Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Okay. Alright. The, Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. And, just good morning to everybody. I wanna go over a couple of things before we, begin the, hearing.

First of all, as you'll notice, we do not have a quorum, so we're gonna start as a subcommittee today. We have a lot of bills in a lot of committees, And so we're gonna ask for everybody's cooperation and making sure that, they stay within the two minute time limits for our speakers and, and make their comments succinct, so that, you get your comments out, but, we're doing it in a manner that's really efficient.

So with that, we have 28 bills on today's agenda and 11 are proposed for consent. And we're gonna hear the bills in file order. So starting as a subcommittee, we're gonna go ahead and start with our first bill, which would be let's see.

We have our first author here, and that would be Assembly member Aguiar Curry, and you'll be presenting AB 706. Maybe I should put my glasses on so I can actually read that. You may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. AB 706 addresses a growing problem I've been working on since I started in the Assembly in 2016. When I was a new member, we had one of the worst years for wildfire we'd ever seen. I represented six counties and at one point, all of them were in having a wildfire.

So many of us know the feeling of trying to help our communities stay safe during a wildfire crisis, then taking on the hard work of helping people rebuild their lives after. Wildfire mitigation work is important to help prevent wildfires from threatening communities, and California state agencies have recommended that we take on these projects.

For example, the California Air Resources Board 2022 climate change scoping plan calls for forest thinning and management on 2,300,000 acres of forest a year to reduce wildfire risk and restore healthier and more resilient forests. We're not talking about healthy trees here. We're talking over a 150,000,000 dead and dying trees and small underbrush that have accelerates wildfire and leads to much more catastrophic fires.

Some of the wildfire mitigation will be done with prescribed fire, but a lot will have to be done mechanically and will generate tens of millions of tons of forest biomass waste. This work is absolutely critical, but we must figure out sustain sustainable ways to use forest biomass waste. Without using this waste productively, it will be piled and burned or left to decay as kindling during the fire season. Either way either way, it releases greenhouse gases.

This bill is about making sure we have the resources to use forest ways in ways that are beneficial to the environment and our communities trying to protect themselves from wildfires.

This bill does not mandate a specific amount of forest treatment or the technologies used to process the waste. It creates a fund that supports projects that help us sustainably use forest biomass waste that is created from wildfire mitigation and wildfire prevention efforts. Products would have to still go through the normal environmental and other permitting processes would need to apply for funding. Having this funding available will help support these projects without increasing energy costs for everyday Californians.

This bill will help reduce future emissions related to open burning or natural decomposition of forest waste, and it will help increase energy reliability, resiliency, and the communities at greater risk of losing power when we could have repeat, blackout threats.

With me to testify in support of the bill is John Kennedy from the Rural County representatives of California and, Matt Dias from Calforas. Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. We're gonna stay to a strict two minutes. I'll let you know if you're going over to wrap up. Okay? Thank you.

Yes, sir. And I will do my best to stay under two minutes. So, again, my name is Matt Dias. I'm the president and CEO of the California Forestry Association or Cal Forests. We represent 4,000,000 acres of, well managed forest lands across the state of California.

I wanna say one thing to get it down on the table real quickly here. From opposition, we're gonna hear the seven zero six is attempting to facilitate or ease the harvesting of trees or other vegetation simply for the purposes of biomass electricity. And it just is not true. The assertion is a fallacy in my opinion. The record is clear on this.

We have had some level of biomass in the past in California and still do, and there is no record of that happening in California at all. Other portions of the globe maybe, not here in California. This is trying to solve and provide a missing piece to the wildfire prevention and recovery strategy within the state of California.

Assembly member Agar Curry is very clear, we have huge accumulations on this of this material on the landscape, and we are generating faces that we are that are truly unsustainable in terms of the climate crisis we're facing. Short lived climate pollutants, burning of this and and uncontained facilities and so on and so forth, uncontained environments are all adding to our climate crisis.

We need to do something on this. We've been working on it for fifteen years, and now is the time. I will send my time to you.

Alright. Very well. Thank you.

Good morning. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of the rural counties. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties, contained most of the state's forested lands, and quite A Bit of the high fire risk areas. We're here in strong support of AB 706 today. We need more biomass opportunities, Not only for energy generation, but for waste management, for wildfire risk reduction.

So I'll align my my comments with my colleague here with the forestry association. We have to focus not only on fire risk as seven zero six is doing, but seven zero six also plays a key role in restoring the forest ecosystem. If we can manage these biomass piles, if we can get the extra wood waste out of the forest, we can restore it to a more natural density. We can have a forest ecosystem where we can reintroduce the historic fire regime.

We are struggling with that today.

We have way too much material on the forest. We need to be able to reintroduce prescribed fire. Biomass is a key way to help us get there. So you know, Matt touched on the air quality benefits associated with having waste management of biomass in facilities, rather than in open air burning. Our other big fear is we have giant piles of biomass in the forest that we don't get to burn in time.

And they then become massive fuel stocks that helps spread the intensity of the next wildfire. NRDC and opponents made some good arguments about, we need to make sure this is done in the appropriate place. That we're protecting the ecosystem. I think we strongly agree with those statements. They're suggesting that perhaps we should focus exclusively on the the perimeter around the community.

Focus our efforts on home hardening. I think those are absolutely things that we should focus on. We need to focus on community wildfire risk reduction. We need to focus on home hardening, but we can't just focus on that. We have to focus on the forest ecosystem as well.

We need a holistic approach. And then finally, with respect to some comments raised about the sensitivity of EJ communities, I think we completely agree with those concerns. The vast majority of the ecosystems and lands where these projects would be opponents on addressing that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. It's a good thing your partner ceded some time over here. But anyway, hey. This time, while you guys are lining up who other proponents of this bill are lining up, don't start yet. We're gonna go ahead and take a minute to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We have a quorum. So at this time, we're gonna take the me too's. Everybody that would like to express support for this bill come up, just your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the bill is all we allow at this time. So you may begin

Mr. chairman and members, Scott Wetsch, on behalf of the Labor Management Committee of the Forest Products Industry representing 10 various unions and the California Coalition of Utility Employees representing 55,000 utility workers in the state in strong support.

Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and members. John Doherty on behalf of the New California Coalition in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Karen Lang on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good morning. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in strong support. Thank you.

John Anderson with Humboldt Mendocino Redwood Company's double support. Thank you.

Julie Malinowski Ball on behalf of the California Biomass Energy Alliance. Support.

Good morning. Cassandra Moore on behalf of Pioneer Community Energy and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts in support.

Alright. Thank you very much. And, yes, gentlemen, if you will excuse. At this time, we're looking for the primary witnesses in opposition to this bill. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill?

If not, primary or anybody who wishes to say they oppose the bill can come up to the microphone at this time. Name, organization, and your your opposition.

Alright. Thanks. Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in strong opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in opposition.

We're a tweener. I'm Michael Jarred with the Nature Conservancy. We're supportive of Amend, and we're working with the author's office and the sponsor, and we feel like the bill's moving in the right direction and thank thank the thank them for their time.

Very good. Thank you very much, everybody, for your cooperation. At this time, we'll bring it back to the diocese. Anybody questions, comments, concerns, emotion?

I just like to ask the author how things are how negotiations are going with the opposition. You know, I I know there's a certain amount of ideological division over biomass and

Yeah. We can't hear you. Oh.

You you have to project.

Too much. Now try.

I think she heard it. She's

So we've we've been working with the environmental community, and I'm gonna let Matt just brought this up as well. So how we're doing?

Yeah. So we've heard a couple of different, pieces that we know that we need to address and we're going to work on, and that is essentially on feedstocks of sustainability standards as well as, geographic scope of applicability. I'm assuming that's kind of the question that you're I was walking the opening hand to pass the question, Senator. So I don't we know for a fact that those are a couple of issues that are outstanding, and we're committed to work with, opposition on those issues.

