Senate Standing Committee on Rules

The Senate Committee on rules, will come to order. Before we begin today's agenda, can we please establish quorum and also welcome our new member to this committee, Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh. Welcome.

Thank you, Beth. Madam Chair?

[Roll call]

Thank you. We've established quorum. If there's no objection, I'd like to take up first on today's agenda. Governor's appointments not required to appear. Starting with item 2C, the appointment of Anthony Surich as executive director of California Housing Finance Agency.

I will entertain a motion.

So moved.

We have a motion by Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Alright. That item is approved. Four to zero. The next item for governor's appointments not required to appear is item 2D, Craig Snellings, JD as a member of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. I'll entertain a motion.

So moved. Thank you, Senator Laird, for making that motion. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Four to zero. Last item for governor's appointments not required to appear is item 2E, Nicholas Mueller for the Off Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission. I'll enter it in a motion, please.

So moved.

Thank you, Senator Reyes. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll call]. Four to zero.

That item is approved. Four to zero. Our final item before we turn to governor appointees is item three, reference of bills to committees. I'll entertain a motion. So moved.

Thank you, Senator Laird, for making that motion. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll call]. Four to zero.

Alright. That motion is approved, four to zero. We are now going to turn to governor's appointees required to appear. Item one a, the appointment of Dorene D'Adamo, JD as a member of the State Water Resources Control Board. You are welcome to come forward, Miss D'Adamo.

You will have the opportunity to provide one to two minutes, for your opening testimony to this committee. In your opening, you're welcome to introduce any guest to that you may have here with you today. We will keep time of your opening, and we will prompt you when you are, approaching that time. You're welcome to begin.

Thank you so much, Senator, Members of the Committee. I'm really honored to be here today, and just also want to thank those of you who, I had the opportunity to meet with you and your staff. Thank you for that additional time. I love talking water and I know you do too. So thank you for that.

Before starting this statement, I'd just like to introduce my husband of forty two years, Berj Musikian. We reside in Turlock where we've raised, our family and just really happy that he could be here, to support me today. California water, as we know, is really complex, but particularly at this critical time as we're confronted with the effects of the changing climate that brings more frequent, longer lasting droughts, atmospheric rivers, and what we all have come to know as weather whiplash.

This calls upon our state and our board to be resilient in the face of climate change and to be to more actively manage our finite water supplies. I'd like to point out a few of my top priorities, but honestly, we work so well as a team at the board.

I, I believe I can say that this is these are top priorities for all of us at the board. Water use efficiency standards that provide for flexibility for local solutions, making conservation a way of life all the time. Drought. Implementation of the sustainable ground water management act in critically overdrafted basins that have been referred to our board from the department of water resources, working closely with these basins to get them on the path of sustainability.

Increasing opportunities for groundwater recharge permits, capture of high storm flows, and recycled water as we seek to meet the targets in the updated California water plan.

Healthy watersheds and ecosystem resilience through regulations to require flows in critical salmon bearing streams during drought, streamline permitting of ecosystem restoration projects, updates to the Bay Delta plan to provide for increased flow and ecosystem improvements. And I'm most proud of the progress that we've made on access to safe and affordable drinking water Since the passage of the safe and affordable fund in 2019 by the legislature, the number of Californians without access to safe drinking water has dropped from 1,600,000 to 800,000.

We still have a long way to go, and our board is committed to continuing this momentum, and I'm just really proud to be part of that effort. Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide my remarks, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Alright.

Thank you. Members, we'll begin with questions or comments. Any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for meeting with with me and my and my team. Really enjoyed our conversation. The state auditor raised concerns with the safe drinking water program in 2022. Can you share with us any of the changes that have been made to the program since the audit?

Are there any state auditor recommendations left to complete with respect to the fixing the delays and oversight of its safe drinking water programs? And lastly, how are you monitoring this program to ensure we don't slide backwards from the improvement made so far?

Well, thank you for that question. So as I said, since 2019, the establishment of the program, we've been able to reduce the number from 1.6 to 800,000. And what I'd like to share with you is, some of the key strategies that we've used in order to get there. So first of all, we have a safer, advisory committee. It's important

Miss, that one, just really quickly. Are those, recommendations or the the what you've done, are those, response to the audit that was done in 2022?

Well, the the audit really focused on, momentum of the program, and so I, I think that just the the first few years of the program, it was important for us to get a handle on just even the assessment, and so it may have been a little slower going at first.

There were a lot of questions about the amount of funds that we provide for technical assistance, but the technical assistance that we provide to local communities really, I think we've been able to show that that has been what has led to solutions for communities and actual projects. So it was in response to the it was in response to the audit, but these are things that we were doing

that we were in process of doing anyway.

Okay. So, so the question, once again, is about what the audit came back with as far as their recommendations, and how the, the board has actually either implemented or not some of those recommendations. That's where I'm I'm heading. That's what I would like to know.

