Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

We'll go ahead and get started. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Assembly member, Carlra, thanks for coming over from your chairing Judish, which has a long calendar. We're delighted to see you.

No quorum, but that's okay. We'd love to hear your testimony. So, please take it away on 2218.

Okay. Thank you so much. …practices. It also laid the groundwork for a water right system that continues to exclude tribes to this day. Although state agencies have worked to engage tribes on water issues, their impact has been limited by a lack of statutory authority to respond to water related inequities.

Furthermore, there is no codified policy instructing agencies to recognize and address these inequities. This means that work being done now can easily be reversed in the future, AB 2218 will address both these problems by establishing a state policy of recognizing and addressing water related inequities perpetrated against tribes by state sanctioned actions.

This bill will also require a specific set of state agencies, including CNRA, the State Water Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to consider and implement this policy when they revise, adopt, or establish policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria to address inequities.

By ensuring that agencies have the statutory backing to respectfully and effectively address long standing harms against indigenous communities, AB 2218 will foster a more collaborative relationship between the state and sovereign tribes, empowering them to work together to protect the water that gives us all life.

With me to revise supporting testimony is Crystal Moreno with the Shingle Springs tribe, the TEK program manager, as well as Frankie Myers with Fix the World Consulting, a member of the Yurok tribe.

Good morning. Crystal Marano, TEK program manager with the Shingle Springs Band here on behalf of the vice chair Melissa Tayaba, who could not be here this morning. Just a brief background of the tribe before I yield my time to Frankie Myers. We're located about 40 miles east from here called the Shingle Springs Band, but the tribe's ancestral territory actually spans seven California counties, Sacramento being a major county.

The vice chair's grandmother was born not too far from here at the confluence of the Sacramento American River in the village of Pashune. The tribe has a very close ties to this area. We are very passionate and very connected to these riverways, the waterways, the watershed, and so we bring forward the spill. I yield my time to Frankie.

Frankie Myers, Chair Papan. We're very excited today to come and be able to present to you AB 2218. It was the California legislature that lobbied against the treaties of California and California nations. It was this body who enacted the water rights laws of the 1900s, both of which disproportionately affected our tribal nations.

I think back in what could have been if our treaties were ratified, if the state of California did recognize our tribal nations as sovereign nations, if we were granted the 7,500,000 acres of land, if we were granted our federally reserved water rights, what California would look like, what our tribal nations would look like.

We have a long way to go here in California. We have a long way to go with continuing to build our relationship with tribal nations, but we have come a long way. And we've done meaningful work, both thinking about the apology that we heard not so long ago and the impact it's had on policy, the impact it's had on our tribal people, the impact it's had on the mental health of our people, moving forward with legislation to recognize the inequities of our water, our sacred water is critical.

A couple doors down, we're hearing a bill that acknowledges our right to prayer, our right to prayer, our right for the freedom of our religion, a principle this country was founded on. Our prayer sites are not disconnected from our water. It is who we are. It is where we go to pray. It is where we go to make medicine. It is our church. It's what we've built our civilization on, our cultures on.

It's what we continue to go to to this very day. And because of the laws of the last hundred and fifty years, we've been removed from those sacred sites. We've been removed from our ability to act as every other American citizen has. But not just for our culture and our spirituality, but for our entire culture, our entire civilization, including home development and economic development. Across California, you can see to this very day the impact has had.

Vice chair can probably speak better to me on the impacts of water rights in California, tribal water rights in California, and the impact they've had on our tribal nations. And it is everywhere, both rural and urban. And yet we persevere, and we found partnerships with California to help move our cultures and our way of life forward.

AB 2218, we believe in the extension of the work that's already being done, but a critical next step in the relationship between California and tribal nations.

Thank you so much. Do we have, members of the audience that wish to come forward as a me too? Please do so now.

Good morning, chair and members. Rito Mastro Donato with the Trust for Public Land in support.

Good morning. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon California support. Also voicing support for the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Watershed Research and Training Center, and Monolink Committee. Thank you so much.

Madam chair, members of the committee, Frank Molina on behalf of Yahaveatam of Salmon Well Nation, the Saint Innes Band of Shumash Indians, the Cocoon, Taruk Band of Ohlone, Castolon Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria, the California Indian Environmental Alliance, the Cisco Intertribal Council, and Blue Lake Rancheria in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alain Rivier from Eureka, California, chair of Humboldt Progressive Democrats, strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Maheshia Albert Brian Wallace, former chair of the Washer Tribe in Nevada, California, current CEO of the Indigenous Future Society, which was the former Sierra Fund representing tribal nations in the Sierra bioregion support this bill. So thank you very much.

Next question. Chair, Scott Webb speaking for Resource Renewal Institute, Bay Quest, Baykeeper, Save the Bay, and Defenders of Wildlife in support. Thank you so much.

Avalon Provence, student at University of California Irvine. I support this bill.

Chairwoman, members of the committee, Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Water Foundation. Thanks to the author.

Good morning. Kyle Jones on, here in support for Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Clean Water Action, and the Center for Environmental Health and Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment. Thank you.

Morning, chair, committee members. Sean Bothwell. I'm here on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance and also our 10 California Waterkeepers. That includes San Diego Coastkeeper, Inland Empire Waterkeeper, Orange County coastkeeper, LA waterkeeper, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Monterey waterkeeper, Russian Riverkeeper, Humboldt waterkeeper, our Yuba waterkeeper, and our Shasta riverkeeper. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and committee members. Morgan Snyder here on behalf of Restore the Delta, the one on one one two tribe, California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River, California Water Impact Network, Golden State Salmon Association, and PCL in strong support. Thank you.

Hey. My name is Craig Tucker. I'm a consultant for the Karuk Tribe who's proud to cosponsor this bill and also wanna share support from Save California Salmon, the Klamath Indigenous Land Trust, Ridges to Riffle's Indigenous Conservation Group, California Rural Indian Health Board, Friends of the Eel River, and the Mid Klamath Watershed Council. Thanks.

Good morning, chair and members. Molly Culton on behalf of Sierra Club California and Cal Enviro Voters in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Bloomer here in support on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resource Defense Council, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, the Environmental Law Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Information Center. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any opposition that would like to come forward and testify?

Good morning, madam chair. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA represents over 86 public agencies that provide water, wastewater, gas, and electric service in California. Our members have meaningful engagement with tribes in their service territories, and CMUA values the author's intent in shining a light on California's history of mistreatment of tribes. While CMUA appreciates the author's willingness to accept the committee amendments, we remain respectfully opposed to anticipated amendments, it is unclear what impact this bill will have on water supply reliability in the state.

We have not had sufficient time to analyze the impacts of the new language. But from what we can assess, the proposed changes fall into two buckets of concern, legal uncertainty and vagueness. The changes to section 106.2 would still put water supply reliability at risk. Although the committee amendments strike out the word rights from subsection B, the reference to permits is retained. Appropriative rights are permitted rights and would be subject to interpretation of the bills vague concepts for implementing this policy.

We are unsure how this bill will impact future appropriate of right applications or projects like the Bay Delta Plan or the Delta Conveyance Project. Additionally, protection of tribal water uses may imply that use is higher than any other beneficial use, further threatening water reliability.

Our members heavily rely on water rights to ensure water is delivered to their customers, and there is a huge question as to what impact this bill will have on existing water rights relied upon in many of your legislative districts, which could impact water supply reliability. Second, the changes to section ten fifty one of the water code are vague and need to be defined to understand their functionality. The terms such as upon request, shall consult with, and ancestral territory ambiguous.

In our position letter, we made the point that terms of this bill were vague and need to be defined. And as amended, this bill is still vague. Definitions or descriptions would help create certainty as to the implementation of the bill. We appreciate the committee's work to refine the language, appreciate the author's work to make this bill more workable. However, we do urge your no vote today.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Amber Rosso, and I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. First and foremost, we would like to take a moment to recognize the bill's intent to acknowledge the historic injustices, experienced by California Native American tribes. We have an opposed unless amended position on AB 2218. We do appreciate the efforts to refine the language and clarify certain ambiguities, including listing which agencies would be responsible for addressing these historical inequities.

However, we will need additional time to review the latest proposed language. The lack of detail of how each of these state agencies will address access and control over water coupled with the lack of definitional guardrails for consistent implementation across the agencies causes us concern. Water agencies operate under a host of regulations and policies and are continuously working toward meeting and ensuring compliance.