Okay. Yeah. Just encourage that, continued dialogue. I I I've worked in this area. I know this is a tough one.

But, you know, I think there's a real opportunity for us to to figure out a real good path for biomass energy if it's if it's done properly. And we gotta also make sure we're not incentivizing over logging, those kinds of things. So I just encourage those conversations and, I'm happy to support the bill today. Anybody

else? We have a motion to move the bill. I' ll wait. I applaud the author for bringing this matter forward because it is an important piece of the puzzle of how we' re going to solve some of those con frustrations that we' ve been having. I think the bill focuses mostly on the dead fuel that is there, the dead trees that have been eaten up by beetles that need to be removed.

It' s what do you do with it afterwards? And do you do something positive with it, which is you can create this biomass energy and, and add that to our grid system that needs to be added to, or do you just burn it for and and have the the the burn product go into the air atmosphere? The answer to me is is pursuing what you're talking about. So with that, I'll let you go ahead and close.

So thank you very much. I I appreciate your comments because I think those of us that have seen wildfire go through and inundate their communities realize all the leftover waste that there's there. So with or without the spell, California has taken on a massive wildfire mitigation projects to protect our communities and reduce emissions from increasingly dangerous and costly wildfires. So we're on track to create a lot of forest biomass waste.

The status quo is creating more harmful greenhouse gas emissions with a much greater risk to people, the environment, and state's budget.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote to make sure we find resources we need to use this waste in ways that benefit the environment, energy via reliability, and our economy. With that, I respectfully ask you for your aye vote.

And thank you very much. We do have a motion by Senator Grove. Go ahead and call roll.

A motion is do passed to energy utilities and communications. [Roll Call] 5-0

Alright. That, that is 50 at this time. We'll keep it open for others to add on. And at this time, we're gonna go ahead and take up the consent calendar. So the consent calendar is file file item number two, AB 2513.

Number 6AB1592. Number 9AB1663. Number 11AB2207. Number 12, item 12, AB1699. Item 17AB18O2.

Number or item eight 19, which is AB 1891. Item 20, which is AB 2260, item 23, which is AB 200 32, item 26, which is AB 2312, and item number 28, which is AB 2739. Do we have a motion? We have a motion for the consent calendar. Go ahead and call roll.

Senator Becker. Sarato.

Sarato, aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon?

Aye.

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

Laird, aye. Stern. 50 on call.

Okay. That, is on, that has five votes currently, and we'll leave it open for others to add on later. Alright. Next up, we have another, another bill from, Assembly member Agi R. Curry.

It is AB 26 or twenty twenty six. You may present when you're ready.

Thank you, miss thank you, Mr. Chair, members. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, thanking the Chair and the committee staff for all the work on this bill. Thank you so much. I am pleased to present AB 2026, a bill to help California recharge more groundwater.

This bill is complex, but so are the permitting processes for groundwater recharge projects. Today, permitting can be too slow or too rigid. In some cases, applicants need more certainty before taking on costly, time consuming process. My goal is to streamline permitting process for groundwater recharge and make sure the permits can actually be used when we need it. Groundwater recharge is absolutely essential to helping California navigate the new water reality.

We are living in a time of weather extremes. Most of this water comes in short, intense storm events, and our current system is not designed to capture those big floods when they occur. During floods, we need the ability to divert water to recharge and protect our communities from extreme flooding. During drought, we need stored water to provide water to communities and the environment.

Our largest water storage reservoirs are naturally formed aquifers, making them a cost effective and natural way to store water that can support both water uses and environmental flows and dry times.

Groundwater recharge creates environmental and public benefits by preventing land subsidence, diverting flood flows, and helping communities meet their sigma goals affordably. Last year, the legislature passed SB 72, which required the California water plan to identify 9,000,000 acre feet of new supply to protect against water scarcity. Groundwater recharge could be a major factor in finding the water solutions. Right now, relatively few permits have been issued for groundwater recharge even though reports have called for more.

Even when recharge is permitted, less than 4% of the permitted recharge is actually takes place.

We are missing opportunities that could be a win win for our communities and the environment. We can't maintain the status quo. We have to take a look at the issues and make changes now to store water for our future. This this bill makes needed common sense senses to streamline the permitting process and make those permits more usable. For example, this bill allows the water board and groundwater agencies the tools to create flexible permit timelines for operators.

This means that people can apply for permits before they know if the rainy season will be wet or dry. This allows the applicants to secure permits in advance, but only use them when conditions are right instead of losing an opportunity because of rigid timelines. This bill makes it easier to capture flood flows safely. But most important, these changes are designed to move water during high flow conditions while maintaining existing environmental water user protections.

I am committed to continuing to work on this bill should it move forward today.

With me today, I have Kristen Cicky from the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Kristen Pierre, a water attorney with BKS law firm. Prior to joining BKS, she was a special counsel for the water policy for Cal EPA. The sponsors of the bill, Ryan ... from the from regional water authority and Cam Bezdick from the Northern California Water Association are also available to answer any technical questions.

Thank you very much. Each of the witnesses, you have two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, committee members. Excuse me. I'm Kristen Cicky, general manager of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. For those that aren't familiar with Yolo County, the fabric of the county is deeply rooted in its agricultural heritage and is defined by its rural productive soil and the legacy of the Bracero program.

Farm workers are essential to the county's productive ag industry, which as we all know is dependent on water availability. More recharge is necessary, and the state has done its best to prioritize recharge in wet years. But somehow, over the past decade, the process has become more complex. Our agency has participated in DWR and the Northern California Water Association's Sacramento Valley Flood Diversion Enhancement Working Group, which has brainstormed ways to improve the state's permitting process and has vetted AB 2026.

Our irrigation district is a conjunctive use district.

We rely on surface water and groundwater to grow food. Surface water comes from upstream reservoirs in Cache Creek during wet years, and groundwater is our savings account for dry years. We're constantly trying to optimize our system to divert excess winter water in Cache Creek to replenish groundwater using our unlined earthen canals. And we are considered the most successful applicant of a hundred and eighty day temporary permits. There's frequently excess water in Cache Creek, and we have the existing infrastructure set up for these events.

There's plenty of room in our conveyance system to put the water. Of the eleven years that we've submitted 180 day temporary permit applications, we diverted winter water in seven years, protecting the environment and downstream users. And these diversions have totaled a little over 42,000 acre feet.

The first year that we submitted in 2015, it took two months of pre consultation with DWR, CDFW, and the Bureau, and the State Water Board, and we received an eight page temporary permit six days later with nominal fees.

This last year, the eleventh time submitting a permit, we received the 30 page permit one hundred and twenty five days after submitting it and the fees were about $35,000. AB 2026 will be very helpful to advance groundwater recharge, protecting communities during dry and critical years, and protecting the environment and downstream water right holders.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Good morning. I'm Kristen Pierre, an attorney with b k s law firm and I represent the regional water authority and the northern California water association who are the sponsors of AB 2026. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important issue, which is California's ability to adapt to a changing climate and ensure water supply resiliency into the future.

The bill is focused on one thing, ensuring that more diversions to groundwater recharge are occurring at times when it is wet so that our systems are more resilient when it's dry. Groundwater recharge is a cost effective, scalable solution to improve water supply reliability for communities, agriculture, and the environment alike.

Increasing the pace and scale of groundwater recharge is essential to achieving sustainability in the face of climate change. Despite a decade of efforts, additional legislation is needed to remove barriers that currently exist to permitting water diversion for recharge and allowing unpermitted diversions of flood flows for recharge. AB 2026 builds on previous legislation and incorporates many of the provisions contained in executive orders to help facilitate what we hope will be the next generation of groundwater recharge projects throughout California.

Those changes include refining the process for unpermitted diversion of flood flows by expanding access to divert water when the river is operating for flood control, while also ensuring the protection of downstream water users and the environment.