Yes. And I appreciate that. And I'm just not it's been a while since I've, you know, looked at the report. I was satisfied when I looked at the report knowing what process was underway with the development of this new program. And, the the reason for the focus on, we have an advisory committee that it was important for us not to have, not to implement these, funds, from the top down, but really to listen to communities.

So, it took a little bit of time for us to get a system in place, developing an advisory committee, making sure that we had voices from throughout the state, And then, also the development of an annual needs assessment. And that's really helped us to be able to target, you know, the highest priority, as far as, you know, projects that we should be looking at.

And all this done before the audit?

It was, it was underway while the audit was being developed.

Yes. Yes.

This is done since. Yes.

Thank you.

Yeah. In, in, in, in, full implementation. Now, this is a system that, you know, we get an annual needs assessment. It goes before the, advisory committee for their input. Just making sure that we're looking at all of the the right factors as we determine the need.

Also, moving beyond systems, not just looking at large systems, small systems, but also domestic wells, trying to get a better handle on the number of people in California that don't have safe drinking water. And so the program, you know, truly is growing. We have, as I said, a long way to go before we can say that we have achieved the human right to water for all Californians. But I'm really proud of the work that we've done.

And one area that we have really focused on is consolidation.

Before we received authorities from this body, for mandatory consolidation, we had, on average, about four consolidations a year. Since 2019, we've had a 180 consolidations. So we've been using that mandatory authority that you've provided us in a very strategic way. We have 200 consolidations that are in progress. And so, Aye, I do expect that, you know, we're going to see those numbers coming down as our staff moves forward.

That it doesn't go quickly because we work directly with communities, to make sure that we, are working with the communities on the development of long term sustainable supplies.

And then a follow-up question to that would be, so from those, realizing that one at 1,600,000 people were not, did not have access to clean, safe water, Now, you're at 800 thou 800,000 people. That's within the scope of seven years. What do you what is expected in the next couple of years? When do you think that we'll be able to meet that expectation of having the rest of the 800,000 folks?

I, I can't speak to the trajectory, but I do know, I'm not remembering the numbers right now, but I've seen our staff has put together because of the needs assessment and determining let's see here. I've got, on our annual needs assessment, the most recent one, we have 390 failing systems, public water systems, that are serving, 811,000 people. And then, we have 589 that are at risk of failing, potentially could fail. So we're watching through those systems as well.

So what I expect to happen is we we're gonna be prioritizing the failing systems, and then as those at risk systems potentially move into the failing systems, you know, keeping track, as we go.

So, there'll be systems that will come off the list, and, and then potentially others that go on the list. Okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to Senator Laird.

Thank you very much and thank you for the time, to meet. I really appreciated it. And I would like to pick up, on that question. I happen to have been on the audit committee when the audit was done. And I think the key fact is is there was 1,600,000 Californians that didn't have safe clean drinking water.

By the time the audit was released, it was 1,000,000. So actually, the water board had moved 600,000 people into safe clean drinking water before that audit came out. And, and now as you say, it's 200,000 more.

And I think my question and, and I know I've done legislation on this because one of the problems you mentioned consolidation and one of the problems is is there's a disadvantaged community next to a non disadvantaged community and the law actually said the grant only went to the disadvantaged community and yet many times it was the community that was gonna take them in that needed the assistance. So I did a bill saying the grant could go either way.

Could go to the community coming in or the community taking it in, whatever it would take to facilitate it. But now, you you gave the precise numbers of 811,000 and everything. But as hard as this is to believe, the easier ones have been done and you are to the harder ones. So framing the question a little differently, what's in front of mind for you in trying to do the harder ones that are still ahead?

Well, you are spot on. So I, I, I wouldn't say that of the 200 that are in process that that they're gonna be more challenging. It's a matter of getting getting through the list. But as we move along, it is gonna get more challenging. The easier ones have been done.

And so, I think, you know, just looking at other tools that we might have, this, the safer, fund that the legislature has provided has been so helpful because it's so much more flexible than the revolving fund program that we have. And so, it's allowed us along with the authorities, whether it's consolidation or providing funding to the receiving, entity, it's provided us for the flexibility, and these things take time, because as I said, it's not top down.

We spend a lot of time with the communities to find out what is it that they're desiring. And so, I think that, it's, it's really been a successful program because of that. But as it gets more difficult, we're probably gonna have to look at, you know, if it's increased cost, but also, regionalization, ways to manage these systems.

These smaller systems are suffering from, you know, just they don't have the rate payer base, and then, because they don't have the funds coming in, you know, a lack of technical, managerial, and financial capacity to manage those systems. And so, you know, doing remote, having management consolidation, whether through regionalization or an entity that manages several of these systems.