This in addition to the state level state level efforts underway to address drought and climate resilience, Addressing inequities through incorporating remedies in every state water management action makes it difficult to plan accordingly and plan for the future of water deliverability. Additionally, there are various efforts underway by the state to improve collaboration with California Native American tribes, including the recently published tribal stewardship policy by the California Natural Resources Agency.

This policy directs the agency and its departments to institutionalize practices and build lasting tribal partnerships in the implementation of each respective mission, regulation, policies, and programs. As water agencies, it is difficult to parse out where the gaps currently exist as the state works to strengthen these tribal partnerships. We look forward to continued dialogue, to better understand those gaps and to work collaboratively on any potential solutions. We do respectfully ask for a no vote today. Thank you.

Okay. Members of the audience, it likes to be a, me too, no.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Beth Olaso on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund, echo the comments of our friends at the table. Look forward to looking for a solution. Thank you.

Good morning. Meg Snyder with Acxiom Advisors here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Charles Delgado with California State Association of Counties. Opposed unless amended. We do appreciate the author's office offering language. We're still reviewing those amendments, but currently OUA.

Good morning. Lily McKay with San Luis Delgado Water Authority. Also opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Morning. Alex Buren, California Farm Bureau, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Leila Romero on behalf of League of California Cities in respectful, opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County representatives of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam chair, I was asked by my colleague to just register. I didn't know if I should go down there, from Cal Chamber and oppose unless amended.

Thank you. It's okay. Thank you. So I'm gonna bring it back to the committee now. Questions? Assembly member Bennett.

Yes. Question for the municipal, you were talking representing the municipal contractors or municipal association. You're recommending a you asked us to have a no vote today. Is that correct?

Yes.

K. So in in in spite of the historical injustices, etcetera, if we vote no today, that ends this bill, if this committee votes no today. You don't want us to have the bill move forward and continue to work on your concerns?

Respectfully, we have an opposed position, so I have to ask for a no vote on behalf of my members.

Thank you. That's good. And you said you're

We're in OUA. It did ask no but for more time to flush out these or to look at the language.

No, we respectfully asked for a no vote today.

You asked for more time? Correct. So did you but I thought I heard you say at the end that you asked for an aye vote, but proposed No.

You want a no vote today?

Correct.

But if we do a no vote today, there will be the bill if this committee votes no, then we end at this point in time, and we don't give the tribe and these people a chance to work that out. Okay? I just wanted to be clear in terms of your positions. Thank you.

Clarity noted. Assembly member Gonzales.

Thank you for that clarity. I appreciate that because that's where I was gonna kind of go on with this. You know, I'm looking at this really from an from an objective point of view, and I wanna give the author the opportunity to answer some of this because I think there's some missing pieces to this puzzle with respect to I know you're already working on some things, and there's some conversations that's already taken place.

Get so can you talk to what that looks like in maybe future committees?

Sure.

If this gets out.

Sure. Yeah. There have been a lot of amendments and that's why some of the opposition indicates they're still reviewing the amendments. I think the amendments go a long way, especially in terms of creating greater specificity, removing some of the vague terms. And I appreciate the the chair and her staff for helping us create greater specificity, more clarity as to which agencies pertains to.

And, look, this is the first committee of the house origin, so I'm committed to continue to work with other committees, Senate committees, what have you, to further help define if there's still a lack of clarity from the perspective of opposition.

And, ultimately, I've you know, it's not just the intention, but I think the text of the legislation is in a much better place today because of the work of the committee staff and the chair in terms of clearing up some of that vagueness. And if there's further vagueness that opposition and those that have concerns want us to work on, my door is open to that.

And I'm sure future committees will also be looking to some of that, anything considered vague so that we can clear it up. But, ultimately, as has been mass mentioned even by opposition, a lot of these agencies are already have practice working with local tribes. I don’t, that doesn't stop.

In fact, I think this bill will enhance that work. The tribes also care about sustainability and drought prevention, and in some cases, have the best practices to see that through. And so this is not, in any way designed to obstruct work done by the agencies that we put on them to do. But quite to the contrary, I think that it allows the opportunity, for our tribes to have, a greater voice in that process, but not to create an obstacle in that process.

Quite to the contrary, I think, to create long term planning with the tribes. And I think that the the amendments, that I've accepted, today go a long way in removing a lot of that vagueness and creating more certainty as to what agencies will have responsibility moving forward.

In order not to belabor the point of what amendments are going on and what's happening moving forward, I think the you know, I look at all the folks that are in support and opposition, then I think of my district and the nation's the I get the the pleasure of speaking on behalf of. I think it's important that you know, I walked in here with a potential abstain. Like, let let’s just get it out.

But there are some pieces to this that I would love to work with your office on to make sure that a lot of the district folks weigh in also because there's some pieces to this puzzle that are important to to me and to the district that I represent. Moreover, some of the organizations that I get the opportunity to represent.

So I had a ton of questions. I'm gonna pause on the questions because I know this is still baking. And for that reason, I think it would be probably prudent to keep this moving along so that way we can continue to work together, and I appreciate the author and the support and opposition on this.

Senator Rogers?

No. Thank you so much, chair. I'm gonna make a comment, and then I'm gonna let my friend, Frankie Myers, respond to it if he'd like to. But what's interesting to me about this bill is you have the state trying to make up for a history of atrocities that was committed against our native communities. And yet, since those atrocities occurred, you have an entire system, both private and public, that has been founded on that original sin.

I think as we move forward and talk about what actual restitution means, it's going to get really uncomfortable. And I think it's gonna be very difficult.

And for me, this bill isn't even the most difficult conversation, but it gives the legislature an opportunity to be steeped in that uncomfortableness and to bring people to the table to talk about how both things can actually be true, that you can recognize that our indigenous population was not considered people and were not at the table when these decisions were originally made.

And then people who benefited from that have built lives, built businesses, built careers that they have passed on to their future generations who were not a part of that original decision but are concerned about the impact of that. And this legislature is either going to have to learn to be uncomfortable in grappling with that tension or admit that we're not going to solve the problem, which I don't think that people aren't interested in that that path either.

This bill is a simple step into that uncomfortableness and into those conversations and really amounts more towards recognition of that fact than it does of any type of possible solution to it. And to me, it's a baby step in the direction that we have been saying we will go for a number of years. And I wan to give my friend a chance to to respond if he'd like to.

Thank you, Assembly member. I think tribes are uniquely qualified to speak on what it feels like to have their water rates stripped from them. I think we're uniquely qualified to talk about water uncertainty. We've had water uncertainty. We've gone through the process of having our water rights taken.

We're sitting at this table not asking for that. We don't wanna destroy communities. We don't wanna take people's livelihoods away. We don't wanna rip families apart. We know what that feels like.

We know the generational trauma that comes with that. Our opposition and our tribal nations share the same goal. We absolutely want reliability. We absolutely want certainty. We also want a future where everyone can benefit.

I think what it boils down to is we're in opposition of who's at the table to make that decision. And for far too long, tribes have been left out of that decision making process. And this is a small step to correct that.

Thank you. And with that, I'm a proud supporter of the bill, proud of the author for picking it up, and proud to be working with him. I think it's a baby step, and especially in this first committee, it's a really minor step to advance to the next committee, but I hope to see this bill signed into law. Thank you.

Okay.

You're welcome.

When the time comes, we will note both of those items. So I just have a few remarks I'd like to say, and then I'll ask for the esteemed author's closing. So, what's wrong?

I just want...

Absolutely, Assembly member Bennett. Whatever you need.

Thank you. And I just wanted to say, I think that Assembly member Rogers said it really well. For us to address this, we're gonna have to live in an uncomfortable territory for a while. But I really do think that we can live in an uncomfortable territory and come up with good solutions in the long run as we go forward. And that's why I asked my question earlier.

Consistently, I think we've seen water districts across the state of California be so cautious and so conservative that they want us to vote no at the very first committee hearing, and they continually ask us to do this. And it kills the ability to have the uncomfortable conversations that we need to be more comfortable with. So I really appreciate that logic. Thank you. Thank you for the second honours.

My pleasure.

Thank you for for all the remarks of the committee and for the witnesses as well. Some of my remarks have been touched on, like, seat at the table. Sorry. But I hope you didn't copyright it because it's in my full bill. But anyway, so I first wanna say, I wanna thank the author and the sponsors for working with the committee on this important bill about competing interests.

And there have been a lot of discussions to try to find where we can all be comfortable. So as I've said to the author, you know, I believe that it is important to ensure the tribes have a seat at the table, especially when the state government is making decisions that affect their rights and everyone else's rights as you so eloquently addressed. You know, in my view, that's what this bill really is about, and that's what it's achieved.