It also provides the state water board with the tools to improve permitted recharge by refining the requirements for temporary permits and midterm permits, and it also creates a structure for obtaining a permanent permit that would account for and recognize previous work and investment in groundwater recharge through obtaining at least five years of temporary permits.

Both approaches to capturing flood flows and permitted recharge in AB 2026 will protect existing water rights, including the state and federal projects and environmental needs. I appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill, and I am available to answer any questions the committee members may have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much for both of your testimonies. At this time, we'll take me too. Is anybody in favor of the bill or wants to sup express support for the bill may come up to the microphone, your name, your organization you represent, and your support for the bill.

Good morning. Ryan Ojakim with the Regional Water Authority cosponsor and obviously in support.

Good morning, vice Chair members. Cam Bezdek with the Northern California Water Association, proud cosponsor and in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sophie Morin with the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Jeff Neal on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Yellow County, also in support.

Good morning. Melissa Werner here on behalf of the California Water Association in support. Thank you.

Alright. If that exhausts the support list, we'll go on to opposition witnesses. Do we have anybody who wants to testify as a chief of our opposition witness? If you do, ladies, if you can excuse yourself. Thank you.

Guys, come on up. Have a seat. Each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Delfino. I'm here on the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, in opposition. We have an oppose unless amended position. Let me be clear.

Defenders has offered amendments to this bill because we do believe that we have to support and promote groundwater recharge. But AB 2026, even with the committee amendments, failed to address nearly all of the concerns that we have raised. California salmon are in a crisis. Native fish populations continue to decline. Taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in habitat restoration, floodplain projects, fish passage improvements, projects such as the voluntary agreements that, depend on healthy river flows.

But AB 2026 would undermine those investments. The fundamental flaw in this bill is that it assumes that water that appears available on paper is available in the river, but salmon do not live on paper. Under this bill, a wet start to the water year can trigger diversion authority that continues long after the river conditions have changed. A river can experience declining flows, warming temperature, shrinking habitat, yet diversions can continue because a cumulative run runoff calculation says the year is still wet.

That is not how rivers function.

The bill repeatedly refers to excess and flood flows, but water that may appear excess from a water supply perspective may be essential for maintaining salmon runs, Delta Outflow, water quality, and public trust resources. AB 2026 also ties important state diversion decisions to weaker federal rules. California's public trust obligations and environmental protections should not depend on standards currently being weakened and rewritten in Washington.

At the same time, the bill contains an exemption from 1,600 of you, which is one of our most important tools for protecting streams, Riparian Habitat, and fish from the impacts of diversion infrastructure. Perhaps most importantly, based on the letters of concern and opposition, there is no consensus that the approach this bill takes for changes in our diversion rules are ready for statewide implementation.

The diversion criteria contained in the bill were not developed

in two minutes.

With input from affected water users, fisheries, experts, tribes, conservation organizations, and state agencies. Groundwater recharge is too important to get wrong, and we can improve recharge permitting, but we must do so based on sound science and a commitment to protect our rivers, fish, and public trust resources. And for that reason, we urge a no vote.

Thank you, ma'am. Our next, speaker two minutes, please. We have a long, long agenda. You do.

Thank you. Senator and committee members. Barry Nelson representing the Golden State Salmon Association. We represent the 23,000 jobs in the salmon fishing industry when we have healthy salmon runs, which we do not. Our commercial salmon fishing has been shut down for the last three years.

Recreational fishing has been virtually shut down for the last three years. That has caused catastrophic economic impacts in the fishing industry. The cause is primarily the decline of salmon in the Sacramento River Basin. For example, on the main summit of the Sacramento River, we've seen a 95% decline in the last twenty years of of wild spawning fall run salmon. The cause of that is water management.

High water temperatures and excessive water diversions. Those water diversions kill baby salmon as they attempt to migrate down the rivers and into the ocean. This bill is simply designed to increase diversions without adequate protections for salmon. We have three simple examples. First is actually one Kim Delfino just mentioned, and that is the way the bill handles averages, allows diversions that would harm salmon even during low flow periods when conditions are poor.

Second, even in dry years, there are sometimes short periods of high flows that are absolutely critical of survival about migrating salmon. This bill has no protections on for for those flows. Up third, also as Kim Delfino mentioned, this bill is aligned with Trump administration rollbacks in environmental laws, protections for salmon, and the Bay Delta. And this bill makes it harder for the state and future federal agencies to respond to those rollbacks.

This discussion began in the legislature several years ago with the discussion of how to facilitate the diversion of flood flows. That's appropriate. We support that discussion. This bill has just lost its way. We see these bills as a major threat to the survival of the salmon fishing industry.

Can you wrap up, please? You got two minutes.

Thank you very much.

Alright. At this time, we can go ahead and take the meet twos, and I'm gonna pass the gavel back to the Chair. You can come up, state your organization, your name, and also your opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Morning. Sam Bivens for semitropic water storage district. We're opposed to AB 2026, unless amended. Our amendments are narrow and designed to protect semitropics investment, in a large groundwater recharge project called the Tulare Lake Project. Thank you.

Hi. Alex Bloomer on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Cintia Cortez with Restore the Delta in opposition, also in opposition on behalf of California Sportfishing and Protection Alliance.

Good morning. Analise Rivero with California Trout in oppose unless amend. Thank you.

Scott Webb with the Resource Renewal Institute, also speaking opposition for Friends of the River, Yosemite Rivers Alliance, and SF Baykeeper. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Karen Lange on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District as a member of the Tributaries Association and the Merced County Board of Supervisors with concerns about planata, in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Jamie Minor, on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District, also a member of the San Joaquin Tributaries Authority that is opposed unless amended. We've appreciated conversations over the past few months with the Assembly member and with the sponsors, especially on just one specific provision related to the conditions just to ensure that everybody can enjoy the benefit of this bill and getting more water into the ground throughout the state, and we look forward to continuing those conversations. Thank you.

Alex Alanis on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District, oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Molly Colton with Sierra Club California in opposition.

Sean Bothwell for California Coastkeeper Alliance. Opposed unless amended.

Good morning, senators. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. Oppose unless amended.

And Analise Rivero again with Trout Unlimited in an oppose unless amend position. Thank you.

Okay. Let's take it back for discussion from the members. Anyone have any? Senator Grove.

Thank you, madam Assembly member for madam leader. For bringing this bill forward, I really do believe we have to address the groundwater situation that we face. I think Sigma, one of the comments from the opposition that it was not based on that this bill is not based on sound science. I can tell you that sigma was not based on sound science because if it was we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with water recharge.

I do have a couple of questions and I'm just asking for commitment.

You're an honorable member I worked with you in the past. I have three counties that are opposing this. Obviously, top three food producing counties in the world, Kern, Tulare, and Fresno. Kern is very concerned about the semi tropic situation. They've already invested millions in order to make sure that they are able to do the groundwater recharge. And there is a, they just don't want this to circumvent the process that they've already invested in.

Will you continue to work with semi tropic to address the concerns that they have?

So absolutely. And you know, Senator, I'm committed to continue to work on this bill as we've heard from some of the opposition that there's questions that they have and amendments that we will be looking at. So I will continue to be working on this. I don't know if you have a comment about

Yeah. I would just say that we've been in conversations with semi tropic and we are working on language and that should be resolved, I would expect, in short order.

Okay. And and then also, Modesto and Merced, the Central Valley, again, producing food. They have concerns that this will affect the downstream. And it should be, there should be groundwater recharge, especially in in the entire state, but specifically where we grow the food and we need the water, where surface water has been denied. And so I appreciate you working on those amendments.

Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Laird. Thank you. I have some comments in a moment that I thought I would ask the question given the opposition because there's two competing things here. There's expanding our groundwater expansion, and there's making sure the flows are protected going into various rivers and streams. How do you respond to the criticism that this will not affect those flows in a way that has the impact on fish and other things?