So there's lots of different approaches that we can take as we go forward, but I think where it's helpful also is to have the ongoing input from communities, through this advisory committee. I actually attended advisory committee in, Salinas a few months ago, and it was and did a tour, went out and visited, a school that didn't have access to safe drinking water, domestic wells, near agricultural area and a number of others, places.

But, you know, to hear their passion and their desire for systems that they're looking for for, how they can be brought together, I think that gives us that that puts us on a path of success.

Well that was a very smart move to reference that you visited my district. Yes. And just we talked and maybe it's good to make a comment in front of the full committee. We talked about some of the problems that exist and, and there's one that's been represented in my district where the, the CZU fire was. It burned a lot of the houses and the brand new water pipe and everything for water district outside of Big Basin Park.

And now the the goal is to have them consolidate. But according to both sides, they're in a receivership now and the district going in, the water board is forcing a decision on a consolidation and then will trigger the feasibility study. And the water district that's taking them says, no. We want the feasibility study before we make the decision to take them.

And, and I think the the other one is as a legislature and the governor in putting prop four on revised the limits for projects and for the San Lucas one Where this little farm worker community is just about completely out of safe clean drinking water.

This allows the the state to have the financial authority to reach the level of the project and do the consolidation. And that's a non contiguous consolidation. And who knew that that you wanted a public district to go into a a company that's private but that allows the PUC to do rate support for the low income people.

So I guess my question is is do you find yourself grappling with the complexity of each of these issues and are you committed to sort of trying to break down these bureaucratic barriers to just push these projects ahead?

Yeah. I think at at our level, just because we have so many of these projects and we have a very dedicated team between, our division of drinking water and the division of financial assistance, we also have, an ongoing, you can submit your request in for financial assistance at any time. So there's not a deadline. And we try to keep it very flexible. We have an annual process that comes before us.

So we have the the, the state revolving fund, drinking water intended use plan. So that'll come before us by way of a workshop, and then for a final determination. Same thing for wastewater. And then we also have a fund expenditure plan for the safer, funds that the legislature's provided us. So there's multiple touch points, for us to, hear from communities directly, and then of course, we have nine regional boards, and, we split them up amongst the five Board Members.

So we spend a lot of time, in specific regions, and so then we'll hear from folks directly. As, the person on the board that has, irrigated agriculture, I've spent a lot of time in in your area because of, you know, the agricultural involvement there, at at San Lucas, San Gerardo, and, you know, these places that were green filled. So that has really been helpful, as I interact with staff.

I did wanna bring up one other thing, Senator, and that is that, I think it's important for us to, getting back to being creative, you know, on the on the challenges. The domestic well issue is a particular, concern, but we don't have jurisdiction over domestic wells.

But we're working with the ag community on the domestic well issue in two fronts. One is through our irrigated lands regulatory program, you know, trying to reduce, the, unnecessary or excess amount of nitrogen that gets applied, working with the AI communities on that program. But also, there's a program in the Central Valley. It's called CV Salt. And that program, it's, it's got an odd name because it doesn't necessarily fit Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for long term sustainability.

So they started, this was a collaborative effort between the regulated community, local communities, and also the regional board looking at Salt Buildup. And it morphed into a program looking at nitrates. And so what we have now through that regional board is an actual program that does provide funding, interim funding, and they're supposed to be working on long term solutions.

And so there's some synergy here between the SAFER funds, that program, in the Central Valley region, and we're hoping that a similar program will be developed on the Central Coast. And then another program is SGMA, the sustainable groundwater management act that we're trying to have synergies with, what they're doing in that program as well on domestic wells.

I had plenty of questions. My colleagues are are here because you raised SGMA and you do the groundwater permits for recharge and you have availed yourself of the DWR subsidence report in relation to what you're doing and maybe others will wanna ask about that.

But I have one more question you just sort of teed it up because I think one of the challenges in serving on your board and other boards is that with just five people or whatever it is, we want people from all over the state and we want people of some different perspectives that have credibility with different constituency groups that they don't usually have.

And you have come from a more agricultural area and it seems to me having watched you for the years you've been on the board that you're able to deliver hard news that they might not hear from anybody else And other times you're able to represent them into the process in a way where other people aren't doing it. Could you speak a little bit to that role and why you think it's important to somebody with that diversity and with that ability to talk to different stakeholders.

Sure. Well, agriculture is the largest water user in the state and

And I am channeling Senator Grove who is not here. So just for the record.

Well, thank you for that. Yeah. So, I, I live in the San Joaquin Valley, worked in the San Joaquin Valley for many years for members of Congress and worked primarily on agricultural, environmental, water issues, air quality, which is what brought me to the air board initially. And, I have found that, because of the, strong relationships that I've developed through the years in agriculture, I also, I, I am, trusted by that community.

