Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Well, good morning. Happy Thursday. We'll try to get through this this very lengthy hearing as soon as we can. To ensure members of the media have access to our proceedings today, we're gonna be recorded. Just so you know, witnesses, we had two primary in favor, two primary in opposition, and we'll give you two minutes each.

And do I have a quorum? I have a quorum. Well, let's go and take look at this. If you start recession first, you get a quorum fast. Take it away, madam secretary.

[Roll Call]

Well, thank you all. Well, Assemblymember Wallis, the time has arrived For you and the Joshua Tree. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. The 47th Assembly District is one of the most beautiful places in California. The Coachella Valley floor, the San Jacinto Mountains rising above it, the wide stretches of high desert encompassing one of our nine national parks. It's a landscape unlike anywhere else. Even U2 knew it when they ventured into the Mojave Desert and named one of the greatest albums in rock history after the iconic Joshua Tree.

Only four assembly districts in California can claim the Western Joshua Tree, and mine is one of them. Those trees are part of what makes the desert what it is. For generations, people in the High Desert have built their lives there. They've raised children, cared for aging parents, and invested their savings into modest homes, often on property that came with Joshua Trees long before government ever regulated them. The trees were not a burden.

They were a symbol of the place they called home. That relationship has been strained by the Western Joshua Tree Act, how it came to be, and how it's been implemented. The underlying policy legislation had one hearing in this committee, then it was folded into the budget, and desert homeowners had no real opportunity to weigh in. The reach of the act has been broader than most homeowners anticipated. The act does not clearly define take, and routine activities near a tree can trigger permitting requirements.

A homeowner doesn't have to remove a tree to face consequences. They don't even have to touch it. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has acknowledged this directly. The fees, in its own words, may disproportionately affect low income residents and single family homeowners. Over time, a tree that was a point of pride has started to feel like a liability, and that's not what anyone intended.

The good news is that this committee and the proponents of this act have shown a real willingness to address this, And I'm proud that by accepting the committee amendments, my bill becomes part of that effort. So thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the committee staff for working with us on this effort. Now High Desert homeowners who need to remove or trim up to 10 Western Joshua trees to address health and safety needs, including defensible space, can get a permit without paying mitigation fees.

That's welcome relief for the homeowner who's trying to do the right thing and keep their property safe. These changes are modest, but they're extremely valuable to the residents, and they respect the Western Joshua Tree Act.

This iconic tree is worth protecting, and the people who live alongside it every day have a stake in getting that right. I'm committed to continuing to work with this committee and the administration to make sure the act achieves its conservation goals while treating desert residents as partners in that effort. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wallace, any witnesses with you today?

No witnesses.

Any members of the audience that would like to come forth in favor of Assemblymember Wallace's bill?

Good afternoon. Nathan Skadsen on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance in support.

Thank you so much. Is there any opposition that would like to come forward? Okay. Seeing none. No members of the audience.

Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee and Assemblymember Boerner.

Yes. Thank you, Assemblymember Wallace. I think this is a "Greg W special". Is that what it is?

Yeah? "Greg Wallis special"? "Greg W" doesn't work. It has to be Greg W special.

I like it.

I appreciate this Joshua Tree bill because we've heard a lot of Joshua Tree bills. I know more about the Joshua tree than I ever thought I would know about a Joshua tree, other than the U2 album, which was iconic. Glad you referenced in your remarks. And it doesn't have a sequel exemption, so I'm happy to support it today.

But you can tell me how you get to 10 Joshua trees. Why 10? Are there baby Joshua trees involved? Like, what are we thinking? Is there a family of Joshua trees? How do they work? Yeah.

I appreciate the question, Assemblymember. The way Joshua trees grow is when they drop their seedlings, they create these little pups, little baby Joshua Trees. And so when you're taking a tree or you're interacting with one of these trees, you could theoretically have multiple of them that are really in the way of, let's say, a connection to a wastewater line or something like that. And so, we work with committee staff to get to the number of 10.