Thank you, Senator Laird. I would respond by saying that we have developed an alternative criteria that does a pretty basic thing, which is to establish a threshold for, when water is available. And the intent is to, allow for permitted diversions when it is extremely wet in the system. And it calculates the method for water to be available. Excuse me.

Under circumstances when the cumulative runoff is 80% of historical average, so it's it's quite wet. That's the trigger. And there would be four ways in which that cut the, the diversions would, be required to cease, and that's, the time of year. So the diversions would only be allowed from December to March 31, so just in the wet winter months. Delta conditions would need to be met, every single delta condition, which are, protective of both the state water and federal water projects and also environmental concerns.

There are minimum bypass flow requirements in the, water availability analysis that would recognize existing water right users, and, also, there's an established, baseline for, public trust resources that has been established by the California Environmental Flows Framework, which is a framework that was developed by UC Davis, UC Berkeley in connection with, NGOs, environmental NGOs. And, there would be a cap on the amount of diversion at 20%.

So it's these high flows and these that would, you know, there would be a a cutoff trigger that would, disallow diversions, and then there would be a small allowable per percentage of diversion. Also, this is just creating the system for, the state board to identify water that's available. The state board would still retain its discretion to condition the permit for, fish and wildlife purposes.

It would be able to limit or condition the permit for the amount of water that's actually diverted. So this is a water availability analysis that we're providing in statute, but the state board still retains the discretion.

And let me let me ask a follow-up. And just a comment that I was gonna make as a piece of my comments anyway. This is like four bills in one. This is doing so many different things. And when I read the analysis, I was really nervous because there there was such a level of detail On all these different things that as much as I know a lot about water, it scared me because I did not know where there were unintended consequences in this, point, how do you know this is really true?

How do you know that if because the the state water project now seems to depend on a few big storms a year. It depend on a few big storms a year. And and and that's when the major water comes through the system and it's we're only gonna be successful in storage with that. How do you make sure and that actually, God help me if we started talking about the Delta right now, but that is the heart of the issue in the Delta, is whether or not there's protections on those excess flows. How do we know that's true here?

I mean, what I would say to that, Senator Lillard, is that we have, you know, very wet years where there's tons of water in the system. And historically, before we had channelized and engineered systems, water would would flood the landscape and recharge our aquifers. What we're proposing to do is to now we have these engineered systems where that doesn't happen. And all the water flows down the channelized systems, and most of it goes out to the ocean in these really, really wet years.

We're proposing to make it easier to capture just a small percentage of that and put it in the ground so that we can retain resiliency in these in our communities for when it's more when it's dry, when we don't have water in the system.

It it just for the record, when you say it flows out to the ocean, that's a trigger for a number of people that are in the room.

I understand that. I understand that.

Okay.

I don't intend to trigger. But it's true. Right? And so so the idea is that we're we're capturing just a little bit of those those water flows. We're trying to make it easier to capture those water flows with the oversight.

You know, the state water board will retain the oversight. It retains all of its discretion, permitting discretion. We're making tweaks to existing law to make it easier for these permits to be issued, and for more water to be able to, to be diverted, pursuant to the permits. I don't know if you wanna

And then let me and I don't know if the author's the best, but you can form it out. You took eight amendments from the committee. It didn't seem to remove opposition. Are you still working or there's still issues you feel need to be addressed in this bill, because it's going on to another Senate committee. Yeah.

Yeah. We are still working on amendments and we are working with opposition as well. So I think we'll get there. We need to get there. This is really important policy for the state of California.

It's really important part of policy for my my farmers and my rural communities, and I'm confident we can get there.

Okay. And when you say you think you'll get there, meaning you're still in negotiations and you still expect to take more amendments?

I think we're gonna have a couple more over in each queue.

And do you think they will start to address the points that the opposition made?

They should.

They're shaking their head, but I don't wanna invite them back to the mic right now.

Good idea.

But I think that that the heart of this is it's conflicting values. It's like, yes, we want to have more ground water storage. It is one of the major ways we can do it. The question is always, are we diverting flows that are necessary for other reasons in the process? And I appreciate the contention that you're only gonna do this when they're really high flows.

And it seems to me that that's the heart of the debate, whether you you can guarantee that's true. And I know you have the backstop of the water board, which could come in and has to permit and has to do this, but I'm really torn, but I'm inclined to give you a chance to continue to work on this. I think that the real issue is is you have to really work on this.

You have to see if you can deal, or demonstrate these flow issues, and demonstrate that the safeguards are truly safeguards. And and I don't know that the bane of this job is you can't ask about unintended consequences, because they're usually unintended and you don't know.

But given the volume of stuff in this bill, it seems like that makes me nervous, but I don't know how to get at it because

No one has for years.

Well, we have this horrible practice in the legislature of saying we'll come back and clean it up, and then people got what they wanted out of the original bill, and there's no pressure to clean it up. So it really needs to be done as part of this bill if it's gonna happen. So okay. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Cabaldon.

Thank thank you, Mister Chair. Thanks to the author. I have some questions too, maybe more basic because I wasn't the secretary of resources in charge of all of this. So but Yolo is also my it's my I represent Yolo Sounty. It's my home county as well.

I understand what we're trying to do here. I, so and I very much appreciate the amendments that the committee has has put together. I think they do they they clarify and resolve a bunch of sort of glaring challenges, I think, that were in the bill before. So appreciate the the patchwork. I'm trying to understand the still, in terms of the timing.

So and this relates partly to the opposition's testimony about the the sort of the cumulative analysis, which sounds right to me.

And then as you were describing the way that the permits would work, like, if there is a big winter storm in February and it proposes the kind of, within the next seventy two hour threat of flooding, do I get a permit for the entire season to divert or only during those those extreme imminent flooding conditions? Is might how does how would it work?

Well, I can say in the bill, it would be up to the state water board to determine how much water would be diverted. But the the idea is that in Yolo County, in the Sacramento Valley, there would be water available under those conditions where 80% of historical cumulative flow is the trigger. And it would cease at 50% when it drops down to 50% through December 1 of any water year, and it would end at March 31 of any water year.

And there's also additional cutoffs for existing legal water users for delta conditions needing to be met, for environmental baseline flow, bypass flow requirements, and there is a cap at 20% of whatever that flow in between those two thresholds is.

K. So why doesn't it just not end when the triggering condition is passed?

It would.

So if there's a giant winter storm in February, which is not likely to last for six months, hopefully, and that storm ends. And so we're not experiencing that that that sort of imminent risk of of flood in the next 72 hours. Why would we continue to be divert, to divert?

Okay. So I think we're talking about two different things. The 72 hour imminent flooding is the unpermitted changes part of the bill. So that's the 1242.1, water code 1242.1, which allows for diversions of flood flows that are unpermitted. So I think we're maybe complaining two things, talking about two different things.

We're not. That's just me. You did not participate in the complaining. And then with respect to the analysis raises a question, and I think some of the some of the opposition or some of the questions as well about potentially creating an implicit future right that a diversion would be. So what's our what's your the amendments don't deal with that issue as far as I can tell.

So what is, what are, what are your, what's your take on that issue and why is it not addressed directly?

It is direct addressed directly. It the unpermitted flows, there's expressed language in the bill that states that it doesn't create a water right, and I can find that for you if you'd like.

Can I just clarify something about the current process of the state water board? So as Kristen had mentioned, this is simply going to streamline the water availability analysis portion, but that the state water board still goes through all of their downstream protections and environmental protections when they put conditions on each permit. And so they will still look at each unique application to say what downstream requirement should be put in place.

What's the in-stream flow that's required to protect the environment, and how do we ensure that no downstream users are impacted? So that's something that still exists.

And I think the streamlining portion is that, as I mentioned, we've gone through a hundred and eighty day temporary permits for eleven years now, and we just submitted a long term permit so that we don't have to do it every year. And the cost to apply was about $800,000.

And so there's there's a significant expense involved in all of this, and this will help to, as mentioned, kind of streamline it and assist with those rural communities that may need something where the where the bulk of the cost, the water availability analysis, can be reduced because that's pretty expensive in the whole thing.