It is not that we're elevating tribes' rights over other parties, but it ensures that tribes will be taken into consideration and have a place at the table. This is the least we can do as a state given California's tragic history within treatment of our Native American tribes.

And it's interesting that the witness can talk about the pain with great sensitivity that others might go through that pain. And I very much appreciate those comments because a lot of this uncomfort zone is about, did I hear you? Do I know what you you've gone through? And how can we come together in dealing with what I consider to be the most precious resource in the state of California. Without water, we will we will have nothing.

We will be in serious trouble. So for that reason, I thank the author for working with the committee, and we we really did try to find this place where conversations can continue, but we really did try to find a place where everybody could be heard. So, with that, would you like to close?

I want to express my gratitude to the chair, and to, certainly, the committee members as well that have recognized the need, for us to have these difficult conversations. It's not simply about just shining a light on past inequities against tribal communities. It's about what are we gonna do about it going forward. I think the apologies that have happened in the last few years have been incredibly meaningful and important, but they fall flat if we don't follow-up those words with actions.

And, you know, I I used to teach a course called race and the law at the Lincoln Law School in San Jose. And beginning of the semester, the first section was on Native American sovereignty and how many treaties we broke against our tribal communities.

And that was the opening chapters of the course. And it's a great honor for all of us, I think, to be in a moment where we can write new chapters with our tribal communities. We have the opportunity to do that, and there's not easy. And I really commend the chair for it's a really tough balancing act to figure out how to move legislation like this forward.

And I think the bill is in a much better place now than it was when first introduced because of the work together that we've been doing. But as our witness indicated, this is not about taking anything away from anyone else. It's about recognizing what we have taken away and that we can do better going forward, in terms of making sure that we have policies that have everyone at the table as the chair indicated. So, thank you, madam chair, to you and your staff.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Excellent. Thank you so much. And because of procedural constraints, you're accepting this committee amendments will be taken up in ESTM this afternoon. Correct?

Committee.

And, that is correct. And I do wanna point out again the the work of the committee to make that possible because we're literally hearing this bill if it gets out this morning, this afternoon in the ESTM. And so we will be accepting the amendments at the next

Next door.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you everyone for being here.

Oh, right here.

You're welcome.

Okay. With that, I see that we have a Assembly member Ransom for our other expedited matter. Golden Muscles, we await you.

I'm good. How are you? Thank you. Very

Yes.

well. Thank you.

Thank you for your help on this.

Oh, of course.

Is other one is this

I should be coming.

Mister secretary, let's go ahead and take the role so we can establish a quorum.

Here.

K. Papan?

Papan, here. Jeff Gonzales?

Here.

Jeff Gonzales, here. Alanis?

Present.

Alanis, here. Alvarez, Avila Farias, Banes, Bennett. …Bennet, here.

I was up late last night doing my homework with a chair.

Koloza? Detention. Koloza? Koloza here. Gallagher. Hart?

Here.

Hart, here. Marucci, Rogers?

Here.

Rogers, here.

No.

Okay. Go. No.

No. No.

No. Let's take up the consent. Okay.

Do we have a motion on the consent? Yes. We got a motion from in a second from No. Colosa. Gonzales is a motion and Colosa.

So items on the consent calendar, number six, AB 182. Motion is do passed to local gov. Item number 12, AB 2207. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Item number 18, AB 2513.

Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Item number 19, AB 2578. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Item number 20, AB 2590. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

Item number 23, AB 2728, Soria. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Item number 26, a B2787. Motion is do passed to appropriations.

Okay. So Pappen?

Okay.

Pappen? Aye. Jeff Gonzales?

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales? Aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis? Aye. Alvarez? Avila Farias? Banes?

Aye.

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

Gallagher? Hart? Hart, aye. Marucci Rogers?

Rogers, aye.

Aye.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Thank you, Assembly member Gonzalez. With that, welcome Assembly member Ransom. We are ready for you in AB, 2032.

Awesome. Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members. I'm Assembly member Rhodesia Ransom. I'm here to to present AB 32, which is the Golden Muscles Response Act.

I wanna start by thanking the committee for the work on the bill and accepting the Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee amendments, which will be taken up in the assembly environmental safety and toxic material committee, where the bill will be heard later today. I'm here to present this bill, which is a critical bill to allow local water agencies to quickly and effectively respond to the invasive golden mussel species.

My community in San Joaquin County and Sacramento San Joaquin Delta have been ground zero for golden mussel infestation, seeing the impacts firsthand. First detected in October 2024 in the Delta, the golden mussel has rapidly spread across the Delta and all along the state water project now reaching as far south as San Diego. The golden mussels form dense colonies on critical water infrastructure, clogging and degrading our water delivery systems across the state.

This directly threatens our water systems that provide water to millions of Californians and millions of acres of Farmland. AB 2032 will help combat the spread of golden mussels by equipping our local water agencies with necessary tools to expedite their response to prevent, mitigate, control, and eradicate golden mussels. This bill will ensure that water agencies can perform simple, operational, and maintenance work without delay.

It will also allow water agencies with the guidance of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to perform necessary research studies needed to create more robust and effective control plans. Lastly, the bill will require our relevant agencies, including the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Board to identify existing tools that enable a streamlined or faster administrative process for responding to golden mussels.

Without urgent action, California families will bear the cost through higher water rates and increased food prices. AB 2032 ensures that we act quickly to mitigate this ongoing muscle crisis in California. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes. With me today to support the bill, I have Kristen Olson representing San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority, and Ernie Avila, who is the Contra Costa Water District Board President.

And lastly, we have doctor Cindy Meyer who can answer any technical questions that the committee may have.

I'll turn it to my witnesses.

Thank you, Chair Pappan and members. My name is Kristen Olson, and I'm here today on behalf of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority in support of AB 2032 along with our cosponsor Contra Costa Water District. Ransom and Chairwoman for their attention to this very critically important issue. The Authority's mission focuses on operation and maintenance of both the Jones And O'Neil Pumping Plants, which deliver water through the Central Valley to support communities, agriculture, and wildlife habitat.

Second.

The invasive golden mussels pose an immediate and potentially catastrophic threat to our water conveyance system and a long term risk to the health of the Bay Delta ecosystem.

A coordinated rapid response to the Golden Mussel invasion is essential to mitigate the impacts and protect our ability to convey water. Despite the coordination between the state and local water agencies, the response has not been rapid enough to control the spread or impacts of the golden mussels. AB 2032 provides critical approaches to address this very immediate problem.

It enables rapid response by streamlining regulatory pathways, expediting permitting for effective treatments, and allowing essential maintenance to proceed to protect critical infrastructure, while implementing best management practices and environmental protection measures. It also improves coordination between the state and water agencies, identification of infested water bodies, and enables research for effective mitigation.

California needs to recognize the seriousness of this threat and not inhibit rapid response efforts. AB 2032 ensures agencies can respond quickly to protect Californians water and food supplies. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support. And as assembly member Ransom indicated, doctor Cindy Meyer of the water authority is here to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have any me too's from the audience in support? Oh, we have more winners.

Good morning. Sorry about that.

It's okay. Good morning, chair Papan and committee members. I'm Ernie Avila. I'm the president of the board for the Contra Costa Water District here in support as a cosponsor of AB 2032. Contra Costa Water is an urban water provider serving 550,000 customers in Central And Eastern Contra Costa County.

We're wholly dependent on the delta for our water supply with over ninety years of experience operating in the Delta. Contra Costa water has adapted to changing conditions on the presence of golden mussels poses an immediate threat to our infrastructure and infrastructure throughout the the Delta, as well as the health of the Delta ecosystems. Contra Costa Water first detected golden mussels at our intake when the state detected golden mussels elsewhere in the Delta, and we took action using every tool possible knowing the severity of the situation.

We proactively applied for and secured a permit to use a promising copper based treatment knowing that there was a lengthy permitting review process necessary. CC CCWD environmental experts took five months to secure the permit for one chemical application.

We're working with local, state, and federal agencies, the industry to identify successful treatment and control options. AB 2032 would streamline the permitting process which helps water agencies respond with the urgency that this situation requires. This will also provide a path to obtain a clear guidance needed from experts in making the permitting process more efficient and will save resources for water agencies and resource agencies as well.

The improved different station mapping included in AB 2032 will provide key data points needed as agency statewide work collaboratively on long term solutions. Based on CCWD's experience, AB 2032 provides practical tools needed to navigate the immediate and urgent response warranted to address the threat that golden mussels pose to water systems and the delta ecosystems.

