Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Alright. We're gonna go ahead and gavel in. Good morning. Assembly Member Rogers, you get the award for timeliness. Until we have a quorum, I understand that Assembly Member Ramos is ready to present, so we'll have him your witness is here?

Yes. Fantastic. So, Assembly Ramos, please come forward, and we'll start with your bill. And once we get a quorum, we'll take the vote on the bill. Good morning. Welcome.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to begin by accepting the committee's amendments. AB 1592 would authorize the Department of Parks and Recreation to enter into an agreement with the California Indian Heritage Center support organization. This bill is a crucial next step in ensuring that the center becomes a reality. For years, California tribes, along with state and local partners, have worked tirelessly to develop a world-class cultural facility that honors true histories and living cultures of California's first people.

Where it sits today is on the Sutter Fort property that continues to bring histories of trauma and enslavement enslavement of the Gold Rush era. It's time that we move the center to an area where everybody could start to heal. The state has already invested substantial resources in this project, including the $100,000,000 appropriated by Governor in 2018, and a 43-acre land transfer by the city of West Sacramento for the project.

AB 1592 provides exactly that by authorizing a formal partnership between the department and a dedicated support organization for the center, it continues to move the project forward. Joining me today is Chairwoman Erica Pinto of the Jamul Indian Village of California to provide testimony on the importance of this legislation.

Good morning. I'm here in strong support of AB 1592. For generations, California native people have carried the responsibility of protecting our cultures, our histories, and our sacred places, often without the benefit of institutional support. The California Indian Heritage Center represents something different. It represents a commitment by the state to honor the truth of our history and to celebrate the living cultures of more than 100 native nations who call California home.

As outlined in the bill materials, existing law already directs the Department of Parks and Recreation to develop the California Indian Heritage Center as a place for cultural preservation, learning, exchange, and stewardship. AB 1592 simply provides the structure necessary to make that vision work. The bill authorizes the department to enter into an agreement with a nonprofit CIHC support organization to create a true collaboration partnership between tribes and the state.

It ensures that the support will be governed by a board with a majority of Native Americans, so that the tribes are not just consulted, but centered in the ongoing development and operation of the center. The state has already committed significant funding toward this project.

To complete the next phase, a $100,000,000 matching campaign is underway. AB 1592 helps ensure that those private and philanthropic dollars can be secured by providing clarity, structure, and confidence, and how the center will be managed moving forward. AB 1592 does not appropriate new state funds and does not obligate the state financially. This measure costs the state nothing. The bill is about governance and partnership.

It creates the legal authority needed to strengthen coordination, increase accountability, and unlock fundraising capacity. And to our knowledge, there is no opposition. What it does seek is to is to shore up support. It reassures tribal governments that they will remain at the table. It reassures donors that there is a sound governance framework, and it reassures the public that this historic institution will reflect the voices and leadership of California's first people.

The California Indian Heritage Center is long overdue. AB 1592 is the practical step needed to move it forward responsibly and collaboratively. On behalf of the Himalayan Village, I respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the public who wish to add a me too?

Good morning. Alex Loomer on behalf of Trust Republic Land in support. Thank you.

Anyone else? We don't believe there's any opposition, but are there any witnesses present in opposition? Seeing none and no members of the public, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Assembly Member Ward, welcome.

Thanks. I'm looking to be subbing in here today, but I wanted to thank Chairman Pinto for coming all this way up here. I I see an increasing amount of leadership that you're providing for these really important issues, and, of course, our colleague Assemblymember Ramos for helping to thread the need to be able to have that stronger relationship between many of our tribal nations and the work that we do here through our state agencies as well. Something I'm highly supportive of.

Happy to be a coauthor of this bill, if you'll allow me.

And just, when the time is ready, when we establish a quorum, happy to move the bill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you, summit member Ramos, for your leadership. And when as soon as we get a quorum, we'll take it up for a vote.

We wish you the best of luck. Thank you.

We will add you, as a co author.

Thank you for the time. Appreciate it.

My pleasure. I don't see any other authors in the room unless I'm overlooking somebody. So, as we broadcast out into the heather, authors, please come forward so that we can continue on with this hearing in an expeditious fashion.

We could we could make this a game where we each present somebody else's bill for them.

Sounds good. Actually, I'm here to present Aguiar Curry, so I can probably go forward and do that one. Thank you for prompting me, Assemblymember Rogers. I appreciate it.

Alright. Madam Chair, go ahead and present AB 2216 on behalf of Assembly Member Aguiar Curry.

Thank you, Assembly Member Rogers for pitch-hitting for me. So I'm here today present AB 2216 on behalf of Assembly Member Aguiar Curry. AB 2216 creates greater opportunities for projects that benefit the Delta by expanding the Delta Conservancy to fully include Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo Counties. Today, the Delta Conservancy only covers certain parts of these counties.

The remaining portions are not part of a conservancy, even though projects in this region still provide direct benefits to the Delta and its watershed. This expansion creates more opportunities for the Delta Conservancy to continue its habitat conservation and sustainable agriculture efforts, such as its successful fish-friendly farming program. Say that fast three times. Alright. So these projects are not only economically and environmentally beneficial to the Delta region, but they're a great example of a multi- benefit approach to conservation.

Expanding the Delta Conservancy will create a holistic approach to conservation of this crucial ecosystem and its expansive watershed. With me today to testify in support of AB 2216 is Michael Jarred on behalf of The Nature Conservancy. Take it away, Michael.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, Members. My name is Michael Jarred with the Nature Conservancy, and I'm testifying in support of this bill, which as the chair said, would expand the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. But it would also update the existing area that it serves. The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conservancy is one of the state's 10 conservancies. It's a non-regulatory entity that supports local communities.

The Delta Conservancy has a proven track record of working with local communities to identify shared objectives and develop locally supported priority projects to provide statewide benefit. AB 2216 will expand that area that receives those benefits to support larger watershed-scale projects and new sources of funding. AB 2216 expansion to the whole existing counties of the existing Delta Conservancy already serves as broad local support and would, cover the important areas of the state that are not currently covered by a state conservancy.

Some of these areas have significant wildfire risk and have not had access to recent funding packages for conservancy wildfire resilience projects. In addition, AB 2216, would benefit these areas that they already serve by clarifying the ability to fund on farm activities that contribute to wildlife habitat, expand the type of climate resilience projects the Conservancy can fund, provide the Conservancy with authority to provide grants for workforce development, and to tribal organizations consistent with the authorities the other conservancies have.

And it would support underserved groups by authorizing the Conservancy to do advance payments and to cover indirect costs. AB 2216 would not affect the current allocations in Prop 4 dollars but would better possession the conservancy to support this vital region in future funding measures. This will lead to better conservation and climate resilience outcomes while supporting regional economic development and public recreation opportunities. For all these reasons, the Nature Conservancy is proud to support this bill and are just for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much for being here. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Hi there. Mark Hennelly, California Waterfowl Association. We're actually a landowner in the Delta. We do a lot of conservation work there, and we're in strong support. Thank you.

Cintia Cortez with Restore the Delta in support, also showing support for Sierra Club.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rico Amasto Donato with the Trust for Public Land in support.

Good morning. Michelle Rubalcava on behalf of the County of Yolo in support.

Alex Limer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in Audubon, California in support.

Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in the audience in opposition to the Bill? Anybody wanna add on in opposition? Great.

I'll bring it back, see if there's any questions for my colleagues, Assemblymember.

Thank you. I'm just kinda curious, and I'm suspecting they can't take a position. But is there any perspective on the conservancy today on, I think, this expansion and, you know, the accommodation of the additional well, some of the changes that are in here right now, they kind of administratively, like, kind of thought about how how how does it implement.

We work closely with them when drafting the piece of legislation. They, you're right, they can't take a position right now, but they were definitely consulted, and looked at the language from a technical perspective.

Excellent. Okay. Well, I certainly trust the author. She knows this area well, and, definitely, we need to make sure that this is all encompassing of the important work that we do here in the Delta. Happy to be able support the Bill when the time is ready.

Great. Any other questions? Alright. Madam Chair, do you wanna close?

Just request request an aye vote for what will, hopefully become the Delta and Valley Conservancy. Thank you so much. Yep. Who else was presenting? Gallagher.

Oh, he's not. I don't see any other authors except for Assemblymember Bennett. I don't where's Johnson? Good morning.

Assemblymember Johnson, come on forward, please.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, madam Chair and Committee Members. I am proud to present AB 1702, which will expand access to our state parks for veterans and active duty military service members. California is home to the largest veteran and national guard population in the nation, yet state parks access benefits remain narrowly defined and outdated. While California offers certain veteran access currently to state parks and state park facilities for free, this is only through the distinguished veterans pass.

This pass is limited to only veterans who meet specific wartime and qualifying service date requirements in addition to a service connected disability.

These restrictions include many disabled veterans whose service occurred outside designated wartime designated wartime periods or those who were injured in uniform outside of a specific deployment. This creates unnecessary barriers, limits equitable access, and fails to recognize the service of many disabled veterans and current service members. Research has shown us that time outdoors reduces symptoms of PTSD and depression in both active duty military and veterans.

According to the National PTSD Center, eleven to twenty percent of veterans will have PTSD in their lifetimes, and at least twenty percent of veterans and active duty military suffer from depression. These conditions make improved access to our state parks critical for all those who have served and are currently serving.

So AB 1702 does this in two ways. First, it expands eligibility for distinguished veterans pass to better reflect modern military service by removing wartime and qualifying service state requirements. Number two, it establishes a disconnect a discounted California state parks pass, providing 15% discount to veterans, National Guard members, and reservists, and active duty service members regardless of their disability status.

As the daughter of a veteran, I know firsthand the sacrifices military families make, and I'm passionate advocate for programs that benefit all of those who have honorably served. AB 1702 is a small but meaningful change, and I respectfully request your support of this measure to help recognize the brave men and women who have put their lives on the line for our freedoms.

Thank you so much, miss Thompson. You have no witnesses?

I do not.

Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any me toos from the audience for for this Bill? I skipped over them.

Okay? Any me toos in opposition? Not seeing any. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments?

Assemblymember Ward.

Happy to be able to support this Bill today. I certainly very much support it from a policy perspective when we're thinking about the opportunities to, support, you know, a group of Californians, probably probably, none greater than, you know, being able to support many of our veterans that, you know, on a federal level certainly receive a lot of these benefits for discounted opportunities as well as reflect that in state parks.

I'll add that, you know, while it is, I think, sort of on the individual level, you know, a small but meaningful change, you know, these these, can add up to something substantial over time. So I wish you all the luck in appropriations, but we I'll just, you know, use this as a moment to really underscore that we need to better fund our state park systems as well. So these are facilities, services, programs, and landscapes, that are worthy of their their enjoyment as well.

And so when you're kind of heading into that conversation, from a fiscal conversation, just realize that, you know, any impacts that we have to our state parks are gonna be taken I certainly take very seriously as well too. Hopefully, we can sort of, you know, lift all lift all boats in this conversation, and then be able to support our veterans at the same time. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. Well, it enjoys a two pass recommendation. And as soon as we get a quorum, we will take it up for a vote. Great.

Thank you so much for being here, Assemblymember Johnson.

Thank you.

We appreciate it. Assemblymember Bennett, you wanna take it away? Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments to allow the water board to be nimble and responsive to environmental conditions and the needs of water right holders. AB 2630 provides emergency regulatory authority for measurement and reporting of water diversions and use. Water is one of California's most precious resources protecting it requires accurate real time data, especially as we're increasingly seeing the impacts of climate change.

This narrow exemption grants the board the authority it needs to effectively administer administer measurement and reporting regulations through their new Cal Waters reporting platform and respond to changing technical needs and user capacities, and pardon my sore throat. Without this exemption, small tweaks would require an exhaustive and overly burdensome rulemaking process that could take years, delaying critical data collection. And I might add also, as the technology changes, we can spend years.

And by the time the rulemaking process finishes, the technology has changed, and they need new tweaks to the rules. We with me today in support is Catherine Van Dyke, Community Alliance with Family Farmers.

AB 2630 ensures that the water board can perform its duties in tracking water supply and demand, protecting both water rights and public trust. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Miss Van Dyke?

Good morning, Chair Papan and Members. My name is Catharine Van Dyke. I'm the director of water policy with CAF, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. CAF represents over 8,000 small and mid sized family farmers in California and has worked for more than 45 years to preserve

in favor of AB sustainability. I'm here today to speak in favor of AB 2630, which would allow the state water board to improve the regulations without going through the extensive rulemaking process. The current structure limits the ability of the state water board to quickly respond to changing technology, to make sound financial decisions with its IT systems, or to adopt input from the regulated community, including farmers.

family scale agriculture and promote environmental sustainability. I'm here today to speak

AB 2630 will support the ability to gather accurate and timely data, which is greatly needed to deal with drought conditions and make informed groundwater recharge decisions. We hope that this reduction in staff time spent in the rulemaking process could result in a reduction in fees passed to farmers and other regulated communities.

CAF's aspiration is that a change like this could open the door to future streamlining and regulatory alignment, including interagency collaboration. We urge your aye vote on AB 2630. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the audience that are me too's? In one second, we'll take roll to get a quorum.

No? We lost

Ward. We lost Ward. Any me too's from the audience? Not that I'm seeing. Okay.

Any opposition to the Bill? Before you start before you start, we do now have a quorum. So we're gonna take a roll and then we'll allow you to speak. Thank you so much.

Okay.

[Roll Call]

Alanis. Alvarez. Here.

Alvarez, here. Avila Farias, Bains, Bennett. Here. Bennett, here. Boerner, Caloza.

Here. Caloza, here. Gallagher. Hart. Here. Hart, here.

Ward. Rogers. Here.

Rogers, here.

Excellent. Please proceed. Okay.

Let's make sure you can hear me.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies here in respectful opposition to AB 2630. Before I begin, I just wanna say that we're very supportive of the state water board having good access to data. We were also very supportive of the recent IT update that they went through, so it's not about that. So all of that said, we do have significant concerns with this Bill's lack of public input and state level oversight.

As background in 2015 when the state was going through a very significant drought, the water board was granted this emergency authority specific specifically because of that emergency, to adopt water measurement and reporting regulations. The authority was appropriate because they were working to address an actual emergency that the state was facing. What we learned from the experience though is that the emergency regulations were inadequate and that they led to poor data outcomes. So ultimately, the water board didn't get the data that they needed.

