Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Welcome to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good morning. It looks like I'm the only one here. We don't need to call the roll or do we?

Nope. We're good. We're gonna start as a subcommittee though, right? Yes. And we have a first presenter. Assemblywoman, Agriar Curry.

Good morning.

Hi. Good morning. And you have, let's see, AB 1987.

That's right.

And you're accepting the amendment?

I am accepting the amendments. Thank you very much. I appreciate all the work that the committee has done. Thank you, madam chair and members. I wanna start by thanking the committee for their work on this bill.

I will be accepting the committee amendments today. AB 1987 will help fund our state wildlife areas by making sure the fees they generate support their operation and maintenance. California's wildlife areas provide natural habitat, control flooding, and give the public access to activities like hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and more. These areas generate almost $6,000,000 per year from both hunter fees and agricultural lease leases.

However, these funds are not required to support the wildlife areas where they are generated, even as these areas struggle with staffing and growing cost pressures.

By directing these funds back into the lands themselves, this bill will allow wildlife areas to continue protecting our habitats and supporting public access. And I ask for your aye vote. My people are probably stuck in a line, but that's okay. I can handle this.

You can handle it? Okay. So is there any other witnesses in support?

Please come to microphone. State your name and position.

Hi. Good morning. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon in California in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Are any of these your lead witness? No.

I probably have to have my glasses on to tell you if they were.

Any witnesses in opposition?

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais and we will take this up after we have a quorum establish a quorum.

Great. Thank you very much.

Would you like to close?

Yeah. I respectfully ask for aye vote. It's a great program and I'd like to see it continue to make sure that we can have our habitats be strong and healthy and I appreciate your vote and your consideration. Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam leader.

I see Mister Hart is here. Assemblymember Hart.

Good. And proceed when ready, sir.

Thank you, madam chair. On 01/06/2025, President Biden issued a memorandum withdrawing all Pacific planning areas from future oil and gas leasing. California was promised the protection of its coastline, ensuring that marine ecosystems remain healthy and protected from the risks of offshore oil spills.

Unfortunately, under President Trump's administration, that promise was broken. The Trump administration proposed a 2026-2031 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program that includes 34 potential offshore lease sales.

Among them are six proposed lease areas covering California's entire coastline where no new offshore oil and gas leases have been issued since the Reagan administration. California's coast is once again facing the prospect of expanded offshore drilling.

History has shown us that horrendous risks can follow. In 2015, the Refugio oil spill became one of California's most significant environmental disasters. The spill contaminated nearly nine miles of the Gaviota Coast, an area renowned for its rich marine biodiversity.

The spill harmed marine protected areas, disrupted local businesses and tourism, and cost nearly $300,000,000 in cleanup and litigation. As the Federal Government considers new offshore leasing opportunities, California must take steps to protect our coastline and coastal communities from similar risks in the future. AB 1448 will protect against expansions of oil and gas leasing and drilling in federal waters by prohibiting the use of existing infrastructure to support new offshore development.

The bill will require the state lands commission to consider additional environmental and safety factors before the transfer of a lease or changes to existing leases for oil and gas infrastructure.

Finally, the bill will prohibit the state from issuing new leases that would facilitate oil and gas production from nearby federal platforms through an extraction process known as slant or directional drilling.

AB 1448 is a proactive measure ensuring California has safeguards in place to respond to new offshore drilling before they put our coast at risk. Testifying in support of the bill is Carlin Shelby on behalf of the Mayor of Half Moon Bay and Marie Lu on behalf of Oceana.

Due to time constraints, you guys have two or you ladies have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning madam chair and members. Carlin Shelby on behalf of the City of Half Moon Bay in strong support of this bill. Half Moon Bay is a coastal city whose economy, identity, and quality of life are inextricably linked to the health of California's coastline and ocean resources. The city is home to a thriving visitor economy, a working harbor, commercial fishery operations, recreational opportunities, and sensitive coastal habitats that attract residents and visitors from across the state.

For communities like Half Moon Bay, the risks associated with offshore oil development are not theoretical. When spills occur, local governments are often left managing the consequences. This includes impacts to beaches, marine ecosystems, local businesses, tourism, fisheries, and public resources. These impacts last a lot longer than the headlines.

When spills occur, local governments are often left managing the consequences. This includes impacts to beaches, marine ecosystems, local businesses, tourism, fisheries, and public resources. These impacts last a lot longer than the headlines. AB 1448 takes a thoughtful and measured approach to protecting California's coast by strengthening existing safeguards against offshore oil expansion and ensuring that state owned tight lands and submerged lands are not used to facilitate new offshore drilling activities.

AB 1448 takes a thoughtful and measured approach to protecting California's coast by strengthening existing safeguards against offshore oil expansion and ensuring that state owned tight lands and submerged lands are not used to facilitate new offshore drilling activities.

This bill also improves transparency and accountability by requiring additional review of lease assignments and modifications and ensuring that environmental public trust, safety, and financial responsibility considerations are fully evaluated before approvals are granted.

As federal policy makers once again consider expanding offshore leasing operations along the Pacific Coast, California has an important role to play in protecting the resources that support our coastal communities and economy.

This bill builds upon decades of state policy recognizing that the environmental and economic risks associated with offshore oil development can have profound consequences to local communities.