So I'm happy to continue having conversations on, but that was sort of the idea behind it.

Very good. With that, I'll move the bill.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other members of the committee wish to chime in? Okay. I just want to thank you, Assemblymember Wallace, for working with the committee. But also for for trying to find some middle ground here, to be conscious of the conservation requirements or needs for the Joshua Tree, but by also allowing homeowners to maintain their property, especially when it comes to things like sewage lines and being able to service an existing home. So I really appreciate your work in trying to find a balance.

That's what we should be doing here. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay. This enjoys a do pass as amended recommendation. Madam secretary.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That matter is out, and we will leave the role open should there be anyone else that comes along that would like to join on. Okay. I guess that leaves it to me, and I would like to turn the gavel over to our esteemed Vice Chair.

We'll now hear Assembly Bill 1772 from our Chair, Assemblymember Papan. Proceed when ready.

Has anybody heard about the gold mussel? This is a bill you've been waiting for. So thank you, Vice Chair Gonzalez, for the opportunity to present and prevent the proliferation of golden mussels. AB 1772 addresses a fast moving threat. Golden mussels, first detected in North America in October 2024.

They're more adaptable than the cogwa and the zebra mussels, and they spread very quickly. Impacts are already clear. Cog water systems, higher maintenance costs for reservoirs, and hydroelectric facilities, reduced recreational access due to closures and quarantines and harm to native ecosystems. Last year's AB 149 was a good start by funding prevention and improving reporting, but it really didn't address the long term issue with golden mussels. California still lacks a coordinated framework for aquatic invasive species.

AB 1772 creates that framework by, number one, establishing a statewide decontamination standard for watercraft. Number two, creating reciprocity so certifications are recognized across water bodies within California. And number three, identifying broader long term funding sources. This bill is about coordination and it's about consistency. Without it, the state will keep reacting.

With this bill, we can try to stay at least ahead of the threat. With me to testify today is Devin Middlebrook, who is from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, who really has been, if you'll excuse the reference, sort of the gold standard as it relates to decontamination. Quite impressive. I've really enjoyed our conversations. And then Mark Smith representing a number of water agencies and boat manufacturers who will be here to to answer technical questions.

So with that, I'll turn it over to mister Middlebrook.

Thank you, Chair Papan. Good morning, Vice Chair Gonzalez and committee members. Again, Devin Middlebrook with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency or TRPA. Formed through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada in 1969, we are charged with protecting Lake Tahoe. TRPA leads the Lake Tahoe aquatic invasive species prevention and control program.

And since 2008, we have inspected nearly a 125,000 boats, treated more than 775 acres of aquatic invasive weeds and clams, and educated tens of thousands of boaters and non-motorized paddlers at Tahoe. Tahoe does not have golden mussels, but we are very concerned. They could have devastating consequences on Tahoe's famed clarity and $5 billion annual recreation based economy. In response to this new threat, TRPA now requires mandatory decontaminations of all motorized boats entering Lake Tahoe.

In 2025, Tahoe Boat Inspectors prevented 72 boats with invasive species from entering Lake Tahoe, including one boat with attached golden mussels.

AB 1772 offers a comprehensive approach to proactively addressing the threat of golden mussels, including statewide monitoring, decontamination standards, training, public education, and funding. The Tahoe region is a real world example of science, prevention, control, and education working together to stop the spread of invasive species. AB 1772 takes the lessons learned at Tahoe and applies them statewide.

Thank you for supporting this important legislation, and we'd love to have any of you up this summer to visit one of our inspection stations in person. Thank you.