Despite diverters best efforts to report the correct data, the regulations were confusing and difficult to comply with.

In November 24, the water board began its pre, pre rule making process for the update to the regulations with the which they've just completed. The process was very robust. In addition to that pre rule making discussion, they had their 45 day comment period, 215 day comment periods received a number of comments from the public. They submitted the language to OAL for approval. The office of administrative law found some clarity issues with the language, sent some of the language back to the water board.

They ended up making some additional changes, and then they finalized the regulations. So what that shows us is that process worked. You know, these regulations are going into effect. We believe they're gonna be a lot clearer and easier to comply with. There was a robust stakeholder engagement process.

I'll also say in this Bill, a typical emergency regulatory process, an agency is required to go back through the full adoption process where you can then hear from stakeholders. This Bill completely exempts them from that. It bypasses that formal adoption. Once they do that five day comment period and OAL approves, it's in effect until they make another change at some future date. I will say the water board staff have shared with us that if this Bill moves forward, they're planning to readopt every year.

That's changing the regulations every year potentially. These aren't establishing a fear, making some other simple change. They're setting regulatory compliance standards for the water community. They necessitate back and forth information and incorporation of the regulated community's perspectives and concerns. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Alex Berliner on behalf of the California Farm Bureau's 23,000 members in respectful opposition to 2630. I wanna focus a little bit on what this Bill means on the ground for farmers who are trying to comply with law in in real time.

Primary operates on a seasonal clock, so decisions about planning, irrigation systems, and labor are made months in advance, ensuring they have the correct methods and equipment in place to measure their water use all year as part of that planning.

This bill would allow the state water board to change the rules for how a farmer measures their water use midseason without the time or the input that's needed to make those changes workable in real life. The author said that the board may seek to use this authority to adjust things like measurement techniques, reporting frequency, metering requirements, or other things.

If a farmer is suddenly required to shift from an existing measurement method for their water use to a new one, that's not a paperwork change or a technical fix to the Cal Waters reporting platform. It can mean purchasing and selling new equipment, finding qualified technicians, and in some cases, navigating physical site constraints that make immediate compliance impossible. It is not a policy change.

It is an infrastructure mandate. If reporting requirements shift from annual to monthly or more frequent intervals midyear, that's an ongoing administrative burden that many operations, especially smaller family farms, are not staffed to absorb overnight, so they immediately come out of compliance. And if requirements vary by watershed and can change quickly, we create a patchwork where similarly situated farmers are operating under different rules, increasing confusion and the risk of unintentional noncompliance.

Like Aqua, Farm Bureau wants the board to have the right information they need to do their job, which is why a lot of our members partnered with the water board to hold workshops to help onboard individual farmers and diverters for the Cal Water system over the last several months. That was a successful process.

But and we work really hard to help our members understand their water diversion measurement and reporting requirements, but we can only do that with rules that are clear, stable, and achievable during the water year. And we feel that AB 2630 moves in the opposite direction, which is why we are respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Okay. Any me too's from the audience in opposition?

Good morning. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Cam Bestek with the Northern California Water Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Jason Eichard on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association, also in opposition.

Okay. Anyone else? Alright. So let's bring it back to the committee. Are there Committee Members that have questions?

Assemblyman Gonzalez, I see you moving like you do.

Thank you, madam Chair. You said questions, which is why I hesitate. More of a a statement. Thank you to the author for for this Bill. Unfortunately, this impacts my district significantly in a in an area of Southern California in the desert.

My farmers are are being crushed by overregulation from the state. A lot you know, throughout the state, a lot of them are leaving. I talked to my water agencies, and this is from the district, the voices of my district. And, unfortunately, this does not align with the values of my district, so we will be in respectful opposition.

Anyone else? Assemblymember Alvarez. And then Alanis, did you wish to ditto. Oh, okay. Alanis, for the record, is a ditto.

Assemblymember Alvarez.

Thank you, madam Chair. I have a question on some comments I heard from the opposition and would like the author to please provide a response in the current version of the Bill. And I think there's some amendments, so you may correct me with the amendments. This this may may be addressed. The adoption of these regulations in in Section two b, it says that shall remain into effect until revised by the board.

Say that again.

Shall remain into effect until revised by the board. Right. And so that could potentially mean, you know, ongoing in perpetuity. Are there concerns that have been raised from the opposition that from your perspective, maybe we should be concerned about the that section of the Bill.

I really appreciate the, question and and your thoroughness in in checking these kinds of things out. I think all of us are concerned about any situation where you have the ability for abuse by regulators. And at the same time, we have to balance that with the ability for the regulators to be nimble enough to adjust to the situation to address the problem that we have out there. And so you you can take almost any situation.

And if you if you take the most extreme example of the agency being out of the control and dictatorial, etcetera, you could make a case that they shouldn't have any authority.

And so I've become convinced from my conversations with the water board that the issues that they are dealing with are a series of relatively minor but urgent adjustments that need to be made as they're trying to implement the new system. Bottom line is water rights have become very challenging to deal with in California. We have lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit about water rights that are out there. And we have starting in 2015, we started to try to update the whole issue of water rights.

I mean, until then, literally, water rights were so undefined and it was some file cabinet in some remote place that somebody said, I have this water right.

We're trying to update all of that. And the water board is is required to try to do the best they can to do that update. So a classic example is they came up with this whole new system, this whole, Cal Waters system about how to report and all of that. It took them years, multiyear process to come up with that. And so, we have people in the opposition saying, look.

See, they came up with all that. It the the the multiyear process, it took them years and it came out just as the Cal Waters process was coming. Now any adjustments to the Cal Waters process for them to take multiple years to do that will create the water board has convinced me will create actually the opposite of what everybody is looking for here. But people will be stuck with old reporting requirements, etcetera, and going forward.

So there we we're at an interesting inflection point here in California.

You know, we have the abundance book that we all read about. Can we can California get anything done? Or do we have so many regulations we can't? This is an attempt to try to say, let's streamline some things so we can get some things done. And that's what people have asked for with prop four recently.

We've gotta get the money out the door. We have to streamline some things. I if I believe that the water board is going to do two things that I think protect us from this being a problem. Number one, address this to those smaller tweaks that they have to do because there's some sense of urgency to them. And two, be responsible agency, which we have to to count on and expect them to be be a responsible agency to not take the most extreme view.

In other words, they could say, we're changing the regulations and you have to do this tomorrow. Or they could say, we're changing the regulations. We're gonna give you eighteen months to to adjust to this. Just because this sort of suggests this chain, you know, that they're gonna that that they have the possibility to do something unreasonable. I just don't see that happening with these smaller issues that are out there.

So the water board's convinced me to come forward with this. I realize it's up to the legislature. I realize philosophically, we're going to have traditionally water district saying no, to this. But, I think, in this situation, it is a narrow enough area, and we have a reasonable enough water board, and we will have more problems. And the final thing I'll say to you is we already have precedent for this.

They can do things like adjust boundaries of GSAs. They can, you know, electronic electronic monitoring requirements. Imagine electronic monitoring requirements requiring a three year review process before you could change the electronic when when there may be some disaster with the software that they're trying to use or or whatever. So that's that's the overall review, and it's the the fundamental issue. So pardon my taking time on it, but I think that's the bulk of my comments will be exactly that.