I found the code section. If you it's as water code section 1242.1 F1 says

Well, this is the person or entity making the diversion of groundwater.

That's the start of it. Yes. And so it's subdivision F1. It says diversion for groundwater recharge pursuant to this section shall not create a vested water right to divert even of a temporary nature. The limitation is on the authorization to divert and not the limitation on the authorization for beneficial use of the water diverted to underground storage.

I'm gonna support the bill today for because I think it is an important effort. Sigma has some of its origins in, you know, locally in our legislative delegation. And as PPIC has made very clear, groundwater recharge is really the only path forward on a statewide basis for Sigma implementation. It doesn't save it doesn't rescue everything, but it's absolutely critical to do. And so it's a very important objective.

I think, you know, as a I mean, I'm not totally new to this from where I'm at, but I think part of what Senator Laird was highlighting is, just to to pull it up one additional level of abstraction, is that, you know, this is the new water regime, you know, because of climate change and everything else.

And so it feels to a little extent like we're trying to we're taking an assumption that the the old water regime and the actual flows of rain and water and everything are the same. And so now we're gonna define this, like, extraordinary circumstances on the edge. But I think as he has intimated, like, that is not the edge is now the norm. And and so, that's what's important to get it right, because we're not just talking

about, like, we're expecting normal water conditions for the rest of our lives. But in the event that there's this extraordinary flow happening, because we do have to ultimately account for the whole system and the flows that protect fish and wildlife and the other users and other rights holders and what have you. And so I think it is complicated.

It's a lot, but I do think we have to understand that that, that this is, that these are no longer exceptional circumstances, and therefore, the rest of the water system does have a legitimate interest in what we might describe in our in our communities as exceptional flood flows. So I'm supportive of it. We I hope that partly, you know, seeing that we're gonna continue to work on some of the issues, here.

I don't mean gutting the bill and making it a study like a couple of the opposition letters were, suggested, but really trying to zero in on this. So we're making sure that those protections on the water are there, protections for other broader rights holders are there as well. But I'd appreciate your leadership work on it and hope that, hope you're able to land it. Thanks.

Okay. I will invite the opposition up to give some kind of quick responses because I saw you had

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Becker. Just a couple of quick responses. First, I wanted to to reinforce what Senator Laird said. This is 30 pages of extremely complex changes to the water code with four different paths for increasing diversions.

We won't cover all of those during this hearing. I'd like to just mention three specific issues that were raised. The first is with regard to your question, Senator, about what happens when you get an 80% year you get wet year. That's not a flood year. That's a that's a pretty wet year, and then begin diversions.

The way the bill works is the diversions are triggered by an 80% year, but they're not turned off until you get to an average 50%, an average year. The only way you get to an average year if you have very low flows. We saw that this year. We started with wet conditions. We lost our snowpack.

We went to low conditions. My organization was lobbying the Bureau of Reclamation to release pulse flows during the spring in order to help out migrating salmon. This bill ignores that and suggests that those same conditions are excess flows during which we can divert even more water. So it doesn't only focus on diversions during wet periods. It also allows diversions during dry periods, bad conditions for salmon, if they follow a couple of storms.

Second point, I'm glad the sponsors raised the environmental flows framework. This bill does not include the protections in the environmental flows framework for out migrating salmon. It uses what are called winter baseline flows. Out migration flows, the environmental flows framework recognizes they're not included in this bill. The third point is this bill does constrain the water board, and I'll just give you one example.

There are several more. One example is the water board has a doubling has a salmon restoration requirement. It's not in this bill. Instead, what is in this bill is a requirement that the water board must improve diversions unless they have unreasonable additional environmental impacts. So the bill suggests that rather than trying to restore our salmon, the the the water board should allow more and more and more diversions even if they do have additional impacts on salmon.

It ignores the the the water board's own restoration requirement. This is a very complex bill, The amendments are well intended, but they don't come near addressing the problems in the bill. Kim?

I just have one quick response on the question about the water right creation. The bill has been amended, but the language I think we need to look at the language. It doesn't say it's an authorization. It doesn't create a vested right, but it does say that it is not a limitation on the authorization for beneficial use to divert for water storage. The they also struck another provision in this bill that did specifically say it's not a creation of a right.

This creates an uncertainty here in terms of where there whether a right is created or not. Further so that needs to be, cleaned up. Secondly, it also creates a perverse incentive for folks to divert even more in, in the effort to try to, like, maximize what they might be able to divert later on as a beneficial use. So I would just simply say that does need to be fixed as well with the allocation credit, and I appreciate the question being raised.

Okay. We do need to move on. I see a quick switch here. Was there a a quick comment to you?

Sure. Thank you. Appreciate everybody. Ryan Ojakian again with the Regional Water Authority. Appreciate the opposition.

We respectfully see the issues a little bit differently. Right? I just wanna clarify one thing. We've covered it a couple of times. There are multiple ways in which it shuts off when you hit wet conditions.

It's not just you come down to 50%, but you have to be meeting the base flows. The reason it's winter base flows is because the permits are only available in the winter. Right? So we're talking about the time frame that the permits are applying. Right?

So when the permit applies, you have to meet environmental flows. You have to meet all other legal users. You the Waterbird retains all authority on things like salmon doubling with conditions on the permit. Right? The only question is, are we talking about wet water or wet conditions?

And if we wanna talk about refinements to that, then let's do that. Right? But that's not really what we're talking about at this point. In terms of and again, thank you all for giving me the opportunity. In terms of responding to the question of, beneficial use, we're saying that you have to do that through a GSA.

Right? So if we're committing to Sigma, it's the GSA that's holding the cards on this question, and you have to report on that. Right? So it's not just the GSA offer on their own. Right?

That's all part of existing statute. I think and sorry if I'm looking directly at you. I think that the real challenge here is in terms of complexity, we're not writing this bill from whole cloth. We are inserting into four existing processes. Right?

So that's existing statute. And so that's that's really where the complexity comes and from my perspective. And so, you know, happy to continue to talk about what those changes are, but right, the intent is make sure it's wet, make sure that you're shutting off to be protective of the environment and other legal users, and do that in a way that is very transparent and retains water board authority in every way except for on this single question of what is what is wet conditions.

Mister Chair, can I ask a follow-up?

Yes. Go ahead, Senator Laird.

Because it may be two follow ups, but one is is that the opposition expressed concern that salmon protections weren't specifically named in the bill. And so my question is, are salmon protected without them being named in the bill with all these processes? And if so, how?

The general broad discretion for the water board is to protect public trust through unreasonable effects on fish and wildlife. They retain that authority in every way, except for on this question of, are conditions wet? Again, if we wanna talk about those definitions, let's do that.

And that was gonna be my follow-up is if in fact this bill speaks to water board authorities in one way, does it limit the water board's authority to protect salmon?

I'm gonna

This is one of those classic moments where in my eyesight are you nodding and them shaking their heads.

Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate I appreciate that.

I mean, I think Ryan already answered. I we retain the water board's existing authority, which is a requirement that they make findings that Fish and Wildlife will not be unreasonably affected by the issue of

Single change that this bill does does not pull that back. Is that what you're saying?

That is correct. That is retained in existing law, and it exists in this bill. The board can condition any of these permits for the protection of fish and wildlife.

Mister Chair, I really don't wanna extend this debate, but, opponents have been shaking their heads at every single thing that was just said. Could you speak to why you don't have the same opinion?

Okay. Go ahead. So with respect to the 1242.1, the water board has been cut out of the process in terms of being able to determine whether or not there's an infringement of public trust. Further, I think the opposition stated it already. They said the water board retains discretion except when they're determining when it's wet, But which is exactly right.

That is exactly right. The issue is whether there's sufficient water available for salmon at key times. That has been taken away. Let me just say that we're not, the defenders of wildlife's position is not we should scrap the bill and start over with the study. We have offered up numerous amendments to try to put in some protections and assurances that the water board retains their appropriate public trust resources.