Mister Chair and members, Mark Smith on behalf of the National Marine Manufacturers Association and several water agencies here to answer technical questions. Will not be addressing any, comments to the committee. But do want to say one thing: I want to appreciate the work that the committee staff and that the author's staff have put into this bill. Countless hours to get to where we are and countless more to go.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any, witnesses in support? Me too's.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors as well as the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, both in strong support. Just want to echo those comments. Thank you so much for everyone involved. It's a big problem, and we're trying to get a grapple with it. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Mister Chairman, members. Beau Biller on behalf of the Marine Recreation Association and the California Yacht Brokers Association, and we appreciate the author diving into this important issue and look forward to working on some additional items as we go forward. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Sophie Morin with the Association of California Water Agencies, and we have a support if amended position. We really thank assembly member Papan for her leadership on this issue, and they're continuing to do our review of the proposed amendments. We look forward to working with the broad stakeholder community on this bill as it moves forward. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker for Sonoma Water. We don't have an official position this morning, but appreciate all of the work by the author and her staff. We continue to look for opportunities to promote recreation, but want to ensure that our water supply and affordability of our water supply remains the top priority for this effort. Thank you so much.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, any witnesses in opposition, primary witness? You have two minutes. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Vice chair and members, Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters California. We're not in opposition, but extremely cautious. I want to just highlight some issues as the legislation moves forward. RBOC is a nonprofit advocacy organization.

It's fifty eight years working to promote the enhancement and protection of the state's waterways on a variety of issues, including mussels and invasives. And as we look at the legislation, as it's moving today, as proposed for amendment, in the analysis, our caution is that, the details still need to be worked out going forward, and we will continue to be engaged on those issues.

But what's not there yet is, first, a balanced approach that, as intended spreads, the commitment of stakeholders and beneficiaries of these efforts so that it's not just the voters who are paying the fee. The second is that there would be real reciprocity. Right now, the agencies appropriately have the authority to close down a body of water if there's even a fear.

If we pay for decontamination and a standard and that's developed, we need to have assurance we'll be able to go from one waterway to another. That may need to have regional approaches. It may not be statewide. Statewide decontamination standard, of course, would be appropriate. And then also, we're afraid of building an infrastructure that'll exist after a golden mussels are already all throughout the state.

We've already found it in San Diego. It is in the waterways through the state. So what's the post infestation approach that will be taken as California? Will a boat in a waterway or a reservoir where there's a complete infestation, will the boaters be able to go on that waterway and stay there? So the comprehensive approach is extremely challenging.

We're engaged. We're hopeful that we'll be able to support the bill when these issues get worked out. And we encourage the bill to pass today so that we could work on those issues, but wanted to make sure to highlight them today. And and with the closing to thank Assemblymember Papin for her leadership and the committee to take this on because it is a a real threat to navigation and recreation and the water supply. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to the committee. Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I have a few questions for the author. And as I mentioned to the author, this has been a very important issue, the whole issue of muscles in my district all the way back when I was on the board of supervisors for a long period of time. Lots of stakeholders, lots of varying points of view, and the details are really important.

So I wanna try to clarify a few things. And one for the author is, it says here that you want to develop a voluntary framework to prevent the overland spread of invasive mussels through the conveyance of watercraft over land. And I don't know if she's ready to answer that question.

Yeah. It is what it says. So, no disputing that.

I'm concerned about, number one, I'm supportive of the bill. I just want to make sure I understand all the details of the bill. So a voluntary framework, are we thinking of if there's a voluntary framework, there will be no mandatory requirements in terms of the over overland transfer? I'm I'm concerned about making sure we on the side of caution.

Certainly. And as I understand it, your access to whatever body of water you're going into would be denied. It would be denied.

Okay.

So do I have that right? I just want to make sure. I think just choice is ultimately yours, but they don't have to let you on the body of water.

I think Assemblymember, what you're asking about in terms of a voluntary framework is grounded in the science that CDFW is currently working on now to determine what appropriate decontamination standards are that kill this aquatic invasive species. And then providing that as a framework across the state so that there can be an understanding of the decontamination that needs to take place, whether you're a motorized boat or a non-motorized paddle sport craft. So that we can prevent the transfer of this muscle overland. Right? Which primarily means upstream of the delta.

So the point is you're trying to develop voluntary standards or voluntary agreements for voluntary standards. I'm just trying to understand. So if you if you follow the voluntary standards, then you're allowed on to the lake. And if you don't follow the voluntary standards, you're not allowed on the lake.