I appreciate that. I know that the committee analysis and acknowledging that I walked in after your presentation, identifies a potential amendment for a sunset. Is that been an amendment that's been accepted?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I agree with you with the issue of of trying to get government out of the way when we don't need it to be in the way of progress. So I appreciate that.

You always have to balance that with providing too much authority to our regulatory bodies, but then they, in my opinion, sometimes go a little rogue and to decide to do things that are not aligned with the intent of the legislature and certainly not aligned for the well-being of the state.

So I appreciate that there's a sunset here as it gives us an opportunity to evaluate what they did and did not do. I think that's that's an important mechanism for for this to be approved. I'd still remain a little bit just concerned about the extent of the power that's being given.

I think I'd like to perhaps learn a little bit more directly from the water board themselves as to what they foresee being the authority that they're receiving if this were to be signed into law. I think that's important for me to see, and I'll follow-up with with with them on that to get more clarity on that.

But I think at the moment, given where where we're at, I'd be supportive of you moving this forward today. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you so much, Chair, Thank you to the author for your bill. You know, I, you know, wanted to echo and align some of my comments to what Assembly Member Alvarez mentioned as well. You know, would love to hear about, you know, any instances where was there a use of these emergency authorities when right now that the water board has it? Yes?

You say was there?

Well, currently, does the water board have this emergency authority?

No. That's what this bill is. It says to grant them that emergency.

It's it's to make it permanent. Right? So when it had this

It's to make it well, because we have a sunset on the bill. It's not permanent.

Right. It's for five years.

Just for five years.

Got it. Was there when the when the water board had this authority, were there things that they were able to do that they otherwise would not have been able to if they had to do the stakeholder engagement? I think that's the piece that I'm also concerned about is just the removal of the stakeholder engagement piece from some of the water agencies and some of the opposition that we heard from.

This does not forbid the water board from engaging in any public process that it wants to engage in as it does this. But it says, if it's a small minor tweak to some electronic reporting thing because of a software problem, they can do that. If it's something that should be done with greater public input, there's nothing in the legislation says they can't do that. They can do that.

And if they abuse that authority, certainly, we would be able to either take it away from them before the five years is up or certainly not renew it when the five years comes forward.

So, it's really a balance to try to find out whether their argument that there are a number of these smaller things that they just they don't feel like they can effectively do the job that we've assigned them and stick with a multi-year process for every small change.

Okay, thank you Assembly Member. Maybe I can just ask a question to some of the opposition. Are there any amendments that you're all proposing to this bill or anything that you would like to share here? I know you guys raised opposition and just in looking at this bill, I see more opposition than support. But if you wanted to say anything, would be great to hear from you now.

I mean, I think we're look, I think both of us, Julia and myself, I don't wanna speak for her and for ACWA, but, certainly, we want, like we said, the water board to be able to do their job.

And if there's a way that we can find a way for them to be able to do it in a way that doesn't open up for the amount of potential abuse that this could allow by having this be an open ended e reg where maybe it is a small tweak or maybe we are fully changing the thresholds for who has to report and record their water diversions. I mean, that's a vast universe in between, and that universe hasn't been narrowed in any in any way.

So, I think it would take some more conversations to get to that point, but I don't think anything anyone is opposed to that.

Yeah. I think right now, we're not offering any amendments because I think we actually like, we knew about this bill before it was introduced, and so we were trying to think creatively. Is there a way that we could craft something narrow that it's minor and sort of non substantive updates? And if there was a way to craft that, I think we'd be open to that. I think we didn't see a very clear path forward, which is why we took just an opposed position.

I'll also say, like, I understand that it took the water board a long time to update these regs. They are updating the entire series of regs. I think if they needed to tweak a section, the amount of staff work that goes into that because I think, you know, talking to the water board, they said this whole regulation took them three years even though the public process is only, like, I don't know, fifteen months. So they took a long time to craft this internally.

But I think if you were just making tweaks to one of the sections to adjust for something, the amount of staff time that's gonna go into developing that for the regulatory process is gonna be much less burdensome for the water board.

And frankly, they have to do that either way. They're just skipping the public stakeholder part of that conversation.

Right.

Thank you both. And that's helpful to hear. It sounds like you, you know, want to come to the table to to work on this with the water board. I will support this today, but hope the author can continue to work with some of the concerns that the opposition's raising. I know you're not proposing any amendments at this time, but maybe there's an opportunity here.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Boerner.

Thank you. And I appreciate that it sometimes takes too long for public agencies to go through processes. But part of that process is CEQA. And I generally don't vote for CEQA exemptions because I think the public process in CEQA is really important. And that the public be able to come out and affect communities to be able to come out and participate through that process should CEQA be necessary.

I also understand that an emergency regulation power needs to be expedient, and CEQA is not always expedient. However, I wanna ensure that we don't have a situation where the water board implements emergency regs and then emergency regs, emergency regs. And five lit years later, there's no CEQA. And there's no you said there's nothing that prohibits them from doing public engagement. I don't know what public agency does an extensive public engagement process, and they're not required to.

That's why I don't vote for CEQA exemptions. So what safeguards are in place in your bill currently or you've thought of that will prevent eregs from going on year to year to year to year? So five years down the line, the affected communities don't have a chance to do public input.

As you heard, this is not a bill that's sort of been a surprise last minute bill. There's been extensive conversations with the water board, with opposition, with all the stakeholders out there in terms of trying to craft various solutions to people's concerns, etcetera. And we are where we are with no offered amendments and sort of that decision that's out there. So there's not anything specific in there that we have except for the five year exemption, the ability of us to say, hey.

We think the water board is abusing that authority.

Certainly, we're going to be responsive to the stakeholders here as they if they raised these concerns, this committee, I think, based on the comments that have been made, would certainly be receptive to immediately going you know, trying to address those concerns. The important thing I would like to offer to you is the the concerns expressed by Assembly Member Alvarez and Assembly Member Caloza are my concerns too.

I mean, as as the water board came and that the water board started talking about this as we started engaging with the water board about these issues, I was concerned I said permanent, you know? So I welcome the, you know, the the five year. The the the the public process, I'm concerned about that.

So I think it's been raised to a very high level of awareness that we're sensitive, including the author of the bill is sensitive to the abuse that somebody could engage in with the emergency, you know, with emergency authority like this. And you have to weigh that with the very things that we're trying to weigh.

CEQA is coming up over and over again, and there are times when we've all, almost all of us, and I don't know about yourself, but have said, hey, this is a time for us to streamline government so we can actually get out of the way of people trying to do good things. So that's the best thing.

I don't think involving public is streamlining to get it out of the way. I think it protects us, and there are two CEQA exemptions I voted for in eight years. I'm willing to support this today in committee, but I think regardless of what the stakeholders, you need safeguards that the water board won't do an e reg, an e reg, an e reg, an e reg. And then we're five years down the line, and there's been no significant public engagement process.

It seems to me like a three year sunset or three they can do it maximum, like, two or three times will be a pretty sound way to get around it. Just food for thought. But if that safeguard isn't there, I will not be voting for it on the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Rogers.