Those amendments have not been taken. We would very much like to be able to continue those conversations, but we have been not listened to, which is why the bill is in the form it's at without us being at least in a neutral position. We would like to be able to continue those conversations, but we're, you know, there's some real fundamental disagreements about where the board's discretion is and isn't.

Thank you. And and an additional comment, Mister Chair, which is that this bill still has to go to committee in the floor, providing it moves out today. And it would be very important to try to address these questions. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you all. Sir, Senator Groves.

Just because of this week came up. In 2024, we had massive floods in the Central Valley. Point to where ranch lands, farmlands were flooded all the way up to their rooftops. If we were able to if this bill was in place, the water board could determine that we had excessive water and that we could divert that water and store it in the Tulare River Basin or other elsewhere facilities. We actually begged and we did it.

We begged to have high speed raw head equipment right there in the Central Valley. We asked them to use what the resources were to raise the levee just a little bit. We had to go through hoops to get just to pull that other agency in to stop the flooding of these. It was 45 homes, but no one, you know, 45 homes. It's 45 homes of legacy ranch farmer properties that were there that were like rooftop flooding.

If we could just increase the levee a little bit. We went through hoops we managed to do that. I see this and with the language and I know it' s 30 pages. I see this is that when we have a year like that, we' re exceeding 80% or exceeding 80%. Then we would allow those water basins to be able to store that water instead of have it just go everywhere.

And we have a particular situation in the Central Valley because of high speed roll, not trying to tie in another policy. But because we're moving so much dirt and moving so much and we' re cutting through and moving so much property that it does divert water from going to its natural flow. And so, I see this statewide as something that benefits.

We're still having the control of the water board and working with even the Chair of the water board, it's almost impossible to get permits to pool. They always take into that the protections that are available for other, whether it's fish and wildlife or other conditions in the environment.

I just see this as a solution to what happened in 2024, which we didn't have. And if it happens again in the next ten years, we'll have it. So thank you.

Okay. Well, we started off with a a a really important bill and a complicated bill. I apologize I wasn't here for the very beginning of it, but we're there was file order for the public safety committee. So I got there first early to present. And also I know this is a a loud hearing room, so I appreciate everyone's patience.

Just maybe one question myself and I'll have some points and then let you close. You know, we do talk about doing this in a transparent way, but the diversion standard itself wasn't necessarily a public process. Is there a way to get the public involved or have that be a public process?

Thank you, Senator. So respectfully, it it was a public process for the portion that we're speaking to. It was funded by DWR, hosted in jointly with Northern California Water Association. It's called the Sac Valley Flood Diversion Recharge Working Group. Came out of governor's executive order in 2025.

They met bi-monthly for the last eighteen months. With all of that said, we we want to talk to all parties about the provisions that are in the bill. Right? I think to Senator Laird's question about the fundamental divide, I think we're we think that we're asking the wrong question. I think the question that we're trying to ask is is water going to a good purpose?

The answer to that question is absolutely 100% always yes. Water is life. It's always going to a good purpose. But our challenge is and sorry.

Yes. Sorry. My apologies. My apologies. Yes.

It's the short answer. Sorry, Senator.

Okay. Yeah. Rather than reopen other other topics there. Okay. Well, I wanna thank you for your staff for working with our team, and I wanna thank our consultant team here for working very hard.

I think we certainly have a better bill, you know, because of everyone's work. Groundwater recharge is an important tool for our state to achieve groundwater sustainability, and it's critical that we do have good processes to boost our recharge efforts. But as everyone said, this is also a complicated bill with many intertwined parts within itself and potential impacts with other parts of our water law system, including water quality, water rights, and the protection of our fish and wildlife and public trust resources.

And it's important we understand the full implications of the changes made by the bill. So, you know, this came to us just two weeks ago and it's also double referred, so our team had to work very very quickly on it.

But, again, I think we made good progress, but as noted in the analysis and I think as discussed here, there I think there is still work to be done as you've noted, and, I appreciate I know you will continue to work with the the opposition as you've mentioned before, because I think we'll all be looking at what happens in the next few weeks before it gets by the time it gets to the to the Senate floor.

So, again, as I said early, setting up good processes to divert water for groundwater recharge is important, but we also make sure we continue to protect and balancing its other state priorities as well. I will be supporting the bill today as you continue to work on it. Would you like to close?

I would, and I appreciate the conversation today and I appreciate the opposition. I will always continue to work on good policy. I think those of you that have worked with me before know that I'm a trusted deliverer of policy and I will continue to do that. But at the end of the day, this bill is really about our, making our water system work in the moments that matter most. We have to take advantage of every opportunity to secure our state's water future.

And that this is serious business. When we have water, we should be able to store it. When we don't, we should be able to rely on it. So this bill helps do both. I will continue the conversations with all stakeholders and keep working on the bill, but we must make progress on this issue now.

We cannot dilly dally around. This is important. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I wanna thank your committee. She's been fabulous in working with us, so thank you. I know it's a lot of hours.

It's complex. We appreciate you.

Okay. Well, thank you for taking on this complicated topic. It's really important. Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Senator Grove.

It'll be do pass to the environmental quality committee. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Four zero.

Okay. Four zero. That bill's on call. Thank you.

Going from a complicated bill to an easier and a simpler bill. Go ahead when ready on AB 2216.

Okay.

Great. Thank you very much, Mister Chair and members. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee's technical amendments on this bill, and thank you committee and staff for the work on it. I am pleased to present AB 2216, a bill to expand the Delta Conservancy and protect the greater watershed. AB 2216 creates greater opportunities for projects that benefit the Delta by expanding the Delta Conservancy to fully include Lake, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo Counties.

Today, the Delta Conservancy only covers certain parts of these counties. The remaining portions are not part of the Conservancy even though projects in this region still provide direct benefits to the Delta and its watershed. This expansion creates more opportunities for the Delta Conservancy to continue its habitat conservation and sustainable agricultural efforts, such as the successful fish friendly farming program. These projects are not only economically and environmentally beneficial to the Delta region, but they are a great example of a multi benefit approach to conservation.

Expanding the Delta Conservancy will create a holistic approach to conservation of this crucial ecosystem and expense expansive watershed.

I would like to thank the Senator from West Sacramento and the stakeholders for working with me to make sure this bill maintains resources for the Delta. The goal of AB 22 succeeds to continue successful conservation efforts in the Delta watershed and allow the Delta Conservancy to advocate for more resources for that work. With me today, I have Michael Chin on behalf of Audubon, California and Michael Jared from on behalf of the nature conservancy.

Okay. Go ahead. You show two minutes.

Thank you, Mister chairman members. My name is Michael Chen, senior manager of government affairs for Audubon, California. I'm here today to express our support for AB 2216. The Delta is an essential part of the Pacific Flyway, one of North America's major migratory routes for birds. Since the 1970s, North America has lost 3,000,000,000 birds, approximately one third of its total bird population, due to habitat loss and other human activities.

California was once home to 35 to 40,000,000 ducks and Geese each year. Now our waterfowl populations are closer to 68,000,000 and may continue to decline. With climate change, over a 160 species of California birds are at risk of even greater population loss and even extinction. California needs to conserve important habitats in places like the Delta, and work collaboratively with landowners if we want to stem or reverse these losses.

Expanding the Conservancy will provide ample opportunities for the state and its partners to restore lost habitat, expand public access and recreation, and contribute to local economies.

The Delta Conservancy has already demonstrated real leadership, planning expertise, and the collaborative culture that can be scaled up, and expanded to new areas. Expanding the Conservancy is also the most cost effective way to expand its benefits to new constituents, and make the program conservation gains more durable. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and honorable members. Yeah. Okay. My name is Michael Jared, associate director of the for the Nature Conservancy. I'm testifying in strong support of AB 2216, which would expand and update the Sacramento San Joaquin, Delta Conservancy to cover the remaining portions of Sacramento, Solano, San Joaquin, and Yolo Counties, and would add Lake County by creating the valley and lake program.