Therefore, we urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Well, that was that was well worth you having me you speak. I'm glad I didn't overlook you. In any event, do we have me too's in the audience in favor?

Good morning. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Devin Middlebrook, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and California Tahoe Alliance. Thanks for the author on this bill.

Good morning. Andrea Abruchel with California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Good morning, Sophie Marine, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Good morning. Morgan Snyder with Restore the Delta in support.

Good morning, Avalon Provence, current master's student and former Ecology Lab employee. I support this bill.

There's just a lot of people behind you, and I don't know if anybody else wants to be a me too. Not that I see. Okay. With that, we'll bring it back to the committee. Anyone wanna there is no opposition on file.

Anybody want to oppose? They're not.

I gotta move this along. I don't see any opposition. We'll bring it back to the committee. Assemblymember Rogers.

No. I just wanna thank the author for bringing a bill that allows the agencies to flex their muscle. I think that more mollusk legislation is what the public's been clamoring for, and so I look forward to this as this passing.

Thank you. Good job.

Oh, you guys are stuck with, you know, bad.

That'd be great.

I brought a muscle for you.

Anyone else? Anyone else? Okay. I I would like to thank the author for bringing this bill. This bill appeals to me for two reasons.

Number one, it's about a government efficiency. And, we owe that to the people of state of California. And we particularly, number two, owe it to them because of the invasive nature of this species and how dangerous it really is. And we are reaching some very, very critical levels here. So I appreciate your your tenacity and your fortitude in bringing it forward.

We have a motion in a second. Would you like to close?

Yes, madam chair. So I wanna first of all thank my witnesses for helping to really, articulate the importance and the severity of the situation. I wanna thank the committee members, for the support and the work that's been done thus far. This is a really, critical timing, and we need to move with haste and with urgency as the spawning period is right now for the golden mussels. Each golden mussel can reproduce 1,000,000 golden mussels.

And so we need to give these water agencies all the tools that we possibly can to expedite and empower them to take care of, you know, securing the future of the water districts and our infrastructure as well as the quality of our water. So with that, I wanna just say that this is about us urgently responding to a cry a crisis, and I wanna thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

Item number two, AB 2032, do pass to environmental safety and toxic materials. Pappen?

Aye.

Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzales? Aye. Jeff Gonzales, aye. Alaniz?

Aye. Alanis, aye. Alvarez? Avila Farias?

Avi Lefarious, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye.

Aye.

Berner. Kolosa? Aye. Kalosa, aye. Gallagher.

Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Marisucci. Rogers?

Rogers, aye.

Aye.

Excellent. We've got Show my pictures. Eight. It'll get out, but we'll leave it open for add ons too. Okay?

Thank you.

Thank you.

I didn't have to.

Thank you so much.

Well, I guess that leaves us with assembly member Pacheco. Come on forward. Thank you so much. Appreciate you. Thanks.

Good morning.

Good morning, Assembly member Pacheco. Take it away.

Thank you. And good morning, madam chair and members. I am here today to present Assembly Bill seventeen twelve, a district specific bill to to aid one of the cities that I represent, which is Santa Fe Springs. Santa Fe Springs owns a waste a water system that faces groundwater contamination issues and requires urgent infrastructure upgrades. However, due to the system's small size, the city cannot afford a to finance these upgrades without at least a 300% increase to customers' rates.

In contrast, if the city sells its system to a larger water provider, that provider will have the capacity to spread the cost across a much broader customer base, allowing rates to remain steady. However, under current law, a public entity must hold a municipal election before selling its water system to a PUC regulated provider, adding cost and delay for the city and its residents. Instead, a AB 1712 allows the city to proceed through a protest process, facilitating a smoother, more affordable sale.

After the sale, the water system will be regulated by the PUC, which will help ensure reasonable and stable rates for residents. A similar approach was successful in this nay nearby city of Montebello under AB 850 in 2021, where rates remained stable after the sale.

With me today to speak in support of the bill and answer any technical questions is James Enriquez, the city's, public works director from Santa Fe Springs, and I will hand it over to him.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is James Enriquez, and I am the public works director, city engineer of the city of Santa Fe Springs. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. I'm here to today representing the city of Santa Fe Springs to request the committee support in moving forward Assembly Bill seventeen twelve.

This bill will enable the city to expedite consolidation of its water system through a sale to a larger water purveyor. This is critical since the city's water enterprise has been operating at a structural deficit for several years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future with subsidy by our general fund and our our residential population. And as a consequence, the city has deferred critical capital improvements for decades. We currently have over a 150,000,000 in capital improvement needs with literally no capital funding.

This includes an aging pipe distribution system, and more importantly, no operable wells.

Our two wells are shut down due to contamination that require that would require over $8,000,000 each in, treatment upgrades. This requires us to depend 100% on imported water that is significant significantly more expensive and continues to rise in cost. AB 1712 would enable the sales city's water system to a larger provider with a larger rate payer base and more resources to implement capital improvements and provide a more reliable and cost effective water source.

This option has been successful for other cities in our region that were or are in a similar situation, and we believe this is the best option to provide a long term reliable water source and long term rate stable rate stabilization for our customers. Although the city raised rates most recently in 2020 by more than 30% over a four year period, that simply has not been enough.

We estimate that the next, increase will need to triple rates in order to include an adequate capital improvement program as we have seen happen recently in other Southern California cities. We simply can no longer compete with efficiency and economy of scale of larger water purveyors. We ask for your support in moving forward, AB 1712. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Only one witness. Right? Correct. I just wanna make sure I skipped over the last one.

Anyone from the audience that would like to come forward with a me too in support of the bill? Thank you. Gonzales Colosa.

Good morning. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you.

Hi. Gabriel Menards on behalf of San Gabriel Valley Water Company in support.

Okay. We can't possibly have any opposition, but I'm gonna ask anyway. Seeing no opposition, I'll bring it back to the committee. No comments or questions from the committee. I just wanna thank the author for bringing I know you come out of local government.

I come out of local government. There's nothing like a good public works manager. Thank you so much, sir, for being here today. It seems like it's a a very sound fiscal bill, and I wish you the best and your rate payers. Would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Let's go ahead and take a vote.

Item number four, AB 1712. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Pappen?

Aye.

Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzales?

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. Alenice? Alenice, aye. Alvarez, Avila Farias? Aye.

Avila Farias, aye. Baines, Bennett, Berner, Colosa? Kolozah, Aye. Gallagher, Hart, Marisucci, Rogers?

Aye.

Rogers, Aye. It's

on call. We don't quite have enough yeses, but I'm sure you'll get there if I was a betting woman. Okay. Thank you so much both for you to for being here. I see we have a similar Agua Curry.

You you have your witnesses? You you ready to go?

I'm just checking.

Okay.

It might be out in that

No worries.

No worries.

While we're waiting, we're gonna take a vote on the Calra bill, which was the first one we heard, but we didn't take a vote on because we didn't have a quorum. We did have a motion in the second. We can't. We don't have a quorum.

I knew that. Yeah. Unless we get a new motion. You wanna move the caller bill, anybody? Bennett will move the Kalra bill. Rogers will second it. Okay. Well, go ahead.

[Roll Call[

Let let me just give the vote. How many did you get there? Okay. It'll be on call. Okay. We'll leave that on call. Mister Bennett, we're gonna let you add on to which number? Okay. Pacheco, item four.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, madam majority leader. Okay. With that, then we will have assembly member Hadwick come down to to to present AB 1722. Good morning. We've got a motion from vice chair Gonzales, a second by Assembly member Alanis.

Take it away, Assembly member Hadwick.

Thank you, madam chair.

And you do you have permission? Is this the one you wanted to use a recording on?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you for asking.

Thank you, madam chair. I'd first like I'm gonna let you do this. I would first like to thank the chair

and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. I accept the committee amendments. I also appreciate the chair's leadership in addressing the challenges rural communities face by holding a human wildlife conflict hearing this year. Rural communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of conflict with large predators. These predators, such as mountain lions, bears, and wolves, are killing livestock, pets, and people.

Currently, the federal endangered species act recognizes self defense when a person takes a listed animal based on a good faith belief that the action was necessary to protect themselves or another individual from harm. Unfortunately, it is not clear what self defense standard applies when someone has to defend themselves or a loved one against a large predator protected under the California Endangered Species Act. Rather than leave it to a court or prosecutor's discretion, California should set a clear standard.