Well, Chair, my colleague just beat me to it. I was gonna point out the duality of the conversation where when it comes to CEQA, we're talking about limiting people's ability to participate. And then when I'm hearing from the same folks that push for CEQA exemptions is that in this process, we'd be cutting out the voices of people who wanna participate. And the only thing that seems to be the difference to me in that mentality is who it is that's participating.

So I think I think she punctuated the point well.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Gallagher.

Yeah. I'm going to make a plea of this committee to let's stop doing two things that have been, I think, detrimental to us over the years. One is sort of giving collegial votes on something that's not really cooked and that we haven't really gone through. And these conversations have come up here have, I think, really highlighted that there probably is a way to make this more narrowly tailored to accomplish the purpose we're talking about.

But instead, what we're passing out here is a very broad exemption.

And the other thing I would have us avoid is giving government agencies greater authority, especially the one that hasn't been very accountable to us. Right? That we've had to have come back in here and have oversight hearings over, because they go and do things that end up having huge impacts to our constituents. And then we say, oh, well, we don't know if they made those decisions.

Well, we're giving them the authority to make those decisions, you know, instead of taking that power back in this body and we could do something.

What I would propose is, hey. Let's hold this off and bring it back. We have time and we could bring it back in a subsequent hearing and have a more narrowly work with the, you know, the opposition here on a more narrowly tailored, you know, provision here. Couple other points. This is this requires emergency regulation authority.

So what that means is it's a five day public comment period. That's it. And there is a, you know, very brief public notice period. It completely goes and there's there's nothing in this bill. I mean, contrary what the author said, there's nothing here that says that they can do more stakeholder outreach.

In fact, quite the opposite. It requires them to go through this emergency process in which that timeline is extremely shut down. And it if we're talking about having greater public transparency and public process the the also the difference between CEQA deals with projects. Right? These are laws.

This is lawmaking, you know, regulatory authority that's gonna impact every one of your water districts, everybody, and how much water you're going to be able to divert and how much water you're gonna have available for your constituents. Pretty big deal. It's a law-making process that we're now saying, nope. That's only gonna be a five day, you know, public comment period. It's pretty bad.

I would not push that thing out there without really considering it. And as far as, like, streamlining abundance, no. This is streamlining scarcity. Right? Because ultimately, what's gonna happen out of this process is and by the way, we're already all providing data on how what our diversions are.

We already measure it. It's been doing that since 2016. So there is data. What they've been fighting about is, like, what are the right ways and the uniform way to measure it. Right?

And every district has different methodologies and diff and they also have different technology and infrastructure. So, you know, rural water district is very different from an urban one, you know, and how they're measuring things. So rightfully so, there's been a lot of public comment and people saying, hey. Here, we need to take into account what our situation is. That's a good thing.

Right? But what the author is saying, well, we should just streamline that process and make it really fast even though there are a lot of there are some complex issues there that water districts are dealing with. At the same time, by the way, we passed a water bond over ten years ago. We haven't built a single water storage facility in California, period.

And one of the reasons is is because of the state water resources control board that has taken forever on Sites Reservoir and just last week actually implemented new regulations on diversions on that project that's gonna make it a lot harder to make that project a workable project that's gonna help everyone in this state.

That's what they're doing with their regulatory authority, like, swording abundance, more water storage, and fast tracking the stuff that says, yeah, we're gonna cut, you know, diversions in your ability to use water in your districts. It's actually the opposite of fast tracking abundance. And so I I would really just encourage people, like, we could make this a whole lot better. We could work on it, and we could have some of this much more focused.

And it's gonna address, I think, the very real concerns of all of our water districts who are here saying, please don't do this.

So that's what I would encourage today. Thank you.

I didn't miss anyone. Right? Okay. So I a couple things at play here. First, I wanna understand that when we had an emergency order in 2016, that was changed or updated how many times since that.

Because I think your testimony was we could have emergency orders every day, and we have to comply with them every day. It's not my understanding that happened.

Can I, can I respond?

Please. Yeah.

Yeah. So they so they they rushed because there was an emergency to adopt these regulations. It was a trailer bill in 2015. They adopted it by March 2016, and they haven't updated it. And in our discussions with water board staff, it's because they knew it was gonna be a big process because they were gonna have to bring the whole thing back and redraft it.

And that's why it hasn't been updated. But they did explicitly tell us their thought was to do an annual process of readoption. So whether they do that or not, right now, that was the staff's feedback to us.

Okay. I just wanted to let you know that I was operating on retrospectively what happened.

Yeah.

And it was not an every year, gee, people have to change how they're gonna monitor water. Okay. So, the recommendation is a due pass as amended. I think the author certainly heard from folks here today, and I I will concede that, we are taking a leap of faith with respect to a bureaucratic agency that there's no love lost for, no matter your party. And that is in the name of being nimble. Fair to say?

Yes.

Okay. And that there haven't been these changes over ten years. We had an emergency order that came into place into place because we needed that flexibility at that because we needed that flexibility at that moment in time, and things have not changed per se. But we we did put the five year sunset in place because of the very concerns that have been raised by the many members of this committee.

And Assembly Member Boerner's comment that she never met an administrative agency that wanted to do more engagement than was compelled to do is probably an accurate one.

So in any event, you've heard enough from the folks here and what their reservations might be. Assembly Member Bennett, as you move forward with the process, but I thank you for accepting the committee amendments today. And would you like to close?

Thank you very much. The the most important thing I'd like to say is I really appreciate this discussion today. I think this was healthy. I think it's healthy. If the bill, it does move out of committee, it's going to be healthy to sort of set the framework for conversations that are going forward.

For example, for the first time, we had an assembly member offer a suggested modification, and I saw the opposition start writing that maybe that's an opposition. So this issue has been out here for months being talked about, and we haven't had specific amendments offered up to this point in time. We settled on the five-year period as a beginning attempt to try to address the concerns that are being raised here.

But that's this is how this process works is you have these public hearings, you find out what the concerns are. And I have always, remained, I think, vigilant and open to working with stakeholders.

We've had many conversations, and and I know Water Board folks have had many conversations also in terms of doing this, and we're willing to continue to do this. Because I share many of the same concerns that have been raised here, I think that we're receptive to any changes that strike that proper balance that we're trying to strike here moving forward. So with that, I respectfully acknowledge the comments of my colleagues as we go forward and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. With that, we'll take a vote. Do we have a motion? We have a motion from Assembly member Rogers and a second by Assembly Member Hart. Forgot about that part.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That'll move out, and if there's I think everybody is here. Ward. Ward may come back and add on. We'll see.

Thank you so much. Okay. With that, we'll move. I see that, some member Hadwick is in the house. But let's do the consent calendar. Do we have a motion for the consent count? Boerner and Gonzales is the second.

[Roll Call]

Great. That'll get out, and we'll let people add on as they see fit. Good morning, Assembly member Hadwick. Welcome. Good morning.

We'll start with, $16.73, please. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair and members. I would like to first thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. I also appreciate the chair's leadership in addressing the challenges rural communities face by holding a human wildlife conflict hearing earlier this year. Rural communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of illegal drug activity and conflict with large predators. Counties and their sheriffs are the first line of defense against threats from illegal cannabis cultivation, poaching, and predators.