For Half Moon Bay, protecting the coast means protecting jobs, protecting small businesses, protecting public access, protecting marine resources, and preserving the character of our community for future generations to come. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote and applaud Assemblymember Hart for his leadership in this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Marie Lu on behalf of Oceana. For the past 25 years, Oceana has been pushing back against the expansion of offshore oil drilling. The threats to expand offshore oil drilling are unfortunately the highest they have been in decades. Late last year, the Trump administration announced the intent to offer for lease sale all the waters off the Coast Of California.

These leases would ignore conflicts that with military needs or major shipping lanes as well as impacts to California's extremely valuable coastal ecosystems which power our tourism, fisheries and coastal eco, coastal communities.

We thank this committee for passing SJR earlier this SJR 12 earlier this year taking a strong stance against the federal threat. But the legislature must also do what it can to protect our coast from expanded oil drilling within our own statutes which is what AB 1448 does.

This bill has two new components since the committee last heard this bill. Should federal, should new federal leases be granted and developed, these leases would most certainly rely on existing infrastructure.

These, we California has already wisely banned the use of new banned the leasing for new infrastructure and so these new federal leases would unfortunately, look to using unreliable and dangerous existing infrastructure such as a stable pipeline which resulted in the 2015 Refugio of oil spill as Mr. Hart mentioned.

Hart mentioned. AB 1448 also removes an exemption to the state's own offshore oil ban. Since the passage of California's Coastal Sanctuary Act of 1994, the state has prohibited the leasing in state waters for new oil and gas leases with a with a notable exception where the state's oil resources are being drained from the federal waters, a situation that has really only been raised in one area of the state known as Tranquilong Ridge and off the coast of Santa Barbara County.

AB 1448 also removes an exemption to the state's own offshore oil ban. Since the passage of California's Coastal Sanctuary Act of 1994, the state has prohibited the leasing in state waters for new oil and gas leases with a notable exception where the state's oil resources are being drained from the federal waters, a situation that has really only been raised in one area of the state known as Tranquilong Ridge and off the Coast of Santa Barbara County.

While there have been attempts to get permission to drain, to drill for this reserve as covered in the analysis, none of these efforts have been successful and therefore is unlikely. Thank you.

Okay. Can you wrap it up?

Yes. I'll end that this bill's last provision is a provision that was in this bill previously and we thank the committee for passing that in the past. And California's coastal resources are too valuable to risk further offshore oil drilling and I ask for your aye vote.

you. I'll I'll I'll end that this bill's last provision is a provision that was in this bill previously and we thank the committee for passing that in the past. And California's coastal resources are too valuable to risk further offshore oil drilling and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to other witnesses in support.

Good morning, senators. Jennifer Fearing, offering support of AB 1448, also on behalf of Oceana, Surfrider Foundation, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and as a courtesy for Climate Health Now Action Fund, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, Friends Committee on the legislation of California, and California Land Watch. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Christina Scringe for the Center for Biological Diversity, proud co sponsor in strong support.

Thank you. Next witness?

Good morning. Melanie Law here on behalf of E2 in support. Also passing along the support of our allies at Business Alliance for protecting the Pacific Coast. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi. Good morning. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance, Environmental Protection Information Center, Heal the Ocean, Ocean Conservation Research, Physicians for Social Responsibility, SoCal 350 Climate Action, Society of Fearless Grandmother Santa Barbara, Surf Industry Members Association, The Climate Center, and United Nations Association California in strong support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. I'm Natalie Brown, reading support on behalf of Coastal Protection Network, Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Information Center, Resource Renewal Institute, and the Sierra Club California. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We'll move to lead witnesses in opposition?

Seeing none, any other individuals wishing to oppose the bill?

State your name. Seeing none.

Seeing none.

Bring it back to th dais, we can't do anything because we don't have a quorum yet, sir. But, the bill is it's on call, but it's gonna be re-referred to the committee on appropriations. Do you like to close?

Thank you for your and I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The committee on natural resources and water will go into recess. We pending an author and she just walked in.

Madam assemblymember, would you like to start and present your bill?

Thank you.

It's AB 1894.

Thank you, madam chair, vice chairs, and committee members for giving me the opportunity to present AB 1894. This bill is in response to several water districts concerned that the prohibition of imported water to recharge groundwater supplies is detrimental to the community and to the water we rely on.

We all have heard about, this little pesky creature called the golden mussel this last year, and I'm the first one to acknowledge that we absolutely need mitigation efforts, to mitigate the effects of this invasive species and I've committed to be part of that process.

Yet, out of the 58 counties in California and golden mussel found throughout waterways in the state, only one county took a drastic measure to shut the water off, water imports to local water supplies, and of course, it's my county, LA County.

Prolonged interruption of a region's, imported water supply can threaten the the stability of the basin and the drinking water supply for more than 1,500,000 residents, many of whom live in disadvantaged communities.

I introduced this bill knowing the only way forward is to coordinate as a state while retaining specific local control to address the threat of the golden mussel. AB 1894 has been amended to ensure that imported water deliveries are made in compliance with invasive mussel control plans approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

This amendment reinforces the principle that invasive species management should be guided by state expertise, establish regulatory processes, and approve mitigation plans rather than a patchwork of local restrictions.

