted growth in the region. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you so much. We'll take #MeToos from the audience.

Good morning. Pilar Onate-Quintana, here for the Yuba Water Agency, expressing our deep appreciation for recent amendments and our strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Sutter County Board of Supervisors, in very strong support, and we just wanted to say thank you to the Senator, Ashby, and her staff for including Sutter into the bill and all the hard work that went into it as it'll be very helpful to the county. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group, on behalf of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, in support.

Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none and no one from the audience in opposition, we will go ahead and bring it back. I think we already had a motion and a second. Any comments from the committee? Comments? Questions? Going once, going twice. Want to make sure the technical amendments are accepted.

I see in Senator Ashby's notes, yeah; that is affirmative.

Outstanding. Okay. Well, I wish Natomas and Beach Lake the best. With that, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Would you like to close?

I ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Okay. Item Number Six: SB 639. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

The Bill will be out, and we're going to now do add ons. Thank you, Senator. Thanks for your patience this morning. Okay, Madam Secretary, we will do add ons right now for those that have come back.

Thank you, Assembly Member Caloza, and Boerner. If you guys just keep it down while we do our add ons. Okay, Madam Secretary, take it away.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we left the roll open. Let's get it going.

With that, we're adjourned.