Counties like Sierra have no game warden covering their 1,000 square miles of territory, and they are on their own to protect their fish, wildlife, and environment. In Siskiyou County, an estimated $65,000,000,000 of illegal cannabis is cultivated each year. Each grow ranges from one to more than 100 acres, growing on average of 2,000 plants and using up to 12,000 gallons of water a year.

Each site uses dozens of banned toxic pesticides and diverts streams and natural water resources, pollutes the groundwater, and poaches games and poaches game and kills endangered species. Other rural counties in my district struggle with large predators such as mountain lions, bears, or wolves killing livestock, pets, and people.

Assembly bill sixteen seventy three gives my communities more resources, tools, and flexibility to manage those threats. County Fish and Game Commissions can use revenue from Fish and Game Code violations to protect fish and wildlife. This bill gives them more flexibility by allowing them to use this funding to reimburse county sheriffs and for enforcing the Fish and Game Code and for wildlife conflict prevention. AB sixteen seventy three will protect our wildlife and natural resources while supporting the communities most impacted by these challenges.

I respectfully ask for your I vote, and I am joined today by Sierra County sheriff Michael Fisher.

Please, sheriff, good morning.

Good morning. Madam chair and committee, thank you once again for allowing me to come and speak with you. Sheriff Mike Fisher. I'm the Sierra County Sheriff here in Northern California. My county is a small rural county.

We heard the assembly woman say about a thousand square miles. I have approximately eight deputies currently and then some administrative staff for about 11 total staff that is sworn out on patrol in Sierra County. So small staff, large geographical area in Sierra County. I come here today to support ab 1673 as one of my big issues that I have in our county is we're we're about 75% public lands. US Forest Service manages three different forests.

And so of that 75% public lands, the western side of my county is actually probably 85 to 90% public lands when you look at the overall county and private property versus, public land. As we heard Assemblywoman Hadwick said that we don't have a game warden, that is currently assigned, to Sierra County due to state budget issues. We do have game wardens that come in specifically if we have to make a request or if if we have a a large issue that is that is going on.

My patrol deputies, myself included, are the ones that regularly investigate a variety of different fish and wildlife crimes, and that could be from poaching to illegal fishing to wildlife human conflict to wildlife livestock conflict. So there's a lot of burden that is put upon my, sheriff's office, in doing investigations in which, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, you know, used to do, within our within our communities.

So with that being said, this funding, this bill would allow, the sheriff's office to use some of the funding that comes in through fish and game code violations and court cases. Now granted for Sierra County, it's not gonna be a a a huge windfall to us by any means. I checked with our district attorney this morning, you know, over the last couple of years, it's only been in the 8 to $10,000 range on money coming into into the county for those violations.

So for Sierra County, it's not gonna be a windfall, but we heard test or we heard discussion about some of the bigger counties that are also having these issues. I speak with my neighboring sheriffs on a on a regular basis, and they too, you know, are feeling the pain with California Department of Fish and Wildlife being understaffed, under budgeted, and just not having the staff members needed to come into the county and conduct those investigations.

You speak with any county sheriff, and then this is one of the few times I'll I'll speak on behalf of all of them. You know, the buck stops with us. If nobody else is gonna go to a call, the sheriff's always going. That's certainly the case in my county, whether it be a wildlife, human conflict, a predator conflict with wildlife, or a poaching call. You know, we're we're not simply going to notify another state agency and then stand off to the side.

We're going to respond. So with this bill, it would provide at least a little bit of ease to especially the rural counties in Northern California. So I am definitely here in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have anybody that's a me too from the audience? Seeing none, is there any opposition to the bill? Nobody from the audience? Okay.

We'll bring it back to committee. Any comments? We already have a motion and a second. Okay. Would you like to close with Assemblymember Hadway?

Thank you for taking the time to hear this bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and take a vote.

Item number two, ab 1673. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Pappen?

Aye.

Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzales?

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Alvarez? Avila Farias, Baines? Aye. Baines, aye.

Bennett, Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Colosa? Colosa, aye.

Gallagher? Aye. Gallagher, aye. Heart? Aye.

Hart, aye. Ward? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye.

Okay. That bill will go out, and whoever adds on later will K. Get a final vote.

Thank you.

Would you like to do your next bill?

Yes, please.

Thank you. AB 1912.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Would like to thank the chair again and committee staff for working collaborative with collaboratively with me on this critical issue, and I accept the committee's amendment. Deer hunters during the archery deer season often hike alone in remote backcountry far from roads, cell service, and immediate assistance. These hunters frequently travel before daylight and after sunset and may be required to navigate rugged terrain while carrying deer.

Well documented encounters with large predators preying on deer and illegal activities in remote areas are creating threats to public safety.

In the last few decades, international drug trafficking organizations have created thousands of illegal cannabis grows on rural rural public and private land. Often, these criminals patrol those grows armed, sometimes with automatic firearms. Sometimes hunters enter these grows unaware that their life is in danger. Hunters heading back into the the deep backcountry should not be forced to leave their ability to defend themselves at the trailhead. Assembly Bill 1912 repeals the ban preventing deer hunters from carrying concealed firearms during the archery season.

Originally established in 1947, this ban is no longer needed to protect the archery deer season given modern law enforcement tools. Further, every other hunt for big game species allows a person to carry a concealable firearm. AB 1912ensures that all hunters can defend themselves from threats in remote wilderness while preserving the integrity of the deer archery season. This bill affirms a hunter's right to self defense against predators and criminals.

I respectfully ask for your I vote, and I'm joined today by David Bess, former California Department of Fish and Wildlife deputy director and chief of the law enforcement division.

Good morning. Recently retired game warden. I served for 25 years as a warden wildlife enforcement officer with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. And the last nine years of my career, I served as the deputy director and chief of law enforcement for the agency overseeing 500 officers and all law enforcement op operations for the department. During my career as a warden, I issued thousands of citations for criminal violations of wildlife law.

As the chief, I oversaw the issuance of approximately a 150,000 citations and associated prosecutions for those criminal violations. I say this in in the hope that it provides some insight to my experience apprehending and prosecuting people who violate the laws and regulations established to protect our fish and wildlife here in California.

I testify before you today in strong support of AB 1912 as it would provide lawful sportsmen and sportswomen the ability to carry a firearm capable of being concealed on their person while engaged in archery hunting for deer. This provision already exists for archery hunters in pursuit of other big game animals such as elk, antelope, bear, and bighorn sheep.

While serving as the chief of law enforcement for the department in 2016, I worked with the California Fish and Game Commission to promulgate regulations allowing for the lawful carry of a concealed firearm while archery hunting big game.

The animals that I previously mentioned and those regulations were adopted that year. The authority to make those changes lied within the purview of the commission. The authority obviously to make the change to the archery deer statute lies with the legislature. AB 1912 will allow the law to, both in statute and regulation, align together for the take of big game while archery hunting, making it clearer for officers to be able to enforce and hunters to understand and lawfully comply with.

The statute created almost seventy years ago in an effort to protect wildlife. The risk to wildlife, specifically deer, being taken illegally during archery season with a handgun is extremely low in 2026. With the with the development of wildlife crime investigative techniques, the department's law enforcement division's wildlife crime lab, DNA testing, gunshot residue testing methods. There are multiple ways to apprehend violators if a crime should occur that are now within the arsenal of wildlife officers.