Assembly bill seventeen twenty two establishes a common sense exception to take under the to take under the California Endangered Species Act. Under this bill, a person can defend themselves or their family from bodily harm inflicted by an endangered species.

AB 1722 will ensure ranchers, hunters, hikers, and people enjoying the outdoors have certainty that they can protect themselves if they encounter a dangerous predator.

El Dorado County Sheriff Jeff Lykoff. We're trying we're having technical difficulties with the recording.

Did you have, live testimony you wanna give while they're messing around with that? Okay. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sheriff Jeff Lykoff, and I come before you today with clear sense of purpose. I wanna honor Talon Brooks by never forgetting his name and to also acknowledge the brutal attack of his younger brother, Wyatt Brooks, at the hands of a starving juvenile mountain lion. I wanna urge our lawmakers to act swiftly by passing California Assembly Bill seventeen twenty two to protect all Californians who enjoy our states outdoors.

Taylor and White's experience is a stark reminder that the beauty of California's wild places comes with real risk.

Risks that haven't had Harabedian adverse ripple effect family and throughout our beautiful state of California communities to include children, hikers, runners, or anyone who seeks solace or to recreate in nature. No one should have to face a life changing encounter without a way or an option to exercise a right to protect themselves or their loved ones. Taylor and Wyatt's story asks us not only to remember and to mourn, but to support, learn, and legislate.

Assembly Bill seventeen twenty two offers a common sense framework and an answer to reduce the likelihood and severity of wildlife human conflicts. While many of us cherish and respect the coexistence with wildlife, coexistence requires preparation.

Passing Assembly Bill seventeen twenty two is not about demonizing wildlife. It's about responsible stewardship and protecting people. It's about ensuring that when families walk our trails, school groups and families visit our parks, hunters enjoy the outdoors or outdoor workers are out there doing their job. They have clear guidance and a way to act in good faith to protect themselves if the unthinkable happens. Today, I ask you to imagine Taylor and Wyatt's families and to imagine any of us in their place.

Imagine if Taylor and White had a way to defend themselves in good faith judgment on that faithful day afternoon other than yelling and waving their arms while backing away to throw in their backpack at the stocking lion. Imagine life less altered, trauma reduced, and tragedies prevented. To our legislators, I ask for your aye vote on 1722 without delay.

To Taylor and White and every family affected by wildlife conflict, we see you, we stand with you, and we will continue to fight for you to make the beautiful California outdoors safer for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you. And you didn't have a second witness, correct? No. Okay.

We we wanted to play the nine one one operate the 911 I gotcha.

Let me see how we're doing technically with that. Oh, I've wait a minute. You know, I do wanna warn the audience that this could do

It's a it's a it's a nine one one tape, and it just has an injury on the second the the facial injuries on the attack.

Yeah. But I I wanna warn the audience that this could be something that would be difficult to watch. How are we doing on on sound? Bare with us for a second.

Sorry. It's right there.

I'm gonna give it about ninety more seconds, then we may have to move along.

Can we can can we play it without the with just the subtitles? They can't get that.

Yeah. We could probably do it with the subtitles.

We could do it with just the subtitles if that works, chair. If they can.

Yeah. It's Do you wanna hold on one second. Do you wanna read the subtitles or you wanna just paraphrase what we're seeing? Which is it?

I could paraphrase what you're seeing.

Okay. That we committee's

I can I can basically describe? This is basically a 911 call from Wyatt Brooks. As they're walking down the trail, the lion came down. They backed away. The lion was 10 feet away.

They waved their arms and did everything they were told to do through their backpack. And when they tripped over, he back and away, tripped over, the lion attacked him, bit him in the face. His brother, Talen, grabbed the mountain lion, was able to get the mountain lion off of him. It was a juvenile mountain lion. And as soon as Talen got him off, he launched and grabbed Talen by the neck, and that's the 911 tape is our the our our deputy's response.

Basically, Talen telling the line 911 dispatcher the lion has my brother by the neck. You're gonna have to kill the lion. It's killing him right now. And, our response to to the call, that's all that's what it is.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Yep.

Without further ado, then if you could take that down. And, we will have Mitus from the audience, please, in favor of the bill. Okay. Seeing none. Do we have opposition to the bill or would like to come forward and testify?

Thank you. Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife. It's our understanding that the author is taking the amendments offered by the committee. And with that, we would, withdraw our opposition to the bill and appreciate the work by the author and the committee to address this important issue. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else? With that, I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? Some of Morales.

Thank you, madam chair. Just wanna thank the author for continuing to be a voice for California to help protect us and and show the rest of us who really have no idea what goes on in your guys' neck of the woods and understand what what kind of concerns you have and what kind of problems that have been put on by other policies that have been brought up in in California. So thank you for doing that, and I'll definitely be an aye.

Great. And I think we had a motion in a second. Okay. So let's go ahead and take a oh, would you like to close?

I just wanna thank you for your time today. This is a a the number one issue in my district right now is predators and wildlife conflict. Not something I thought would be my focus when I was here, but a a huge need as the rest of the state is is just not having to deal with it like District 1. So thank you for your time, and thank you for considering.

Pleasure. And you did accept the amendments. Is that correct? Okay. Great.

Alright. With that, madam secretary, we'll take a vote.

Item number five, AB 1722. Motion is do passed as amended to judiciary. Pappan?

Papan, aye. Jeff Gonzales? Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye.

Aye.

Alvarez, Avila Farias?

Yes.

Avila Farias, aye. Baines, Bennett, Berner, Colosa, Colosa, aye, Gallagher, Hart, Mirzucci, Rogers.

They're all fine.

Okay. We'll put that over. And, thank you so much, Assembly member Hadwick. I see Assembly member Wilson. Come on down.

When you're ready. Thank you, madam chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 1613, a bill that will create a California off highway vehicle safety and stewardship course as a self guided certification of knowledge of safe operating practices of OHVs and require operators of OHVs to take this course in order to access off highway lands beginning in 2029. Both federal and state statute have standards for the safe operation of a OHV. However, there is no requirement that operators know these existing or other safety standards.

Additionally, there is no requirement that they have the ability to demonstrate their knowledge through a certification program. Because of this gap in law, misuse, property damage, accidents, injuries, and even deaths have become a problem in our state parks and other public lands that allow OHV recreation. California has even ranked the highest in fatalities amongst deaths associated with OHVs across the country.

As a result of this need, stakeholder conversations, including several safety summits over the past few years with members of the community, law enforcement, and the department have revealed a common interest in providing additional training and education to the OHV community. AB 1613 is the culmination of years of work amongst the community and is not only modeled after similar programs in other states like Utah and Arizona, but is modeled after California's own successful voter ID card that the legislature approved over a decade ago.

It is time that California takes this reasonable step forward in our OHV lands in order to improve safety and enact the change the OHV community has been seeking. With that, I would like to introduce my two witnesses, Amy Grenat, executive director of Sierra Access Coalition, and Jane Arteaga, president of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation.

Good morning, my and I'm chair and members of the committee. My name is Jane Arteaga, president of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation or CORF. We are a

partner with California State Parks. I bring in a extensive background to natural resource management, having recently retired from a long career of the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. I'm here today in support at AB 1613. I would like to thank the assembly member Wilson for her leadership and a commitment to safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring safe, sustainable outdoor recreation. Over the past several years, we've seen significant shift in outdoor recreation.

During COVID nineteen pandemic, people felt safe to be outdoors. Between 2020 and 2023, sales has sat side by sides along or were the most accessible, affordable OHVs available to the public. It increased by 220%. This rapid growth brought many new writers with little to no experience of understanding the safe writing practices or trail etiquette. As a result, we have seen significant increase in accidents, injuries, and environmental impacts.

AB 1613 is a result of an inclusive stakeholder process, a safety summit sponsored by the OHMVR division, and reflects a collaborative effort and to address these challenges. This bill enacts educational approach to improving safety and protecting California's natural resources while preserving the access to responsible recreation. For this reason, I respectfully urge you for your support of AB 1613, and thank you for your time.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the committee. My name is Amy Granite. And after, twenty years as an advocate in the off road community, I'm now executive director of Sierra Access Coalition. Off road vehicles are amazing for the access that they allow for everyone, whether you're hiking, biking, fishing. It allows you access into the backcountry.

But nothing is more important than protecting California's natural and cultural resources that we find so abundant in our backcountry. The off highway community came together in 2017 and working with Senator Ben Allen passed SB 249, which significantly expanded protections of natural and cultural resources. Wildlife, habitat protection, and soil conservation standards were only two of those.