Thank you to the committee chair and staff for working with my office on this vital bill. I look forward to continuing the work to ensure this bill retains its core purpose without unintended constraints on local entities.

With me today in support of this bill is Tom Love from Upper San Gabriel Municipal Water District and Jose Reynoso from the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. Thank you.

Thank you. You each will have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, committee, and to the chair for this opportunity to testify in support of AB 1894. My name is Tom Love, General Manager of the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. We are one of three wholesale water agencies responsible for importing water to replenish the main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin.

I would like to thank Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio and members of the legislature for their commitment to replenishing ground water in compliance with state law and subsequent to the development of an approved plan to address the complexity of invasive species.

Let me be clear, AB 1894 does not eliminate protections against invasive species. Rather, it ensures that water deliveries operating under an approved state control plan can continue.

After much collaboration and listening to stakeholders, Assemblywoman Rubio's bill preserves the ability to effectively manage both water resources and invasive species through a consistent statewide framework.

The bill reflects careful public policy that is scientifically based, keeps rules regarding indemnification in place, clarifies an adherence to state law and regulatory guidelines on the critical issues of preventing, controlling, and eradicating newly immersed invasive golden mussel and other invasive species.

We have accepted the suggested amendment that narrows the bill to imported water deliveries for groundwater replenishment that are made in compliance with an approved invasive mussel control plan.

The need for AB 1894 became evident when imported water deliveries intended for ground water recharge were suspended due to the presence of the Golden Mussel in the state water project. Similar actions were taken against Burbank Water and Power despite that agency operating under an approved Coagum Mussel Control Plan.

These actions have prevented water agencies from storing imported water supplies that are essential to maintaining ground water levels protecting against drought, ensuring long term water reliability for the communities we serve, and allowing the human right to water.

The main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin is governed by a court appointed adjudication that expressly relies on imported water deliveries to offset overdraft and maintain ground water sustainability. Importer water replenishment is not optional. It is a foundation Component of basin management. Importantly, the sponsors of

wrap it up, sir. Thank you. And before we go to the next witness, I do deeply apologize, but we need to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Let me wrap it up, sir. Thank you. And before we go to the next witness, I do deeply apologize, but we need to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Becker? Senators Becker? Seyarto? Allen? Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, here. Grove?

Here.

Grove, here. Laird?

Laird here. Reyes?

Here.

Reyes here.

Thank you. Your next witness. Thank you, sir.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Jose Reynoso. I'm the General Manager for the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. I would also like to thank Assembly member Blanca Rubio for her leadership on this important issue. I'd like to briefly address questions regarding responsibility and liability.

Existing law already requires agencies to develop invasive mussel control plans in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Those plans include monitoring, control measures, and actions intended to minimize downstream transportation of invasive mussels.

AB 1894 does not modify those requirements, it does not modify permits, and it does not modify contractual agreements between parties. In fact, under our existing agreement with Los Angeles County Public Works, the responsible agencies are liable for damages to county properties or facilities associated with imported water deliveries.

AB 1894 does not change that obligation.

In addition, we have already implemented treatment and mitigation measures on our imported conveyance system to reduce the potential for golden mussel colonization and infrastructure impacts impacts before water reaches county facilities. These measures protect the district's infrastructure and provide corresponding benefit to downstream facilities.

If invasive mussels are detected despite implementation of an approved control plan, the responsibility remains with existing laws, applicable permits, and approved control plans, and contractual obligations between agencies. At its core, 1894 is a water delivery bill.

It does not alter liability, it does not alter contractual obligations, and it does not alter existing agreements between agency. It simply ensures that imported water deliveries operating under California existing invasive mussel regulatory framework are not subject to infinite local prohibitions.

It simply ensures that imported water deliveries operating under California existing invasive mussel regulatory framework are not subject to infinite local prohibitions. Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration of AB 1894. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration of AB 1894. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'm gonna make a clarification based on your first witness testimony. There is no committee amendments before us. The author had already taken the amendment and the amendment is in the bill. So we're just clarifying that.

Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position.

Good morning, madam vice chair and, senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

And Patrick Foye with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Andrea Abruzzo with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kelly Gardner with the San Gabriel Valley Water Association in support.

Thank you. Next witness.

Linda Noriega with California Domestic Water Company and San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

We'll go to lead witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition? Welcome.

Would you like to have a seat at the table since you're a lead witness at opposition? You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Dana Nichol with Reeve Government Relations testifying on behalf of the Valley Ag Water Coalition, which represents over 40 farm water suppliers in the San Joaquin Valley.

Our client opposes this bill because it usurps the authority of a water system owner to protect its groundwater recharge facilities from damages resulting from the transportation of invasive golden bustles, an act that is prohibited under Section 2301 of the vision game code.

The bill imposes a strict statewide prohibition without any consideration for the significant cost that would be imposed on the property of another.

This is contrary to state law. Our client would remove its opposition if the bill were amended to require the same type of contractual agreement that the sponsors of this legislation entered into with LA County Public Works. Their agreement protects the interest of the groundwater recharge facility owner.

The committee analysis points out that if the water imported from the state water project were to contain golden mussels that damaged public works facilities, the sponsors of this bill would be responsible for mitigating the damages.

Absent equal treatment under this legislation for all facility owners, Valley Ag Water Coalition respectfully requests a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister chair?