Additionally, the department's law enforcement divisions enforcement database shows no citations or arrests being made in the last five years for violations of an archery hunter taking a deer with a firearm capable of being concealed. With a firearm capable of being concealed.

Offset that with what has always existed is the need for personal protection out in the forest and fields. Human wildlife conflict is a reality. Apex predators are on the landscape and while infrequent attacks on humans have and do occur annually. Additionally, illegal cannabis cultivation sites on federal, state, and private land sometimes operated by heavily armed subjects and drug cartels, are a real concern for hunters out engaging in lawful hunting activity. Testify this morning before you and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thankyou. Do we have a second? A second. Okay. Do we have any members of the audience in support of this bill?

Please come forward.

Madam chair, Bill Gaines speaking on behalf of the California Bowmen Hunter / State Archery Association, California Deer Associations cosponsoring the bill. California chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the California Horseman for Conservation, the Suisun Resource Conservation District, the Black Brant Group, the San Diego County Wildlife Federation, Callar Wetlands and Waterfowl Council, and Howl for Wildlife, all in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Hello. Mark Hennelley, California Waterfowl Association in in support. Thank you.

Chris Hoon, on behalf of Delta Waterfowl, in support. Thank you.

Okay. Any witnesses in opposition? Any members of the public in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Thank you, madam chair. In my previous career, I studied ratlines significantly. Ratlines are the the trails in which illegal operations take place, in throughout the world. And, unfortunately, that is a huge problem globally. And here in The United States, it's a it's a it's a big problem as well.

Some might think that it's not. But, unfortunately, you know, you you go out for a hike and you you run across someone doing bad things because they're hidden in the in the bush, in the mountains, or wherever that is. And that's a real problem. Human trafficking, also, you know, they snatch and grab folks, that are on trails, and that's also a big issue.

Not to mention we hear from from the author quite often, about the Apex Predator and the, and the human conflict that goes on all the time.

And there are mitigation efforts, but when something sneaks up on you, you have only but a few seconds to to make a decision. I appreciate how this is specific to bow hunting, and it it actually has some bumper rails on it. Right? You're already going out there. You're already a trained professional or not a professional, but a trained sports sportsman going out there doing the work.

But the the the reality is of these rat lines, whether they be human or apex predator, It it is a it is an issue. We don't see about we don't hear about it much on the news, but I've studied it extensively over two decades, and it is a it is a real big problem.

So for me, if I was out with my kids, bow hunting, as a sport and something like that happened, I'd wanna protect my family, and whether it's from an apex, predator animal or from a criminal, that was trying to do by family harm. So I I thank the author for for how you've tailored this, and I thank the the expert witness who who can talk to this real life. Like, this is what happens.

It's not, you know, hyperbole. So, with that, I will be in support of this bill. So thank you.

Okay. Assemblymember Rogers.

Yeah. Just a question, and that's about the concealed carry portion of this. The person has a bow and arrow And is moving through the forest. They clearly have an identifiable weapon. So why are we talking about concealed carry versus open carry?

We did discuss that in the initial version of the bill. I would like to come back in the future with an open carry, but, I figured it would be a better suggestion as a first time bill to be a CCW where where they have the background checks. They have they have that we have that security of knowing that they're in sound mind and and approved by the sheriff to to have that CCW.

Right. I I just by just by feedback, they already have a weapon that's identifiable.

Yes. And they tell they tell if an officer comes. I don't know if you might be able to speak to that better, but they they say if they have a a firearm on them.

Yep. Member, I think at this point, the effort is to try to allow archery deer hunters the same ability to carry as what's already allowed in title 14 of the California Code of Regulations when hunting other big game animals. So in an effort to try to align it because there is a bit of confusion with it out in the general public with hunters.

It's like, well, if I'm hunting elk, I can carry a firearm capable of being concealed if I'm in an archery season or under the auspice of an archery only tag. But if I'm deer, I'm not.

So the effort is to try to just afford all of those lawful sportsmen and sportswomen the ability to have that on their person to protect themselves regardless of what species they're under undertaking.

It's just a cleaner Yeah. Yeah. Cleaner bill.

I get it. Just wanted to ask. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Correct?

Oh, great. Let's go ahead. Would you like to close? Yes.

Thank you again for the consideration. I do wanna say that although this prohibition was enacted eighty years ago, it they've only had one single violation in that eighty years for this. So, I'm really hopeful that we can give our our hunters and our Sportsmans the, the just security when they're out there in the forest and and the safety. So thank you for the the consideration. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. The recommendation is do pass as amended.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The bill is out. Thank you so much. Assemblymember Gallagher, I understand your pitch hitting today for the majority leader. Okay. Come on down.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy to present AB 1987 today on behalf of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry. The author would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill, and she will be accepting the committee amendments today. State wildlife areas are critical to California's environment, recreation, and economy.

And they provide habitat for wildlife, help control flooding, offer educational opportunities, and give the public access to hunting, fishing, However, these areas are facing significant challenges with operations and maintenance, cost for pumping water, mosquito abatement, invasive plant control, wetland flooding and other maintenance needs have increased every year, declined.

Some wildlife areas, particularly in Northern California, have only one or two full time staff, managing thousands of acres. These areas are vital, a vital part of many of our districts, including both mine and assembly member Agua Currie's. They need a stable source of funding to prevent habitat degradation, delays in wetland flooding, and negative impacts to public use. While wildlife areas generate revenues from both hunter fees and ag leases, those funds are not legally required to support the areas where they are generated. And that is what 1987 does.

It makes sure that that money that is generated nearly $6,000,000 annually are reinvested directly back into the wildlife areas. So with me today, I have Mark Henley on behalf of the California Waterfowl Association and Bill Gaines on behalf of the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association to testify in support. And I ask for your aye vote.

Hi there, madam chair, members of the committee. Mark Henley with California Waterfowl. As Assembly Member Gallagher, put it out there, the Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife, state wildlife areas, particularly the type a and type a b areas are critical for wetland and waterfowl conservation efforts. Frankly, without them, the state wouldn't be able to achieve its legally mandated wetland conservation goals nor its public trust responsibilities to support the habitat needs of millions of migrating waterfowl and other birds across the Pacific Flyway.

Currently, this wildlife areas are facing a lot of challenges, again, related to reduced staff and insufficient operations and maintenance budgets.

And there was a report by the department a few years ago at service based budgeting exercise that was completed in 2021 that confirmed these insufficient resources for it to meet its legal mandates, including the operation of its lands, which is only about 36% funded to meet its mission level of service. Which includes hunting and fishing, that's only 33% funded to meet its mission mission level of service.

As was alluded to earlier, there's also and the committee analysis correctly points this out, traditional funding sources, for the type a and b areas like, the Pittman Robertson tax. Those excise tax revenues as well as proposition 99 monies are declining, and this often leads wildlife area managers with insufficient funds to properly manage their wetlands and other important habitats.

So to help provide, you know, a more stable, reliable source of funding, specifically what the bill would do is one is ensure that the waterfowl hunting user fee revenues that are generated from type a and type b areas are used solely for the operation and maintenance of those lands by creating a dedicated account for the revenues and also putting restrictions on what they could be used for.