We were able to see that enacted, and, all federal agencies that also receive funding through the OHV Trust Fund, plus our state parks that allow OHV recreation have now increased their standards and surpassed the standards that are actually at the rest of our state parks. Now we've come together again to recognize that it's great for the environmental scientists to understand this and for state parks to mandate it, but our enthusiasts don't really know about it.

They remain uninformed, especially as my colleague mentioned, there are so many new enthusiasts right now. We need to educate people. We need them have an understand the importance of natural and cultural resources and how they can take their part. They also need to understand trail etiquette when they're traveling off road so that everybody is safe when they're enjoying this amazing sport. We ask your support for AB 16 while we thank assembly member Wilson and her staff for their leadership in bringing it forward.

Thank you so much. Okay. We have me too's from the audience. Please come forward if you are in support of this bill.

One fifth

one three. Okay. Seeing none, do we have witnesses in opposition?

One, two, one.

In support? Yes. Okay. Please.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support. Thank you.

Excellent. Thank you. Now we'll move to any witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Questions come some of vice chair Gonzales.

Thank you, madam chair. I'd like to thank the offer for for this bill. I have a few questions and or concerns. One of the pieces, you know, I in my district, we have the largest OHV park in all of California, Imperial Valley Sand Dunes, otherwise known as Glamis, to those who like to go. Also, Ocotillo Wells.

So this is huge. A huge revenue driver for us. I I wanna kinda separate two different things, the safety side and then the economics of it. Right? Safety.

Absolutely. People get hurt. We need to make it safe. 100% agree with you on on that piece. The piece that that is splitting the the the district, as I look at some of these support opposed letters, is the the fees associated with this, the determination of what makes what about people who have done this already in the like, because we have a lot of because it's in our backyard.

A lot of people who are already lifelong OHV folks that have, you know, some on the professional level. How do you determine the differences in that? So let me start by by allow by offering you the opportunity to respond to kind of those questions and concerns that I'm hearing.

So so you're concerned about the fee they have to pay to take?

The fees, number one, and number

Not the penalties if you don't have it. Is it is it are you just referencing the fee to take or are you because you're saying fees, plural. So I I wanna make sure I understand the question. Are you talking about the fines?

Fees to take. That's really the that's what's coming out of the district is the fees to take. And if you do have it, obviously, there's penalties associated with that. But that's the that's what I'm getting the most conversation about is the the fees to take. And coupled with that is the I've been doing this my whole life.

You know, I'm 55 or I my kids have been doing it for, you know, fifteen years, and they are 16 years old. Those types of things. How would you

So we'll start with the second if you wanna address the

Okay. There's a couple of things and I'll I'll first start by telling you a story of two 60 year old drivers or operators of a UTV or ROV. It has a number name or side by side. That's what we call them. They were in Dumont Dunes, which isn't far away from Glamis, and they were traveling down.

And their thought was, I have been doing this since I am a kid and and needless to say, their UTV flipped. They both died. Their friends gave the story afterwards and said, well, they didn't really need helmets. They've been doing it so long. They absolutely understand what to do.

All of us, especially as we get older, sometimes we overestimate our skills. Our point is to have everyone start on the equal playing field. There may be some things that, yes, you understand from your years of experience, but there may be other things maybe in the stewardship category that you don't. This way, everybody can say, okay. We have an equal basis.

We're going out and enjoying this sport. Not only that, as we bring our children and our grandchildren into the sport, we can educate them. So it's not just about the individual person. It's about what they passed down to others in their family and their friends as they're starting. And as Jane referenced, we have so many new enthusiasts.

So I have seen this so often where people sort of say everyone else needs to be educated but me. And it's not only about educating yourself, it's also also about making sure that you're driving both defensively and protecting everyone else on the trail. And that's another area where people kind of tend to get into the mindset where, oh, it's just me, but you're not.

If I could just maybe narrow down that that that piece real quick. So from this bill says that you have to take a course to get certified, so to speak. Right?

Self guided as my mind.

Self guided course, and then you get the the license to operate. Right? Once you do that, every five years, you have to go through that. I'm gonna kind of I don't wanna say pick it apart because that makes it sound very, like, aggressive. That's not what that's not what I'm trying to do.

That's the whole point of this.

Yeah. I'm trying to understand

Okay. Right,

where where it's coming from. The first piece is if a someone has a driver's license on the road, they don't have to every five years do that. Why are we adding a extra piece for a license to operate every five years.

So it's not really a license to operate. It's a certificate of understanding that you understand the laws and the laws change regularly. You do get your driver's license renewed. You your driver's license in the state of California is not in perpetuity. So you do get your driver's license renewed.

And when you get your driver's license renewed, there is something that you click to say that you agreed to upon the renewals of the license to abide by the current laws. And as a driver, in order to have the privilege of having a driver's license, you have to attest to that you understand the rules of the road and you are held accountable to understanding the rules of the road or you get ticketed or could get a Liscence suspension.

And so this is just saying that you certify that you understand the current rules and current rules regarding the use of a o OHV as well as understanding they said educating about what does it mean to use this on park lands, like, where you should go, how do you not disturb nature while you're using an OHV. So it's just a certification of understanding, and and and that's why it has a regular renewal part of every five years.

And does that coincide with a I think driver's license is every ten years, right, if if I'm mistaken?

5. Five.

It's every five years? Okay. So you're are you saying that you're aligning with the same time frame

as you're that we I don't know that I would say that we didn't think about it in terms of driver's license. We thought about it in a reasonable amount of time in terms of how much laws change around a particular area. I don't think it was intentionally tied to driver's license because it is not a driver's license. Like,

a yes. If they don't have it, they they are penalized. Right?

Well, if they are caught doing something that is against the law, then they will be penalized. So when you go into an a park, you're not asked to show your certificate to to ride your vehicle. If you're doing nothing wrong, you're not gonna be asked to show your certificate. If you do something wrong And you also you you will get cited for doing something wrong.

And then if you also don't have a certificate, you'll be cited for not do getting a certificate, which reminds you is a self guided online course.

It's not, you know, a class you go to or something to that nature. Go ahead.

As a past federal employee, implementing so I know Glamis very well. And it's I I wanna equate this to implementing the fire permit that is now required in California. So when that became law, we didn't use it as going up to people. Okay.

You don't have your fire permit. We're gonna write a citation. We didn't use it as that. We use it as an educational tool. You know, this is these are the reasons why you wanna have your bucket.

This is why you wanna have these things. This is why you wanna take this course. If you're gonna have fire, you need to have this permit because you learn all these things. And so this this is a opportunity for, rangers and law enforcement staff to be able to give a little pamphlet of saying here here's the opportunity for you to take this course and learn of why safety is important and why protecting natural resources is important.

So, you know, it'll tell you, okay, don't go off trails because this affects the resource damage and the wildlife and cultural resources.

And then if if you don't mind, I'll go to the fees unless you wanna stay on this through the chair. So onto the fees, I wanted to make sure I got it right because we don't set a fee in here, but we talk about parameters around a fee. And so on it's page 98 if you have the the the bill at hand.

But it says the division may establish fees for the issuance or renewal of operator cards in amount sufficient to cover the reasonable cost of carrying out this new OHV, safety stewardship program. We are working to figure out if we need to put a cap in there.

We haven't done that yet, but we have been open to and have talked about what is a reasonable cap. But, really, the fee should only be used to cover the administrative cost of it, not anything in excess. So that's the the only fee that we have. And, of course, we have established what the fines are, but we haven't set a fee yet. We're, entertaining what a cap would look like, but haven't yet determined the cap.

So in talking about fees in the plural, the first violation is nearly about $500. Correct?

A $100 not to exceed a $100 and can be waived by the court. The code court speaks as well.

And then it's the at the end of the day, on the three if you did it three times, three whole times you get caught doing something you shouldn't be doing, remember, because that's what you're getting stopped for, not for not having the certification, it could be up to $500 for that third time. And the court can always waive. We did not take that out, so the court can always waive any one of those tickets.

So you can you can fight the ticket, so to speak, like you could with the moving violation.

I I think, you know, overall, the the concern here is, again, we're not talking about the safety piece. I you know, I don't want anyone cracking their skull, you know, falling off or dying at worse. The concern that I have specifically in in my district where GLAMIS is located in Imperial County, we have a 20% unemployment rate, highest in the state. When GLAMIS comes in, it is an injection into the region, a huge injection into the region.