Thank you, Senator Grove for stepping in to to run the committee. So we are up to do we do both opposition witnesses? Do we have any other

We did not.

Okay. Do anyone else in opposition registering opposition?

No. No. Not in opposition but in support.

Strong support from the City of Burbank Water and Power. We're very thankful to the author for taking this on.

Okay. Great. Okay. So we're gonna come back to the committee.

Discussion? Senator Grove.

Thank you. It does seem like an unfair situation, like fair representation, you know, that has to happen because there's clues is are you willing to work with the opposition and take an amendment to protect

Absolutely. And just to be clear, some of the statements were not factual. We are working with the department to make sure that we have the the same liability issues up and down the state. So I absolutely would love to sit down and talk through the specific issues.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Mister chair.

Okay. Senator Laird?

I'm getting a kick out of the fact that they're not telling the truth, but you wanna work with them.

You know, Senator Laird, in this business, I learned that, you know, the best way to, you know, solve anything is to sit down, and if, we don't come to an agreement, then I can at least say that we tried. So

Perfect.

Just wanna make sure that we were clear that we have been working through this bill diligently.

I have a lot of my Southern California, water peeps here, and we took every opportunity to make sure that we were not damaging and we're not going outside of the current law already. This is detrimental to to the City of Burbank is in danger of losing water, and one of my cities, the City of Azusa, is within six months of losing water.

And so we've been trying to work with the county, and it's been very difficult, so that's why this bill is coming through. So to the point that the opposition is trying to make. I'm willing to listen, but at the end of the day, we're gonna do what's best for the, you know, for our community and follow the laws to Senator Groves' point. So I wanna make sure that that's clear.

Let me just say before I ask my question that, I really appreciate the problem you're trying to address. I salute the author for it. I intend to support the bill. But for those of us and I have lived my entire career in the water issue, we haven't been focused on this the way you have because it's so intense.

And while you're talking about liability and some of the legal issues, the real question I had and when I was in the assembly, I did a bill related to invasives and inspections and trying to to keep it for and there was just a story this last week that they caught a ship at Tahoe with mussels before it went in by the inspection and that's exactly what the intent was doing.

So for those I mean, I get how acute this is but completely separate from the liability or the legality, how does this or does this in any way change or weaken the protections against the transfer of invasives? Because it seems like in an odd way that's what's at the heart of the issue and yet it has it doesn't sound to me like it's been proven in this instance and it's halting the water delivery.

So how do you assure us that nothing here weakens what we're doing with invasives in the face of of trying to get water to these communities?

Yes, so first of all, I did a bill last year. So it was last minute effort. The golden mussel was not part of the invasive species list, and so our my district and our communities were not gonna get money from a fund to be able to mitigate that, and part of the coordination, if you will, was that all the districts were going to have to have a mitigation plan approved before any, you know, imports of water were going to happen.

So we rushed and did the added the golden mussel to the invasive species invasive species I'm a second language learner.

Invasive species list that gave the the water agencies the ability to follow the same regulations to your point. I think it's called the coagulae mussel. Again, second language to learner. The other mussel was already there was already a requirement to mitigate in order to import water.

So what we did is we added the golden mussel with the same requirements as the other mussel, and so that happened and, you know, we thought we were done with this, and so I'm, you know, celebrating.

I'm the golden mussel queen here, And lo and behold, LA County was not accepting those regulations, so that's why we had to do go further and enact this bill. Trying to work with the county, I think we talked to seven different people or departments trying to get this fixed and it wasn't happening. So I felt that in order to do this, we would have to put it in statute so that everybody was able to do this.

But so the point is that we added the golden mussel to the invasive species list so that we could follow the same regulations and rules to mitigate that issue the same way or the golden mussel the same way we do everything else.

But in short then, the protection exists.

You did it last year. This does not weaken the protection. Just allows the water to be moved and if somebody can demonstrate that there's an issue, then it goes to the existing statute in the particular

Yes.

Yes.

Absolutely. Absolutely. So all we did was add the golden muscle to the whole, you know, litany of regulations and hope I think you indicated that you were part of that. But we just added the golden muscle as part of the

I'm sure in some way I was part of it. But

So you are the Golden Mussle King.

Your question was really responsive. I appreciate your answer.

Thank you.

Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah. Thank you. I was struggling a little bit with the bill and the arguments in opposition as well myself, but I think the questions have been answered. And I think also, I mean, this is if you are the queen of golden mussles, please, please remove your subjects from our waterways.

I'm trying. I'm trying.

My only request is

I'm trying. Please. Hence, the bill I'm trying.

Yeah. You know, the I mean, this situation, I mean we or I'm on both ends of this, and appreciate Senator Laird's comments because, you know, just like infectious diseases or other things that it can feel in the moment like the best response is just to like lock yourself in

Right.

And bar contact with anyone else.

Right.

And what we know from both of these worlds is that we need people to, we it's a whole of society solution. And what we don't want is is is folks who are water suppliers to say, you know, we suspect there might be an incident. We're not going to, you know, maybe let's before we report it, let's double check it 18 times because we don't want to put our contracts on the line.

And so you get lots of potentially unintended negative consequences when you make these things too adversarial Instead of saying, hey, we have a problem together and we're gonna have to solve it together and potentially putting some water purveyors out of, you know, out of business because their contracts can't be fulfilled because their main customers said, oh, no, we don't even though you haven't approved an invasive species control plan, we still don't trust it.