So I think those are still important ongoing conversations with the water community who wants to make sure that if a decontamination framework is created, that they all have the assurances that if you abide by that decontamination framework, that those vessels are then clean to enter a body of water and not transmit the aquatic invasive species, similar to the program that Tahoe has in place. So an assurance that across the state, we have the safety mechanism in place.

I'm not trying to beat-

Let me interject if I may. If you look on page nine of the analysis, there is some proposed language that we're going to put in the bill that says, here are the goals that any decontamination procedure must achieve. And so if you look, it'll say, at a minimum, decontamination shall include all of the following, because they're reasonable questions. A, removal of all visible plant materials, etcetera, etcetera, draining of all water containing compartments in in in a vessel. You saw all that, I'm assuming.

So we're trying to put in guidance that says these are the goals of what a decontamination process has to include. Now it is true that there may be different ways of reaching those goals, and that does have to be explored. But we are trying to at least be very specific about what the decontamination processes have to achieve.

Yeah.

That makes sense?

It makes sense. And I completely understand what you're trying to accomplish. I think I understand what you said. So I'm very supportive of that.

You're focused on the word voluntary?

I'm just not very articulately asking this question. Okay. So it's my fault. I'm not articulate. What I don't understand is how it's voluntary if you can't go on to the lake if you don't do it.

I'm just trying to get that little nuance. How is it voluntary if you can't go on the lake if you don't do it? I want it to be mandatory, but it sounds like it is mandatory because you can't go on the lake if you don't do it.

Sure. There's a downside.

So is the term voluntary? I I prefer the mandatory. But if if there's a voluntary aspect of this, I'm trying to understand what that voluntary aspect is so that there isn't some loophole there.

I think you hit the nail on the head, Assemblymember. And I know that the language that's in the bill now is gonna be replaced with committee amendments moving forward. Right? This is a mandatory thing that needs to happen. If you wanna move your boat to a body of water that's not contaminated, it has to be decontaminated.

That's what I wanted the assurance on. Right. The second assurance is it says this bill would provide no reimbursements required to the sack for a specified reason. I don't see the specified reason. Is there a specified reason?

Say that one more time. Where were you looking?

I'm right here with the bill.

What page are you on?

I'm on page two of the bill.

Okay, and the question is what?

Yeah, is that going to be filled in later? I mean, this this is just a standard, you know.

Which part are you asking to be filled in later?

It says, "this is the bill about California constitution requires that if we make local agencies engage mandated cost reimbursement". So this mandated cost and it says, "these mandated costs are not gonna be required". And it says "for a specified reason" and then the specified reason is all redded out here. So, this is not essential. Will you guys just-

Yes. And the funding part we're still in conversations about. Because I want to make sure that we get buy in and it's reasonable charges to do the work.

Good. Alright. So and then the final question, final comment really, is that you're going to subsequently amend the bill to try to come up with equitable funding sources, etcetera. I really appreciate that because if you don't have the funding figured out, these kind of programs run into all kinds of problems.

And we want to make sure we have adequate funding. And the principle that we ought to as often as possible is that the people who are benefiting from an activity that causes a cost to the public ought to be the ones that are reimbursing for the cost of that activity. If you want to do something that has a disadvantage, that should be born primarily by the people that are benefiting from that activity.

Doesn't mean it's all boaters, and by the way, I guess from your answer, can I assume that any craft being moved, whether it's a jet ski, whether it's windsurfers, anything that's being moved would be required to follow these-

Well, as defined in the bill, a conveyance is defined in the bill? Is that right?

All motorized craft are currently required to purchase an aquatic invasive species sticker if they are in freshwater. There are ongoing conversations about whether or not other recreational activities and users should also be paying a fee, which are part of ongoing conversations. And then an additional fund source is the folks who bring the problem to us in the first place. Right? The aquatic invasive species didn't get on a plane and come over here and land itself in the Delta.

It was brought over by a commercial international cargo ship and released through ballast water. Right? And so that's part of the funding conversation that's ongoing. Sure.