The bill would also ensure that agricultural lease monies that are derived from the wildlife areas, this includes growing rice, other cereal grains that are favorable to wildlife that those monies are also dedicated back on the wildlife areas. So we believe AB 1987 is a great first step towards meeting the financial resource needs of state wildlife areas. We really appreciate Assemblymember Agi R. Curry's efforts to highlight this issue and thank Assemblymember Gallagher for presenting the bill and we just urge your support. Thank you.

Madam chair, Bill Gaines speaking on behalf of the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association as well as SRCD, the Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District, and the Black Brant Group. Central Valley once boasted more than 4,000,000 acres of naturally occurring seasonal wetlands. But in the past hundred and twenty years, flood control, navigation projects, other projects have erased almost 95% of those.

Yet still, more than 60% of Pacific Flyway water fell depend on the Central Valley Wetlands for for, wandering and staging area twice a year during their fall migration and as well as their their spring varnations back north. Two thirds of the 300,000 acres that are left today are in private ownership.

Duck clubs manage year round with duck hunting as a sole incentive. The other one third is almost fifty fifty federal refuges and state wildlife areas considering that we've lost 95% of our our naturally occurring wetlands. These remaining wetlands need to be artificially irrigated and intensely managed to recreate wetland conditions. And since we've only got 5% left, it's critical that every acre of those are managed to maximize their wetland values, not only for waterfowl, but a variety of other wetland dependent species as well.

As Mark and and the assembly member mentioned, the state is seriously underfunded and understaffed on these wildlife areas.

AB 1987 take a large and long overdue step to ensure that these lands can maximize their wetland and their public use value by creating the dedicated account where the $100 will go in from the reservations and from their daily passes and by requiring that the ag lease revenues stay on those wildlife areas and help manage them and maximize their wetland values. AB 1987 would improve accountability and support conservation, and we strongly urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Motion is second. Anybody from the audience wanna be a me too?

Rick Ortega, general manager of the Grassland Water District, Resource Conservation District, and Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Me Too.

Michael Chen with Audubon California in support.

Chris Hoon, on behalf of Delta Waterfowl, in support.

Cam Bestek with the Northern California Water Association, in support. Thank you.

David Bess with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers in support.

Rick Travis, California Hunting Conservation Coalition in support.

Any witnesses in opposition? Who can object to money coming back to him once it came? Alright. I don't see any. I'll bring it to the committee.

Anyone wish to make any comments? We have a motion and a second. Okay. The recommendation is to do pass as amended. Would you like to close the assembly member?

I just ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

We'll go ahead and take a vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out, and we're gonna now, as we've gone through the agenda, allow any members that need to add on to add on. And, if you're out there somewhere and you wanna come back and add on, now is the time because I gotta go vote in another committee. Okay. As someone who almost needs a motion in a second.

Second. We got a Rogers and a Gonzales. Sorry, Alanis. Okay.

Pappen, aye.

Item number one, ab 1592. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Pappen.

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales. Jeff Gonzales, aye. Alanis.

Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias.

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Alvarez.

Aye.

Banes.

Aye.

Aye.

Banes, aye. Bennett.

Berner, aye. Colosa? Colosa, aye. Gallagher?

Aye.

Gallagher, aye. Hart? I. Parts, I. Ward?

Rogers? I. Rogers, I. But we can leave it for So

that bill will be out?

And then the Hedwig bill. Okay. Just open it. Item number two, ab 1673. Motion was do passed to appropriations.

Alvarez.

Alvarez, Aye, Avila Farias, Bennett, and Ward.

Alright.

Wild things going on over there. Don't worry about it.

Okay. So Johnson has a bill dealing with vets paying 15%. Do we have a motion? 50 it's getting a 15% discount of state parks. Okay.

Gonzales, of course, and, Rogers second.

Item number three, a B17O2. Motion is do passed to military and veterans affairs. Pappen?

Aye.

Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzales? Jeff Gonzales, aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Alvarez?

Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Baines?

Baines, aye. Bennett Berner.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

aye.

Colosa, aye. Gallagher,

Berner, aye. Kolosa?

Gallagher, Aye, heart.

I don't know. Where's mine?

Hart, aye. Ward, Rogers?

Rogers, aye. So item number five, ab 1912 motion was do passed as amended to public safety. Alvarez?

Aye.

Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias, Bennett, Ward?

Aye.

Okay. Continue to do some cleanup here.

Alvarez, aye.

Item number 79 ab 1987. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Alvarez?

Aye.

Bennett and Ward. Okay.

Oh, yeah. We need a motion and a second on item number eight.

Okay.

And Alanis is a second. We'll take a vote on that one.

Item number eight, ab 2216. Motion is do passed to natural resources. Pappen?

Aye.

Pappen, aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. Alanis?

Jeff Gonzales?

Aye.

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Alvarez?

Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Banes? No. Banes, no.

Aye.

Bennett?

Aye.

Burner, aye. Colosa? Colosa, aye. Gallagher?

Aye.

Gallagher, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Ward, Rogers?

Aye.

Rogers, aye. And I think we're good. They can all go, but we have a few members that

they don't have at all.

Yes, please. Thank you. We'll hold it open. I understand that mister Ward is back coming back. I'm not sure about that.

We shall open for doctor Bennett. Thank you very much for waiting. Let's open the roles for assembly member Bennett.

Item number one, ab 1592. Oh, you voted on that one. I'm sorry. Item number two, ab 1673 Bennett. Bennett I.

K. Oh, I'm sorry. I have Bennett. Yeah. Oh, shoot.

Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. Item number 1, AB1592, Bennett Bennett I. Sorry. Okay.

Item number 3AB17O2, Bennett. Aye. Bennett, I. Consent calendar. K.

Item number 5AB1912, Bennett. Bennett, I. Item number 7AB1987, Bennett. Bennett, I. K.

Item number 8AB2216, Bennett Bennett, I. Consent. Here, Bill. You're good.

We'll leave it open for ten more minutes. Five more minutes. Yeah. So if you still gotta vote, come back.

Yeah. The role of the vice chancellor We will open the roles.

Item number one, ab 1592 Ward I. Ward I. Do we have them on the consent calendar? Let me check. Just triple check.

Okay. Sorry. We'll go back to the consent calendar. Ward? Aye.

Ward, aye. Thank you. Okay. Item number two, ab 1673. Ward?

Aye. Ward, aye. Item number 3, aB 1702, Ward Aye. Ward I. Item number 5, AB 1912, Ward Ward I.

Item number 7, AB 1987 Ward Ward I. Item number 8, AB 2216 Ward Ward I. Item number 10, AB 2630 Ward, Ward I.

Okay.

Yes. Thanks, Troy.

Other than the one I can I mean

Yep?

We will announce, the votes. Item number 1AB1592.

Vote count is 120.

Item number 2AB1673.

Vote count120.

Item number 3, AB17O2.

Vote count is 120.

Item number five, or we go to

four We can do four.

Item number four, a B18O4.

Vote count is twelve

zero. Item number five, a B1912.

Vote count is 120.

Item number 79 ab 1987.

Vote count is 120.

Item number eight, ab 2216.

Vote count is 11 to one.

Item number nine, ab 2260.

Vote count is 120.

And item number 10AB2630.

Vote count is eight to four.

Thank you so much. We now adjourn.