We just the vibe we don't like, and therefore, we're not paying you. This is that's not the, that's not an effective way to combat either infectious diseases or invasive species, and this seems like a well crafted balance but simple approach.

Thank you.

Appreciate your work. I appreciate that because it's agreed. You know, I think we got to this point because, the City of Burbank was in danger of not receiving any water. And in my area, the City of Azusa with is within six months of, you know, losing their water. And so, yes to everything that you said, but at the end of the day, are we gonna have water for for for the communities?

And and, you know, and again, you know, that's what we were trying to do is trying to balance this between, you know, how how we can craft it so that the intended purpose is met and not go above and beyond that purpose. And I worked with my amazing, San Gabriel Valley Water Coalition, to do this. So trust and believe that the experts saw this, you know, multiple times, and we were not trying to, you know, disenfranchise anyone.

We're just trying to figure out how we could fix this.

Okay. Well, I appreciate the discussion and I also appreciate our committee for the oh, Senator Reyes, Sorry.

Most of what I wanted to say was said by by all of my colleagues. But having worked, having served with the assembly member, I know that there are issues she takes on and from the very beginning tries to find solutions. When I first read what the bill was about, I thought there's no way. Why are we taking away the the power of public agencies to make their decisions? But having, finding a way to say you can't just say no.

If you find a problem then you can say no and then it goes through the process. I my remaining concern is the amount of time that it would take to show the substantial and documented evidence to prove that there is a health issue. Just going through that part to make sure that it isn't so cumbersome that health issues happen before it's substantial and documented. That would be my only concern with it.

The opposition, I think brought up some good points, but it was almost the opposite of what was said in the testimony given by those in favor.

So you've got your work cut out for you and I know that you're someone who does sit down with opposition to try to figure out a way if there is a way.

Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Great. Vice chair, any comments on this, sir?

I'm trying to see where we're at.

Okay. Well, again, I appreciate the discussion. I was also because I appreciate our my our committee staff for their write up and don't move a mussle, a lot of mussle. Mussle mania.

A lot of funny

It's gonna be fun day.

So we gotta have our fun here too and keep things interesting. But, yeah, I appreciate you, you know, working hard to craft nuanced legislation on such a complex topic. I will be supporting the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

the bill.

vote. Move

Move the bill.

Okay. So we have a motion from Senator Reyes. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Allen? Cabaldon?

Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Grove?

Grove, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye.

Laird, aye. Reyes?

Aye.

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

Okay. 6-1.

6 I'm sorry. 6-0.

Oh, okay. Yes.

On call for absent.

60. Okay. So that bill is on call. Let's go back and and thank you. We will go ahead and call the roll on a few other items.

Can we do that? Starting out with file item one by Assembly Member Hart. The motion was person to Senate rule 29, the measure be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. No. We have a motion from Senator Reyes. Please call the roll.

Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

No. Searto, no. Allen? Cabaldon? Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Grove? No. Grove, no. Laird?

Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.

Okay. 4-2. That bill's on call. And let's go to file item nine, AB 1987. The motion from, Senator Reyes. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Aye.

Saarto, aye. Allen Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.

6 to zero. That goes on call. And let's go to the consent calendar. Excellent agreement on this committee. We've six six bills today on the consent calendar.

Senator Laird moves consent calendar. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Becker, aye. Sarato?

Aye.

Aye.

Sarato, aye. Alan Cabaldon? Cabaldon, aye. Grove? Aye.

Grove, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes?

Aye. Reyes, aye.

Okay. 6-0. That bill the consent calendar, is on call as well. Alright. Let's move to file item 11, ACR 107.

Assemblymember Bauer Kahan, you are up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm proud to present ACR 107. This is a resolution which recognizes the importance of the Diablo Range, one of California's most significant yet often overlooked natural landscapes. Stretching across much of Northern And Central California through 12 counties and over three and a half million acres, the Diablo Range provides critical habitats for wildlife, supports diversity, and serves as an essential ecological corridor.

The range provides habitat for several species, including our California condors, Tulle Elk, mountain lions, golden eagles, and numerous native plants. It plays an essential role in protecting our water resources, helping to recharge our groundwater basins, and supporting watersheds that serve millions of Californians.

As California faces increasing threats from climate change, drought, and catastrophic wildfire, the health and resilience of this mountain range becomes even more important. This resolution celebrates the ecological, historical, and economic significance of the Diablo Range and encourages continued stewardship of the landscape.

With me to testify in support is Edward Clement, Executive Director of Save Mount Diablo.

Thank you. My name is Ted Clement, Executive Director of Save Mount Diablo. It is an honor to appear before you. And on behalf of my organization, I wanna thank you for your good work and leadership on conservation matters. Save Mount Diablo is the sponsor of ACR 107, and our great Assembly member Rebecca Bauer Kahan, is the author.

Our organization is a nationally accredited not for profit land trust founded in 1971. We have a land conservation mission focused on Mount Diablo and its entire mountain range that it is a part of and sustained by the Diablo Range.

We respectfully request your favorable consideration of ACR 107, which acknowledges the Diablo Range as a California conservation priority. The Diablo Range provides California with one of its best opportunities to meet its 30 by 30 goals.