The experience we had in Ventura County is if all the other craft that could potentially- particularly with this being a microscopic golden mussel. If they are not included, there's a sense of a fairness issue that was out there because you could transfer in a canoe. You could transfer the invasive species fairly easily, and water could be trapped there and such. So thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Seeing no others, Assemblywoman Papan, just a quick question. We got them. Do you accept the committee amendments on this?

Say that one more time?

The committee amendments.

Yes. I think they're brilliant.

You accept them?

They're gold.

Yes. They're golden. Perfect. They're golden. Yes, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully request an aye vote. We're going to get this right. Stay tuned, and we'll all be better off for it because there's nothing like fresh water and keeping fresh water fresh.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second.

[Roll Call]

Would you would you like to go on to your next one?

Thank you. Well, Vice Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2521. So this bill kinda came out of the informational hearing that we had as to where we are with recharging groundwater. I believe I have a witness or two. We do not? Well, you can come, Pablo. We have technical questions, I'll put you on the spot. Have a seat. Thank you.

All right. And this is really to help expedite permitting for groundwater recharge projects when-- or projects, you know. You'll recall that when we had that special hearing, we heard a lot from applicants about the expense involved with doing-- making an application to get a water right permit or to take off water, and there was a lot of data analysis that accompanies the permit application, and we heard that they cost about $50,000.

So the idea that came out of that hearing is let's see if we can't be of assistance in at least the measurement part of the application process. So we need to recharge more groundwater because California's hydrology is obviously changing.

We've got-- we used to get a lot of our water from melted snowpack. This year in particular is indicative that climate change is interfering with that ability, and then we get these big deluges of water, and atmospheric rivers, and we have to be a little more nimble in capturing that water along the way because of the lessening of what we get from the snowpack.

So as a result, we need to manage the system of reservoirs and conveyances differently because water's coming in different ways and different volumes. An important part of this shift in management will be to significantly increase the amount of water we recharge into our groundwater aquifers during wet periods, you know, sort of the opposite of making hay while the sun is shining, but you get the picture, right?

Capturing water while it's raining. And then, we have it for the dry summer months or those of inevitable droughts. So to improve the permitting process for groundwater recharge, we need to improve our understanding of when there is excess water in the system that can be used for recharge without harming other water right holders in the environment or violating regulatory requirements.

This bill will alleviate this need by calling for the completion of a Watershed Wide Water Availability Analysis by the California Council of Science and Technology, CCST. That's water right-- and what they'll study is whether water right applicants can use this information.

They'll provide the data, and then it will be available to applicants to use in connection with their applications, that $50,000 data item that they have to do in connection with their permits. So CCST's network includes the state's best and brightest minds at the state's major research university institutions. It was actually set up by the Legislature for just this very reason. I mean, California is rich in the brain trust.

Why not take advantage of it? And too, this programmatic approach to ground water recharge permitting will help us meet our ambitious goals and make us more climate-resilient in the end and keep us more nimble along the way. So what we're trying to do is use the best and the brightest to at least help with the data about water when people are applying for their groundwater recharge permits. With that, we will conclude the author's brilliant presentation. I'm kidding. All right.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support? Seeing none.

No. Oh, I'm sorry.

Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Back to the committee. Assembly Member Bennett.

Just very, very quickly, I communicated with the committee staff on this, and I appreciate committee staff addressing the one concern when you do these programmatic approvals, and that is you can sometimes do a programmatic approval and then a number of years down the road, people try to-- you know, how far down can you still use that, particularly for a sensitive project? And I know your staff is very concerned about that and sensitive to that. So I look forward to them addressing those concerns that you guys share also. So--

Yeah, and what we're anticipating is that once you get that baseline data, there will probably be periodic updates. I mean, I think that's the reasonable thing to do so that we have real-time information, not an unreasonable request.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bennett. Assembly Member Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I do agree we need to capture this water. I think dams may also be a good reason or good thing for us to help capture the water as well. I support the goal of expanding groundwater recharge, and I really appreciate the data-driven approach.