I think that it can raise concerns that am I gonna just do whatever that community is asking for?

And the answer to that is no, because I am really motivated to be on this board out of protection of water quality and, protection of our water rights and balancing all beneficial uses, not just agriculture. And so what I have found through time is that, first of all, I'm able to flag issues for our staff and, you know, that I just bring up with the board about, well, gee, that may not necessarily work. This idea may not work, in practice as we're thinking.

So I think, it's been helpful to have someone that has an understanding of agricultural practices, and then also to play, the tough role with agriculture, who might be resisting, say, Sigma initially, and then spending time with those communities and making sure that they understand we will undertake the role. We have a responsibility that the legislature has provided to us, and we will undertake that responsibility.

So come along, join in, you know, the parade, and get to sustainable groundwater management, you know, and then working. And then I'll spend the time in those communities and offered up also, you know, like, maybe there's a general manager that understands, yes, we need to do more to come into sustainability, but maybe their board doesn't or maybe growers don't really appreciate, you know, the, the challenges and what could come their way with regulation, through Sigma, and so spending time, you know, directly with them.

That's where I think I've been able to, offer practical solutions and help bring agriculture along. And I, I'm just pleased that, that, that they've been working collaboratively with our board. That's my sense from the agricultural community.

Maybe at times it's more difficult than others, but for the most part, I think they're, seeking sustainability as well.

Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate that answer. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Reyes?

Thank you, madam PT. I do apologize. I was not able to meet. Our committee hearing went longer than expected, but it was a very important committee hearing as well. I, I want to go back to the issue that was brought up by our newest colleague, and that is safe and clean drinking water.

Something that should be a human right, especially here in California. I understand, as you said, that we're down to 800,000. When I came in in 2016 as an Assembly member, my colleague, Assembly member Eduardo Garcia, used to remind me we have a million people who don't have safe drinking water. And I could not believe it. 800,000 still is

a number that I cannot believe. Walk us through, if you would, what is the plan? Because if we consider safe drinking water a human right, how do we get from where we are now to the point where, just as my colleague asked, where people can all turn on the faucet and they have safe drinking water? What is the plan? Because I'm sure there is a plan.

Well, certainly, we have, as as I said, we have the, this annual needs assessment that we, that informs our decision making and then we have an annual process, with the funded, the fund expenditure plan. That's for the funds that the legislature has provided to us, the SAFER, program. And then, also, the source of funding that we have, from the, state revolving fund loan program and grant program for the drinking water program.

And what we do every year is we pull together the intended use, where those funds are going to go, the factors that we're considering, and that all is fed into our process because of the community engagement that we have received directly from the communities. So

Tell me the goal. I mean, is the goal, in one year, we should have 100,000 less. In two years, we should have 200,000 less because if we don't have a goal that we have nothing to aim for. And so that's really what I'm looking for is, again, I'm gonna the the same statement.

If safe drinking water is a human right that every Californian should have in the fourth largest economy, what is our plan to make sure that we keep chipping away at that so that eventually, I, I will never hear, you will never hear, because I'm sure you want to you want the same thing I want.

We all want it. We never want to hear of the hundreds of thousands of Californians that don't have safe, clean drinking water.

Right. I, I absolutely agree. I think that, the the challenge here in part, so I'm looking at some notes that I prepared coming in here, of the failing systems that we know of right now, 390 failing systems, that brings us to 811. We know that there are systems that are at risk, and so those systems are at at risk of failing for a number of reasons.

Senator Ochoa Bogh and I spent quite a bit of time yesterday talking about, the newer standards that we have for Chrome Six.

And so as those systems come in, it it's, it's not the same deadline for everyone. Larger systems have a deadline sooner than the smaller ones. And so, as the compliance dates apply to communities, if those communities don't have, a treatment that they can apply, then they are at right now, we are assuming that they're at risk, but they will eventually actually get added to the list. And so it's that challenge. I've been an environmental regulator for a long time.

We saw this at the Air Board as well, just as, basins come into compliance and then we, ratchet down because we have increasing information, regarding public health. So for these contaminants, we are actually required to review, our goals, you know, every so many years. And so, as we adopt new standards, now we have more systems that get added to the list. But the If you have priority

If you have 390 that you've already said are failing systems, and, and I because we don't get too many opportunities to have you before us, I do push back because this is so important. It is a human right to be able to drink clean, Clean clean, it's safe drinking water. I, I and even if there isn't an answer today, I encourage you because I know the question will come up because I know that in in my in my committee as a sub chair.

If you have 390 that you've already said are failing systems, and, and I because we don't get too many opportunities to have you before us, I do push back because this is so important. It is a human right to be able to drink clean, Clean clean, it's safe drinking water. I, I and even if there isn't an answer today, I encourage you because I know the question will come up because I know that in in my in my committee as a sub chair.