The mountain range is over 200 miles long, runs through 12 counties, and contains over 4,000,000 acres that are largely intact open space areas, of which only about 27% is currently protected.

The Diablo Range is a critical wildlife habitat corridor with important species like California condors. Further, over 10,000,000 people live nearby in communities around the Diablo Range. Thus, conserving more of the range provides California with an outstanding way to meet its 30 by 30 goals and help more people connect with nature.

The mountain range is facing numerous threats, but there are also opportunities like growing partnerships for the range. Just last Thursday, Save Mount Diablo put on its second annual Diablo Range Convening.

About 70 organizations and agencies sent representatives. The keynote speaker was Doctor Jennifer Norris, the terrific Executive Director of California's Wildlife Conservation Board. In her remarks, she talked about the great opportunity the Diablo Range provides California for its 30 by 30 goals, and she also mentioned the importance of passing ACR 107 to grow awareness and support for the protection of the range. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Do we have others who wanna register support?

Anybody in opposition? Do we have any opposition witnesses or any register opposition? We don't see any.

We'll take it back to the committee. Senator Laird.

Well, I appreciate the author for doing this bill and the testimony and and at least the testimony. Everybody thinks we're talking about Mount Diablo. They don't understand the other 11 counties that are in them. I represent a bunch of them. And last night, I got a text from a long time friend in San Benito County said, you're supporting that bill tomorrow.

Right? So they are at least aware of it in some other parts of the Diablo range. So this is a good thing and at the appropriate time, I'll be happy to move the bill.

Excellent. Anyone else?

Okay. Well, I appreciate it and we'll be supporting the bill here today. Would you like to close?

Just wanna thank Save Mount Diablo for their incredible work preserving the range across the many counties. We've seen species come back as a result of that preservation, something that we all strive for in California. And you're invited to my district or Mister Laird's to hike at any time. So with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Awesome. And I also appreciate, you know, the call out to 30 by 30. Right? And this is important areas. We we look to accomplish our 30 by 30 goal.

So, with that, we have motion from Senator Laird. The motion is that the resolution be adopted. Please call the roll.

Thank you. Senators Becker?

Becker, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Allen? Cabaldon?

Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Grove?

Aye.

Grove, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Reyes?

Okay. 5-0. We'll keep that on call.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Alright. We are waiting for our final author. I will message him and see if he's is he Okay. We're going to recess while we wait for our final author.

Alright. We are waiting for our final author. I will message him and see if he's is he Okay. We're going to recess while we wait for our final author.

Okay.

We will return to committee to hear file item 6 from Assembly member Bryan.

Please go ahead when ready. Welcome.

Our resources chair in the Assembly. Good to have you.

Thank you, mister chair and committee members. I'm here to present AB 1946, which encourages the State of California and its land conservation efforts to recognize the importance of making investments in historically underserved urban communities.

Understandably, it's often been easier to advance land conservation goals by investing in rural and suburban areas where land is typically more attainable and affordable for large scale projects.

However, as the state works towards meeting its 2030 conservation goals, the 30 by 30 goals, it's equally important to invest in conservation within highly urbanized historically underserved communities, bringing nature closer to where people live and work.

Restoring and greening urban spaces wherever possible should stand as a coequal goal, and this bill affirms our shared commitment to both visions.

This bill seeks to elevate the awareness around the importance of continued investment in reducing nature poverty in our urban areas like my home in South Los Angeles.

This bill seeks to elevate the awareness around the importance of continued investment in reducing nature poverty in our urban areas like my home in South Los Angeles. With me to testify is Norman Gonzal Norma Gonzalez, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, and Doug Houston representing the California Parks and Recreation Society as a technical support.

With me to testify is Norma Gonzalez, Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, and Doug Houston representing the California Parks and Recreation Society as a technical support.

Thank you for being here. You both have two minutes.

Wonderful. Good morning, chairman and honorable members of this committee. I serve as the Director of LA County Parks and Recreation, which serves 10,000,000 residents throughout Los Angeles County.

The state's 30 by 30 initiative to conserve 30% of land and water is vitally important for the state. But as currently implemented, it does not create an equal playing field for all Californians, especially if you live in urban low income communities of color.

In mapping the state's 30 by 30 framework, data showed that 84% of black and brown communities in LA County live with the highest environmental burdens and no opportunity for traditional conservation, but yet a significant opportunity for regeneration of land, of degraded lands into parkland.

LA County Parks established an unprecedented partnership with all three conservancies of Santa Monica, the Baldwin Hills, the Rivers and Mounts Conservancy and non profit CBOs from every corner of the county to develop our own 30 by 30 framework that encompasses green space, biodiversity, environmental justice, climate resiliency and equity with regeneration of degraded lands.

Almost every park that we have built in the last two decades sits on top of degraded lands. And let me give you an example. Last year, we opened our first park in the unincorporated community of Carson.

It took us 30 years to find the money to acquire, to clean and remediate, to build, and now we're maintaining and operating. That is the burden of low income communities of color. We just can't go in and acquire land. We have to go through the hurdles of every step, which makes our ladder much harder to climb. I am really in support and thank the leadership of Assemblymember Isaac Bryan.