The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conservancy or the Delta Conservancy is one of the state's 10 state conservancies. State conservancies are non regulatory entities that support communities by connecting them to state funding. The Delta Conservancy has a proven track record of working with local communities to identify shared objectives and develop locally supported priority projects that provide a statewide benefit. AB 2216 will expand the area that receives those benefits, support large, watershed scale projects, and new sources of funding.

AB 22216 expands, to the those existing counties, but then also adds Lake County, an ecologically sensitive yet, economically disadvantaged community.

Some of the areas have significant wildfire risk and have not had access to recent funding packages for conservancy wildfire resiliency projects.

In addition, AB 2216 would benefit the areas the Delta Conservancy already serves by doing the following, clarifying the ability to fund on farm activities that contribute to wildlife habitat, expanding the type of climate resilience projects the Conservancy can fund, provide the Conservancy authority to provide grants for workforce development and to tribal organizations consistent with other Conservancies, and support funding, for underserved groups by authorizing the conservancy to do advanced pavements and cover indirect costs.

A B 226 would not affect the allocation of Prop$4 or distract from the conservancy's work in the Delta, but would better position the conservancy to support this vital region in future funding measures. This will lead to a better conservation and climate resilience outcomes while supporting regional economy economic development and public recreation opportunities. For these reasons, we ask for your high vote.

Thank you. Okay. Do anyone who would like to add on in support?

Alex Loomer, I'm Baffin, Maryland Defense Fund in strong support. Thank you.

Mister chairman, members, Bob Reeb with Reeb government relations on behalf of the California Central Valley Flood Control Association in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rico Mastrodenado, the legislative director for the Trust for Public Land, in support.

Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife, in support.

Cynthia Cortez, Restorative Delta, in support.

Jeff Neal representing the board of supervisors of Yolo County in support and also Lake County. Appreciation for being added. Thank you.

Good morning. Audrey Retajcak on behalf of Contra Costa County, and we support if amended. We're hopeful to be able to add Contra Costa into the bill if possible later.

Okay. Anyone in opposition? Anyone adding an opposition? Seeing none, back to the committee. Senator Kovalton.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

I I represent the Senate on the Delta Conservancy board, and I know there's been a lot of interest in expansion of all the conservancies, a direction in which I'm generally opposed to. The conservancies of California have specific missions, and I know there are folks that would like to be able to add more eligibility for funding programs and what have you that do a variety of conserve conservation projects.

But it is we really do need to focus in California on some of the critical resources areas, Tahoe, the ocean, the Delta. These are not just sort of places that happen to be like every other place, but they are critical to the to not just the habitat, but to the to the entire state in so many profound ways. And so the Delta is often forgotten except as a waterworks project.

And so it it you know, my my initial concern with the with the concept was we're gonna lose the Delta in in the focus. And these counties, the vast majority of most of these counties are not in the Delta. And I I I be very blunt, I I watch the amount of, sort of unincorporated area area sprawl in Sacramento County in areas that are not in the Delta, and I am concerned.

I do not want there to be any any lessening of the focus on the Delta or any of the concern any of the state funds that are that are available through bonds or GGR for or else or elsewhere to go to support or to offset development projects in those sprawling areas when those dollars need to be for the Delta. And so, I so I I have a lot of concern about about how that works.

And I just I wanna really put an explanation point behind what the author said, which is this is about, sup making sure that projects that support the Delta and its watershed and and Clear Lake, in particular.

The those particular geographies remain the center point of the bill, that we're not gonna treat projects in Rancho in in Rancho equivalent to be to a project that is necessary in the Suisun Marsh or elsewhere in the state in the Delta Region that that has to remain the focus. This is not this is not a way for anyone, the nonprofits or other age or developers or others to say, okay.

Now now this is a pathway into this, and it's now it's the coequal parts of this conservancy. They are not coequal parts of the conservancy.

The point here is to protect the critical resources of the Delta and Clear Lake, and and and that that associated watershed. So I'm gonna sup I'm supportive of the bill today.

I I because of those protections and because the author's been very clear about what we're doing here, and because I expect as a member of the board of this conservancy to keep a eagle eye to assure that that intent is is upheld and this does not just become a way to make the state's critical conservancies into generic conservancies that seek to take advantage of of the voters support for projects that that support these critical areas.

So appreciate the the the author's work to make this make this happen. It's also why I don't support extending it to Contra Costa County at this stage.

I'm not saying never, but we need to we need to make sure that we are keeping the delta at the center adding Clear Lake, which has no other alternative and is is also a critical area for the state, but but without making this so generic that we're no longer focusing on those critical resources. So I'm gonna support the bill today.

Appreciate the author, and I hope we continue to say out loud what we're really doing here, which is to support the delta and the watershed that supports it, including Clear Lake as the center of this work, and it is not an attempt to try to simply extend to every inch of the of the of the five delta of the five Delta counties, the conservancy's efforts. Thanks, Mister Chair.

Senator Laird. Thank you. I would associate myself with the comments of my colleague and make two added points. It just to reinforce the one that that I've seen this trend that's going on in Prop four Right Now, where people want to get added to areas to be able to be eligible for funding, and that's not a reason to do that. It it it's just not.

And I totally agree. I've actually worked with the author on Clear Lake, and I totally agree to the need there, and that makes sense. Then going into certain urban areas, that doesn't necessarily make sense. And that will and I think we have to send a signal to other conservancies that want to expand for similar reasons that that we're gonna look at that and not necessarily do that.

Because every part of the state will be in a conservancy, and then we will lose our focus on the Sierra, or the Delta, or the coast, or the places where they are.

Then the most obscure point I was gonna make is the governance of the Delta Conservancy was based on the governance of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, and one of the underwriting points was there had to be at least one more state appointment than local appointment. And by adding two, you kept one being a state appointment. So whether you knew it or not, you were consistent with the framework of conservancies in doing that.

And and if if that had been a local appointment in some way, I would have been speaking up about you knocking over the balance right now. So thank you.

Really important.

Yeah.

Okay. Would you like to close?

He has been a trusted partner for years. And so the last thing we wanna do is disrupt that. They have been an incredible partner that we've worked with. So this bill will obviously correct create more opportunities for the Delta Conservancy to continue our critical work to protect our Delta and its water watershed. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do we have a motion? Senator Cabaldon directly moves it. Do pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators Becker? Aye. Aye. Senator, Alan Cabaldon? Aye.

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

Aye. Laird, aye. Stern. 101

call.

Okay. That is 40. Thank you. Majority leader, good luck with the rest of your day. I'd like to invite up Assembly member Bennett.

You have two bills. Are you gonna start with AB 1960?

AB 2075 for the benefit of my witness.

Okay. So we'll start with AB 2075. This is file item 22.

Thank thank thank you

for Ed, as soon as it's quiet enough, you can go ahead.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. In October 2024, in Ventura County, a young tractor driver was clearing dry vegetation, and, well, for cattle grazing when an accidental fire erupted caused by the engine, while the tractor driver followed all the correct safety standards, his fire extinguisher equipment was attached to his truck, which was downhill, a long ways away from the tractor. This event became the catalyst for the mountain fire, which would burn 20,000 acres to story 250 structures.

The Ventura County District Attorney's investigation revealed uncertainty as to whether the company that contracted the tractor driver could be held liable for the fire safety noncompliance. AB 2075 clarifies the fire safety standards during operations near forest, brush, or grass covered lands and ensures companies performing these activities can be held liable in the event of an accidental fire.

With me today, in support is Chuck Hughes of Ventura County Special Assistant, District Attorney. Thank you very much. Okay.

Go ahead. Please shift two minutes.