My concern is that when we talk about, you know, a $100 fee or any fee or in an area that's that is impoverished and this is what they do.

I I really wanna be considerate into the the amount that that someone has to pay for something, number one. The fees associated with that, if they break said rule, and also from a tourism perspective, will this detract from the tourism side of it? So there's a lot of different nuances that, obviously, we won't know until this is implemented. Right? But there's some nuances to this that is really splitting the district in conversation.

Everyone no one's saying anything about the the safety side. It's really coming down to what's the what's the phase in process. You know, will it be January 1 and then everyone has to do that if there is one? If you could talk to that. Number two, does it punish parents if it's you know, this is a 14 year old and then the parents have to do that, but the parents weren't there because literally it's their backyard.

Right? Yeah. So what are your thoughts on that?

So I would just note that this comes from the OHV community. This is not something Lori thought of. This is the OHV community saying we've been working on this for a long time. We've now come to this agreement. We need someone to carry a bill for it.

And it requires the OHV community to come up with a lot of this, including the fee and what the parameters are by June 2027, so a little over a year from now. And then it doesn't go into effect until 01/01/2029, which is well over two years from now. So there's plenty of time for people to understand what the rules are, take the course. If someone is taking a course out of state because other states do do this, then that is honored.

So it doesn't have to be a California certified certification.

It could be something that you got from a different state as you're referencing what what you noted as regard to tourists and coming in. A lot of times, those tourists are not coming from in state. They're coming from out of state. Right? And we love out of state dollars.

And so if someone from out of state has this, then they're doing it.

I would note that this is very similar and model after the Boater law, where if you're riding a recreational vote in our vote in our state, then you have to go through a process to be certified so so that you understand the rules of the waterways, so you can operate safely, be able to have a fun recreational trip and and you be safe, but also that you keep our waterways safe, right, and and the nature and the ecosystem that exists in the waters, safe as well.

And so this is that same thought process. Like I said, we don't have a fee. We're happy to entertain suggestions on what the cap should be.

We're saying the fee should be set based on cost, and that is a reasonable thing that we do as a government is say, we're not gonna make a profit off of this. The money is not going anywhere else. It's the cost to administer, and whatever that cost to administer is the fee. And so that's where we're going with this.

And and like I said, wanna have a cap to make sure many people can engage in using OHV vehicles and that they don't consider this an onerous thing to do.

But a a key piece of being a a a good member of that community and wanting to keep everyone safe in the ecosystem that supports this, safe and and protected as well.

So, I I'd love to talk to you more about this

Absolutely.

Because, obviously, having two of the largest, OHV areas in the state in in in my district, it absolutely impacts the district. Yep. The five, points that I'd love to talk afterwards. Okay. But I just wanna make them clear so that way we can have some conversation is the the cost and burdens on, you know, people of color in in my district, people that are poor in my district, what does that mean to them?

The discouraging discouraging tourism, the potential, the punishment of parents. Is there punishment of parents when we're imposing the fee on the kid? Is it, like, how how does that play out?

Oh, I forgot to mention that when you asked that earlier. Parents are responsible for their children. And so, of course, if a child under the age of 18 gets any any issue with anything, doesn't matter what it is. Right? Riding a boat, being on a bike, whatever.

It doesn't matter. They are responsible for their kids. So, yes, you know.

And for further clarity on the the phase in period, again, all of this we can talk offline on, but Aye, you know, I wanna get to a place where I I can look at both sides of the picture. And specifically in my district, this is very, very important to them. So, look forward to connecting and and working through this.

Thank you. So member Bennett. Madam chair,

I'm gonna move the bill and I had just have one suggestion and that is as this moves forward, I'd just ask you to consider that five year renewal period. I think makes sense for maybe people 30, but it should that it there may be some benefits to have the renewal period be longer for people over age of 30. But with that, I move the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else? Anyone else? Assemblymember Colosa and then Assemblymember Alanis will get to you after that.

Thank you, chair. I just wanted to thank the author for leading on this. Appreciate Assemblymember Gonzalez's concerns that he raised specific to his district. In my district in Los Angeles, you know, the OHV issues look different. We have a lot of open spaces in Northeast LA where there's a lot of unauthorized off roading And consistently, safety is is a concern to to residents of a lot of off roading that happens in these vehicles.

And so I know this is specific to to our parks. And just think that the other suggestion that I would add is maybe even just like the additional signage that may be needed to to continue to educate folks about this since California's leader in in these incidents and the number of deaths that happened that happened as it relates to the the off highway motor vehicle issues.

But happy to support this today, and I just thank you for leading on safety issues as it relates to transportation both on our roads, off our roads, and all the above. So and thank you to the sponsors for this, and happy to second the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. Actually, I was gonna have you bring up the boater card, and I'm glad you did. As a prior sergeant over our off road vehicle unit and dealing with the quads and everything else that goes with it, I was very appreciative when the boater card came up as with with all the accidents and deaths that I had to deal with on our on our waterways. I just wanted to make a suggestion, for my colleague here who's talking about tourism.

Do you have anything here in the bill that has maybe, license.

Do you have something in there? Maybe they can take a a course with the rental. Because I'm assuming they're gonna be renting these, these quads or whatever they're gonna be using prior to. I don't know if that's something maybe could address concerns.

I don't we do. But I will note that you in order for us to even know you don't have a certification, you have to actually have broken the law. But it's something I think we can consider because I don't recall us having anything like that, do we?

I know under insurance, most rental agencies under insurance for all laws requires people to take a fifteen, twenty minute little course on on both our OHV safety. So every time I've rented a vehicle, I've had to take this whole course. So that's part of that. Maybe this is we need to consider to make sure those courses are included or if, like, I have a t I've done ATV training UTV training and that my certification would count.

And by the way, that has to be done every five years.

And I think yeah. And I think and I think that's where it came from. But that's a license with that one. But I think to your point, if you are renting and you take that course, that you could be exempt from being cited if you did break the law. You could be exempt from being cited for that day of the amount of the rental or something like that, and I we don't have that language in the current bill.

But I think given that is a likely scenario, most people don't own OHVs, that that's something we definitely should consider. So I appreciate the comment, and we'll consider it if this bill makes out of committee as we continue on the legislative process.

Thank you. And it it it definitely does. Most of our accidents were usually jet skis on the water that were all rentals. So there were people that just thought it was really cool. Let's get on this and, you know, I'd stop them and ask them where's the break And they would look for it, and there's there's no break.

Yeah. So thank you for considering that.

Thank you. Can I have one Through the chair?

There's no question. But

About If

you could be brief. Thank you.

Most of the people that go to Glamis or Imperial Sand Dunes are from Arizona. Actually, more people from Arizona than come or they're an equal amount. Arizona already has a a safety law, and that's why we built in reciprocity in this. And that they've taken the Arizona course. They won't have to take California course. Okay.

Thank you.

An effect on tourism.

Okay. Did you have a a very, very, very, very brief response?

That we can't do offline in our already offline conversation. Please.

I I would push back on that just for the sake of people live in my district, and they are not tourists. They live there. They they experience that. So the tourism is much more complicated than they're from out of the area. So

Okay. Thank you so much. Alrighty. Okay. So seeing no further discussion, I just have a couple closing comments as chair.

As the although the staff report says that there is limited data on the effectiveness of certification programs, I share the author's concern about and the desire to address the dangerous effects that can be experienced by OHVs. And by the way, thank you for your service all those years in the forestry service. I I meant to start with that, and I apologize. But in any event so I I share the concerns, whether it's on roads, whether it's on trails.

You know, we owe it to the people of this state to divisively decisively, not divisively, decisively address the operation of vehicles that can be very dangerous.

So I agree that safety certificates and age restrictions are key tools that help protect folks when operating dangerous vehicles. And I I hope that we're able to circumvent injuries that can happen. It is safety has to be paramount. And I think that this bill is reasonably tailored to address those safety concerns. So I'm happy to support the bill.

The bill enjoys a, do pass, recommendation. Would you like to close?

Thank you for the discussion and the questions. I look forward to the offline, comments as well as the suggestions made by someone who has direct experience, law enforcement experience, addressing these types of issues, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Excellent.

Okay. We'll go ahead and take a vote.

Okay. Item number three, AB1613. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Pappen? Aye.

Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzales? Nope. Jeff Gonzales, no. Alanis?

Not voting.

Alanis, not voting. Alvarez? Avila Farias? Yes. Avila Farias, aye.

Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Burner?

Aye. Burner, aye. Colosa? Aye. Gallagher, Hart, Marisucci, Rogers?