LA County is united in this effort. And we want to thank you because AB 946 is a critical path in response to addressing the funding gap to regenerate land that becomes parkland. We want more children to laugh, play, and find joy in our green spaces, in our parks, in their communities. Thank you for your support.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister chair. Doug Houston. I'm here on behalf of California Park and Recreation Society. It's 5,000 plus local park professionals throughout the state, and we're urging your support for this bill. As the committee would certainly agree, 30 by 30 is a very noble, it's a laudable objective and goal in the state and it's a pursuit that's built off of some core principles.

Enhancing biodiversity, reducing fragmentation of land, protecting landscapes, durably, but also all the while exploring opportunities for access and connecting people with nature. That's what AB 946 is about, understanding and recognizing co equal goals associated with outdoors for all and 30 by 30. And we're trying to crosswalk that with this bill and urging your support.

Thank you very much. Others who would like to voice support, please step to the mic.

Good morning again. Kyra Ross on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Kai Klassen on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in strong support. Thank you, Author.

behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in strong support. Thank you, Arthur. Good morning. Gabriela Fazio with Sierra Club, California in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Gabriela Fazio with Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Michael Chen with Audubon California in support.

Thank you. Do we have anyone registering opposition today?

Seeing none. We'll take it back to the committee. Senator Laird?

You know, for most of the history of the state, our parks money was directed toward just really rural areas and there was not a balance with making sure that urban areas got a fair share.

And in the parks bond measures in the late 1990s, it was the first time that there was a goal of 50% in the urban areas and 50% in the non urban areas to make sure that there was a proper investment to people that really needed it and actually had been paying taxes for ages and not necessarily being able to utilize the system.

And that led to all these things, the cornfields in Los Angeles, Old Town in Los Angeles, the park that goes about a 100 yards across all the way to next to the one ten down and it went to investment. And what this bill does is I think it moves it into current events. It sort of says that commitment now will be extended to the 30 by 30, which is the the process that's front and center.

So I commend the author for doing this. The appropriate time I will move to the bill.

Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mister. Thanks to the author. Before joining the Senate, I was on the statewide committee for 30 by 30 and the I mean, this is an effort that's principle the core objective of 30 by 30 is the conservation of land and water that is the core.

And it's not simple anywhere. It may have been before it's not I represent a district that's rural and urban and suburban all at once, and they all face different but equal but they all struggle to look over the fence to see the baseball game, in different ways.

And so I don't know that the for me the framing is less about that question about urban versus rural and instead it's that the urban areas also have there's a very strong species and land conservation argument to be made, which we did make in the 30 by 30 process with some limited success that's equally compelling, right?

So it isn't necessary to think about urban as just being recreation and species and climate change and everything else being solved elsewhere in the state, which I think sometimes we do because it feels facile.

But partly because of climate change, the amount of species movement, the amount of speciation, species diverging into you know 16 different kinds of rats in the London Underground or mosquitoes in the New York subway.

I mean we're seeing a change in biodiversity and the role that urban where we've typically thought of urban places as being the lack of biodiversity in many ways now they are creating different forms of biodiversity and we have not thought about what that means. Are we here to protect it? Does LA need 18 tons of rats? And it is time for us to do that.

And so I think in addition to the recreation argument, there is very strong resource and environmental reasons to be incorporating affirmatively, not as Stepchildren, but whether it's South LA or Vallejo in my district, that a land conservation, land and water conservation program for the state that's part of an international effort together needs to be paying attention to the full scope of opportunities including recreation because often that is the best conservation approach for species and for other purposes is recreational opportunities.

But I think the bill is drafted in a way that covers that full range. I think it's totally consistent with the 30 by 30 hypothesis, but broadens it more appropriately to the real opportunities are to advance that strategy through stronger investments in urban places and more direct engagement of parks, not just forests and habitat zones in order to be a part of it. So thanks to the author for bringing forward. I'm also supportive of the bill.

I'd move it, but Senator Laird moves 100% of the bills out of this committee. So I'll just, you know, I'll just be content to vote yes.

So I'll just, you know, I'll just be content to vote yes.

Senator Grove.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. Why don't share the biodiversity and all of those concerns, you know, that are addressed in it. I do this state is very diverse. And I got invited to go to Camp Curran up at Huntington Lake, which is in my district.

And I met several 100 kids there, And the majority of them were from Los Angeles and San Francisco, and they've never seen a lake, a pine tree, shot a bow and arrow, just kids stuff, rode a mountain bike down a hill. And so to invest in our local communities so that kids have an opportunity to do things and see things that they normally wouldn't. I think it changes a lot of things about that generation.

And so, I'll be supportive of the bill for those reasons, not so much of all the other reasons that are in it. But mostly because I think it changes I think it changes the kid picture.

I really did. I you know, when I talked to those kids and they showed me pictures, I mean, they they're growing up on cement, and there's not anything around their areas in community. And they had never I mean, these are 12 and 13 year olds, and they had never seen, to me, that's just I don't wanna say odd, but to me, you know, I've been going there since I was six months old. You know? So and in my community, that's what you see.

You drive through it to get to the next town.

And so, I think there's a lot lost, if kids in urban areas like where you represent don't have the same I mean, obviously, you can't put a forest in the middle of it the city, but you can create a great area where there's parks and recreation and activities and baseball and softball and, you know, all of those things that kids would engage in that are positive activities for mental health and all kinds of other things that help them grow up to be well rounded adults. So thank you.