That being said, due to the related legislation like AB 2026, I continue to have real questions and concerns for my district about being left behind. For the author, how can we ensure this study does not change or weaken existing water rights for San Joaquin Valley tributaries, especially since past water-use data might not show the full quantity people were allowed to use?

Well, what we're hopeful is that the study itself can really be used in two ways. It can be that kind of baseline that maybe an applicant wants to add on to and provide their own information, or if the applicant just wants to rely upon the information that's been provided by CCST, they can do that as well. So it gives the opportunity for both. This bill doesn't preclude any additional information that an applicant may want.

Thank you. And another one I have is, how involved would water districts need to be to make sure that river data and operations are accurate?

Yeah. You know, you--

Are they invited to the table, I guess, we should say, or--

In the process of determining this baseline data by CCST? I think-- I don't think that would be objectionable. We could certainly toy around with that in the bill language as well to make sure that that's a robust process with stakeholder input. I think that'd be a fine suggestion.

Thank you. Thank you for those answers. I'm aware of a meeting that took place last week between the State Water Contractors and the tributaries in my region, and this is obviously a positive step forward.

However, I just wanna encourage that both groups keep talking to each other. I feel that it's critically important not just for my district and region, but I believe sincerely that they must come to a deal on restrictions to benefit all of Californians. We must have a deal to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or push on water policy that could harm those of us located south of the pumps, in my district especially.

In my district with the entire San Joaquin Valley, depends on water for jobs, our economy, and our health. I-- unfortunately, I cannot support this bill today for concerns of my district. I sincerely hope to support in good faith efforts on groundwater and for water at large. And I'm sure I have your commitment to keep working with me to ensure the needs and concerns of all regions of our state are considered, and I thank you for answering those questions.

I just wanna say, I appreciate the sensitivity, and I'm grateful that you're sharing with it-- sharing it with us, and I hope that in the end run, the data is beneficial to everybody because you can't really make policy about that which you have not measured. And-- but I'm so grateful for your remarks and I-- it's nice to hear about the sensitivity, really. It is welcomed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a big deal in my district. I know we have a lot going on in the state, but, you know, we all represent our districts and have to be a voice and so I'm trying to be that voice for them. So I appreciate you. Thank you.

I just have one question, which is question number two, and are there possible impacts to existing water rights holders within the Watershed once a study is complete? How can we be certain that this would not be an invitation for DFW and NGOs to develop their own preferred flow requirements for rivers outside of any existing flow requirements that the State Board has already set?

So I just wanna preliminarily state that the data is not meant to be binding per se. It is meant to be informative so that we can make informed decisions. But I think the question is a legitimate one, certainly. But this is not-- you know, we're not putting this forth as, like, you know, Moses coming from the mountain and it's written in stone that this is only how much water exists, and weather plays a factor certainly.

And so the bill is not written to be binding, and it is really meant to be an informative way of helping applicants along the way to be able to take off water when we have these deluges, and at a point where it's not quite as expensive either. You know, we heard a lot about the expense.

So I'm really doing this to make it sort of like a public database that applicants can draw upon, not that it would be binding, and there's nothing in the bill that says it's mandated or binding or you have to be bound by that in order to get your application approved.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a motion and a second. Okay. Would you like to close?

Oh. I just thank you so much for the robust discussion. You know, this really comes-- I enjoy being chair of this committee, and water is so important to the state, and I just-- I enjoy the discussion, but more than my enjoyment, it is imperative to all Californians. And this goes to the heart of what this committee does, it goes to the heart of the state's responsibility, and I respectfully request an aye vote and I thank everybody for their engagement.

Okay. Item Number Four: AB 2521. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

That bill is out. It has seven.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, madam. And I hand it back to you.

Would you like to adjourn?

No. Like

I believe there's a few add ons.

Yeah. We got a few add ons.

Alrighty. Thank you so much. With that, we have completed our agenda. So let's do some add on votes, and then we'll adjourn.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With that, we're adjourned.