Aye.

Rogers, aye.

That'll remain on call, and I'm sure we'll have other people come join us. Thank you so much. Thank you, Martha. I see assembly member Rubio. Oh, is Carrillo in the house?

Rubio's good.

Okay. Assembly member Carrillo. I'm sure the other two were were just delighted to see you. Please. We got Joshua Trees to deal with.

Joshua Trees.

Okay. Thank you for being here, Assembly member Carrillo.

Oh, thank you, madam chair. Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to talk about Joshua Trees.

Move the bill.

Thank you.

Seconded.

Thank you again. So the Assembly Bill 18 o eight, it's about Joshua Treece. I would like to thank the committee chair and her staff for their work on this bill, and I accept the committee amendments. Let me be clear, members. My intent with this bill is not to undo the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act.

In fact, I believe I am the only member of the legislature in the Joshua Tree Ranch that supported the trailer bill. And that is in part why I feel so much responsibility to make sure that it works well. The Western Joshua Tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecologically and culturally important. Western Joshua trees span across a large portion of of California's desert. I believe it is critical that we conserve such a unique and beautiful part of my district.

I fully support and committed to that. In my hometown of Palmyra, where I serve as a city planner and later as a council member, we have been requiring developers to mitigate and preserve yasha trees for decades. In fact, and depending on what development it was proposed, developers had to preserve two yasha trees per acre of land developed. But my district is disadvantaged, left behind, and in desperate need of housing and economic development. We need this conservation program to work and make it work.

We need to make sure local residents who love yasha trees can admire and preserve the tree while still also having the ability to do work on their own property and have safe, effective public infrastructure. The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the department to enter into an agreement within a county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Western Joshua tree associated with single family residences, multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects.

This bill allows commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. This should be a win win for everyone involved. The department, which has been chronically understaffed for decades, can pass on the leadership the responsibility to local governments.

A developer can use city hall as a one stop shop and will need to deal with the state for their Joshua tree permits. And local governments will have more control over the timing and efficiency of delivering these designated economic development projects. Additionally, this bill will, following committee amendments, allow the department to waive fees for the removal of up to 10 trees for single family homeowners to do their work on their own property and up to 40 trees for maintaining existing public works.

Public works put the be put before the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act are pieces of critical infrastructure often surrounded by the Joshua Tree because of how prominent the Joshua Tree is in my district. Currently, any maintenance on this critical infrastructure has a high price tag leading to delays, in necessary improvements and increased costs for locals who are already low income.

Similarly, local homeowners who love the Joshua Tree are also unable to do work on their own property without paying high fees. Here to testify in more depth and the effect this has on residences, former assembly member Chad Mayes, lobbies for the city of Jacob Valley.

Well, good morning, chair Pappan and members of the committee. My name is Chad Mayes, and I'm here today as a contract lobbyist for the town Yucca Valley in support of AB 188. This one, though, is a is a little different, for me. See, Aye, grew up in Yucca Valley. I served on the town council and as and as mayor.

So when I say I know this community, I mean it personally and not just professionally. Joshua trees are part of who we are in Yucca Valley. They're in our backyards, in our front yards, lining the roads that I grew up on. My friends, my family have always lived alongside them, worked around them, and genuinely treasure them. This isn't a community that wants to see these trees disappear.

We understand better than most what it would mean to lose them. But loving them and living among them means facing realities that are easy to miss from Sacramento. In Yucca Valley, virtually every existing homeowner has Josh trees on their property. That means almost any home maintenance or improvement project can suddenly become a regulatory challenge, including CEQA compliance, putting in a pool that a family has always dreamt of, a new water or sewer line, hardening your home against wildfire.

Any of it can trigger fees that run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

I've sat across the table from residents who simply can't afford it. Retired folks on fixed incomes, young families, people trying to do the right thing, buried in paperwork and fees they never expected. That's not conservation. That's a burden falling hardest on the people least equipped to carry it. AB 188 seeks to provide some relief limited to the built environment.

It's measured, it's reasonable, and it protects the trees that matter most while giving homeowners a workable, affordable path forward. The Tanyaka Valley is very grateful, to the author, for assembly member, Creo, in doing his work, understanding, that in the Antelope Valley, where he's from and also in the Victor Valley and the Morongo Basin, people live within the Joshua Range. This is a really, really big deal that people are asking for relief.

So thank you for, we ask the the the committee to to vote I today.

No. No. We don't not have a second witness. He's just here to support me.

Lovely. Okay. Do we have witnesses that are I mean, excuse me, members of the audience that are me too who would like to support the bill?

Nicole Wortleman on behalf of San Bernardino County in support.

Hi. Good morning. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of High Desert Water District in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Richard Filgas with California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Yasmin Nubani on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance, twenty nine Palms Water District, DECOR Desert View Water Agency, Palmdale Water District, Sangregoirneo Pass Water Agency, Mission Springs Water District, supervisor Don Rowe, and Morongo Basin residents for reasonable Joshua Tree regulations in support. Thank you.

Nathan Skatzin with the California Association of Realtors in support.

Alright. Thank you. Witnesses in opposition.

Good morning. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here on the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and the Native American Land Conservancy. Let me first thank the author and the committee for listening to our concerns. We appreciate that the amendments have improved the bill, and we look forward to continuing continuing to work with the author on this bill as we did last year with AB, 1089.

With that said, we must respectfully continue to oppose this bill until it is amended to fully address our concerns.

I'm gonna focus the concern on Section two of the bill. Core principle of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act and the State Endangered Species Act is that project impacts must be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. And Section two of the bill gets away eliminates all three of those, aspects of these bedrock safeguards by allowing projects to destroy Joshua trees without any demonstration of an attempt to avoid, minimize, or mitigate. Now it has been definitely reduced down in terms of what the scope of those impacts could be.

But the other reason why we have a concern with this section is that we believe it's unnecessary because the Department of Fish and Wildlife right now is going through two administrative processes.

First, they're doing a programmatic EIR, which they've already kicked off, issued a scoping notice, and this PIR is intended to make permitting for the very projects that this bill is intended to address, much faster. And we expect that this PIR will be completed by department by the end of the year. The other administrative action that the Department of Fish and Wildlife is going through right now is a statutorily mandated review of the fees.

So the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act required the department to reassess and adjust fees, which they have started and are statutorily required to complete by the end of the year. We have testified multiple times and spoken with the author and others that we fully support the reduction or elimination of fees for single family residences.

The Joshua Tree Conservation Act in implementation was a little clunky, and we are trying to adjust and, and reestablish a better baseline of how to implement it. We do not believe that this bill, this section of the bill, is warranted because the issues that it's trying to address are going to be done by the end of the year before this bill even becomes in effect. So that's really the core of where we're at on this bill.

With that said, we again thank the the author and the committee for the amendments. We look forward to continuing to work on the bill, but we will still oppose this bill currently.

Thank you so much. Any other witnesses to come forward or members of the audience in opposition?

Molly Colton, Sierra Club, California in opposition.

Nick Jensen, California Native Plant Society in opposition.

Alex Bloomer on behalf of Audubon, California in opposition.

Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? I think we had a motion and a second already. Correct?

Okay. Any any questions, comments? Okay. I I do have just a quick comment. It seems like today is a lot of bills about balancing competing needs, and certainly that's what this bill has taken on.

And it is my hope that it does so in a way that is is measured and tempered. And and I think we kinda got there, but I appreciate the opposition's comments as well. And we'll continue on talking about Joshua Trees, I'm sure. Yes. We will.

And their beauty. Okay.

Yes. We will.

Thank you so much. With that, we will take a vote. Do you wanna close?

Yes, madam chair. Thank you. And to the comments, concerns from opposition, we've been working on this since I got elected in 2022. Yeah.

I think that it's it's been a mutual respect, between my office and and your office, and I I do believe that we we can continue this conversation. The concerns raised have to do with eliminating the fee. Fully understand that the economy is working on it. EIRs can be complicated. They can take a long time, and that's really one of the concerns that I have.

Being a recovering city planner, I'm familiar with, those processes. But nevertheless, I wanna thank you, madam chair and, committee members. My office has been in conversation again, and we hope to continue to do that. And with that, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. With that, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Okay.

Item number seven, AB 188. Motion is do passed as amended to natural resources. Pappen? Aye. Pappen, aye.

Jeff Gonzales?

Aye.

Jeff Gonzales, aye. Alaniz Alvarez? Avila Farias?

Yes.

Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett? Burner? Welcome.