So thank you.

Vice chair.

Thank you.

You know you like it, Kelly.

You know what? Actually, I do like it. I have my own perspective on the need for these parks. You know, you know, one of the things like few couple of weeks back, I had the opportunity to have some spare time. And I was in the LA area and I went and drove through some of the old neighborhoods I used to serve.

And one of the things that really disappointed me was was the condition of the parks, especially because, you know, we've had one of the parks my dad used to play in, Sandella Park. And it, you know, it seems society has forced us to change our approach on some of these things. And it's sad, you know, when the wind blows and a tree limb, you know, falls down, the answer is cut the trees down.

And so, you know, as I pass by this park, I'm looking at the dead grass. I'm looking at trees that are not there anymore.

And it's like the maintenance of our parks, that's as important to this effort is is we have some of the we have some space already, but we're not maintaining the spaces that we have to achieve exactly what we're talking about.

And in fact, we seem to be creeping in the other direction because of liability concerns and things like that. You know, this open space area Santa Maria, you mentioned Santa Monica Hills. You know, I was hiking up there.

It was about a year, year and a half ago, but just a few months before the fire that was up there.

That started up there. It while it was an enjoyable walk at the time, as a previous fire person, I was a little bit horrified at the overgrowth. And so all these things have to be integrated because once it burns, it's not much good for recreation and it certainly isn't good for the environment. And so, you know, I think these efforts to try to incorporate some of the spaces that we do have in our urban areas are really, really important. But it's gosh.

Getting these spaces that have been there for for decades back to what they're supposed to be is gonna help that effort, you know, more than, trying to find new spaces where there was, you know, an old battery plant or something.

So, you know, I applaud the effort and hope that someday I'll be able to drive through and and be really happy with what I see. Because sometimes it's not about the the ability to pay for it.

The city that I worked for has had quite a renaissance, I guess you could call it. But the parks haven't and that to me is a priorities issue.

And, so I would encourage people that are involved in that, to make that, you know, that maintenance and that partnership, where we're all trying to maintain and create that open space but at the same time, people need to be able to use it. At the same time, it needs to be safe. And so with that, I appreciate your effort and I'll be supporting the bill.

Okay, First of all, I wanna confirm thank you. First of all, I wanna confirm you're accepting the amendments?

Definitely accepting committee amendments and thank you to the staff for your hard work.

Awesome. Well, I appreciate all the comments that are made and, you know from my own standpoint, you know, a few thoughts, you know come to mind. I mean, number one, I've been very focused on we spend so much time and resources to create these great spaces and but the fundamentally the outdoors for our program, is I think so important because we have to get people out to the spaces that we that we're investing so much time and money in.

Number two, I share a bunch of sub two, all the urban greening, urban forestry, all those efforts and it seems like we have to fight every year. But those always seems like no brainers to me and just there are small amounts in the context of budget sub two or the budget overall, but it feels like we're always fighting for that urban greening money, which is so important.

But your point also is just the, you know, the point of this bill is just actually investing in these communities, investing in these parks as our vice chair says that even the maintenance of them, but getting this land, I mean, the fact that it took thirty years in Carson to get that land remediated and get it out to the community. These are things we we really have to rectify. So I appreciate i'll be supporting the bill. We have a motion, but let's let you close first.

I just wanna thank you for the bipartisan support, much to my colleague from Murrieta. We're just trying to make Inglewood look as good as Murrieta. No. In Los Angeles, the largest urban oil field in our state is getting ready to shut down by 2030. That's 1,600 acres of open space that can be remediated and transformed.

As Senator Grove mentioned, you know, I know young people in the Crenshaw Corridor who have never seen the beach. And I think this bill is trying to make sure that they also don't live their lives never seeing a tree or a park or an open space. We can do better balancing these goals. We should prioritize all investments for both rural communities and urban communities, and this ensures that we do so. Respectfully ask for your ensures that we do so.

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Excellent. We have a motion from Senator Laird. The motion is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators Becker?

Becker, aye. Seyarto?

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. Allen?

Aye.

Aye.

Allen, aye. Cabaldon?

Cabaldon, aye. Grove?

Aye.

Grove, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Laird? Aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.

Aye.

Laird, aye. Reyes?

Aye.

Reyes, aye.

7-0.

7-0. That bill's out. Congratulations. Okay. We're just gonna go back and we have a few few items on call and then we are finished. So let's go through and start with a file excuse me? Sure. Yeah. We will start with eleven. This is ACR107. Please call the roll. Please call the absent members.

So let's go through and start with a file excuse me? Sure. Yeah. We will start with eleven. This is ACR107.

Please call the roll. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Reyes, aye. 70.

7-0. That bill is out. Alright. Let's go back, for file item one. This was, Assemblymember Hart. Please call the absent members.

Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

That is five to two. That bill is out. And now, we'll go next to file item. Oh, we'll do the consent calendar. Please call the absent member.

Consent calendar.

Oh, we'll do the consent calendar. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

7-0. Then we'll go to file item eight. This is Blanca Rubio, AB 1894.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Seven zero. That bill is out. And lastly, file item nine, Aguiar Curry, AB 1987. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

7-0. I wanna thank everyone who participated in today's hearing. We are adjourned.