My name is Chuck Hughes. I'm here testifying on behalf of Ventura County District Attorney Eric Nazarenko. We all know California is plagued by wildfires. Ventura County has been no stranger to those. We've had some of the largest fires in California history, the Thomas Fire, the Woolsey Fire, and as Assemblymember Bennett pointed out, the Mountain Fire in 2024.

A v 2075 is designed to help prevent some fires with a simple fix, keep fire equipment close to those who are working the land. When we reviewed the mountain fire, we found that statutes are inconsistent and somewhat vague as to what standards should be applied.

As Assembly member Bennett pointed out, in the mountain fire, the person operating the tractor had a fire extinguisher, but when the when the tractor caught fire, the fire extinguisher was too far away to get down to the fire extinguisher and back in time to put it out. Indirectly, that resulted in the the mountain fire. Because the standard at for that situation was that the equipment simply needed to be ready for use in the immediate area.

That obviously is a subjective standard. What the tractor operator thought at the time was sufficient, clearly turned out not to be. We've had a similar fire just a month ago in Simi Valley, the Sandy Fire. Fortunately, that only burned 2,000 acres and I think one structure. But the initial the initial cause reports are that it was a tractor that hit a rock, caused a spark, and things got out of control.

What AB 2075 proposes is a consistent bright line rule that will keep fire extinguish fire equipment close. It has to be if you're working the land on foot with power tools, it has to be the the fire equipment must be within 25 feet of the worker, so they can get to it and get back, hopefully, in time to extinguish any fire.

If you're using a motor vehicle to work the land like a tractor, a fire extinguisher and shovel have to be in or attached to that vehicle. It's a very, straightforward and clear rule. The 25 foot standard already exists in, public resources code section forty four thirty one.

So it just statutes, only an individual is responsible for compliance, not the businesses employing that individual. AB 2075 will clarify in all situations that not just the individual, but the business is responsible for compliance. It's our belief that businesses are in the best position to ensure compliance. So I would strongly urge your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else who would like to add on in support? Any opposition?

Good morning, Chair, members. Peter Ansell, California Farm Bureau here on behalf of Farm Bureau and California Cattlemen's Association. We've expressed a letter of concern that, committee was nice enough to spend time discussing with us and included in the analysis. The author's office, we haven't been able to get there. We're hopeful that we'll be able to continue to have that conversation, and it really focuses on that standard around rangeland.

So for people going out and doing work with grazers and those type of animals, a bright line standard as we've seen the bill adjust for the forestry sector.

We believe that there's an appropriate similar pathway to have the board of forestry look through its rangeland management advisory committee and for rangeland work and specifically, to be able to create a similar standard where that advisory committee can determine what's reasonable for those ranchers and farmers that are out often over many miles doing things like repairing fences that have come down, and that bright line rule becomes something when we're seeing a significant increase in that enforcement effort,

would be really useful to

have some flexibility just like we've seen the bill adapt to for the forestry sector. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Committee, any Senator Cabaldon?

Just on that point, could you share with us your are are are we are we getting there on that issue? I I like several members of the committee represent a lot of rangeland and cattle cattlemen or whatever.

I don't believe even a letter has come in yet from the farm bureau about this. It just surfaced, at the end of last week that they called the office and said they had a concern. So we need to investigate the concern, etcetera. I think we can get there. We've tried to make sure that this is, you know, that we do everything reasonable.

The district attorney's office and their investigation really identified just how vague the language is, you know, to say that it needs to be close is is not very legally enforceable, etcetera. So as long as, farm bureaus, open to trying to make sure that it's something reasonable, that's not vague, the request for an advisory committee to to give advice all seems reasonable to us as as we move forward. So we're happy to have that. But again, it's it all surface no specific language was offered.

No no letter, I believe, even came in.

It's been very last minute surfacing of

this. Senator Grove?

Thank you. I think my colleague from yellow for asking that question. Just a follow-up. I have two follow ups. You gave an exemption or some type of language to the forestry service.

Right? So why wouldn't it be appropriate just to have the same language that is exempted for the forestry service to range land? We all have cattle. We all have range land. Well, my colleague from San Francisco doesn't.

But the majority of us have either small farm range land or actually in our area where we have thousands of acres of feet of range land.

It could be very appropriate. It's just this is literally the first that we've gotten anything. We got a phone call saying, hey. We have some concerns.

But the bill actually affects rangeland, and it didn't dawn on you to help protect the farmers of that rangeland?

The request for for anything about rangeland only came as a phone call

Okay.

Of, you know.

There wasn't a letter submitted. My understanding is there was a letter submitted? You can come up to the microphone instead of yelling.

But you have to just respond quickly.

You

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Senator. We submitted a letter to the Assembly member staff and sat down with the committee consultant to talk about the letter and those concerns.

So it was more than a phone call, but we did not submit through the portal because we hadn't taken a position on the bill in the first house and weren't concerned until we saw the bright line come up on rangeland and then the the flexibility that was created through the board of forestry for the forestry sector, and then that you know, we wanted to come in and have, frankly, a a friendly conversation with the member before we put something into the portal.

Got it.

Absolutely. Thank you.

That's a process question.

But yes, go ahead.

It's a process question. Thank you, so I apologize that I misunderstood. But you did submit a bright line separation for forestry management. And I get it, right? I go to my favorite place in the world to go is Huntington Lake and it almost burnt everything to the ground in the creek fire a few years ago.

A lot of that, one of the instances that was indirectly, you mentioned the word indirectly, not directly. One of the indirect issues was someone doing some tree cutting up in a tree, right? I don' t even know if they have fire extinguishers with them while they' re on their belt up in a tree. You would think that might be a safety hazard in itself. So I realize that this needs to be addressed and that it should be closer than 25, thirty, forty feet.

And there needs to be clarity. But I do have serious concerns about the exemption for the forestry service but not rangeland. I have a serious concern about your comment about indirectly. I' m not a lawyer. I' m not a college degree.

So you're big way up on me. But, you said indirectly that the farmer's tractor caused that. What do you mean by indirectly?

What happened is the tractor became fully engulfed. Sorry.

Oh, sorry. It's okay.

The tractor became fully engulfed and the that fire was held to a very small acreage because the fire had burned so, so intensely at the tractor. Several days later, when the winds kicked up, still super heated debris from under the tractor blew out and started the mountain fire. That's why I say it was indirect.

I was just curious if Yes.

And if I made the department You have

one of those new tractors, did you do an investigation on that with the Cadillac converter, all that stuff that's on it that were required because of climate change that get overheated and can catch grass on fire? Or

That I don't know. But what I'm

told is it was actually an engine

malfunction that the engine caught fire. The engine caught fire. Actually an engine malfunction that the engine caught fire.

Engine caught fire. And so with the malfunction and the engine caught fire, can you talk to me a little bit about the criminal liability for the employer? Or the liability that I ONLY SAY CRIMINAL BECAUSE I'VE A DISTRICT ATTORNEY SITTING IN FRONT OF ME. SO IF THERE IS A RANGELAND FIERE OR SOMETHING HAPPPENS AND THERE IS A FIERE, IS THERE DOES THIS BUILD INPOST CRIMINAL LIABILITY for the individual? I mean, engine malfunction.

A lot of businesses can stop a lot of things. They can require an employee to carry a fire extinguisher on their tractor. They can hire somebody who is qualified to operate the tractor.

But if

you have an engine malfunction and it'92s out of your care custody and control, is there a criminal liability for such a situation like that? And I only ask that because you're a district attorney.

Sure. Not generally. However, if there were a standard that a fire extinguisher had to be, attached to that tractor and there was not. There would potentially be misdemeanor criminal liability for that. Now, when a business is held criminally liable for a misdemeanor, no one goes to jail.

It's a fine. And so the goal is not prosecution. The goal is compliance. And and making it clear that not just the person operating the tractor or the backhoe or whatever it may be is responsible for compliance. But the business is as well.

Ventura County is a largely agricultural economy. We have no interest in putting our farmers and ranchers out of business or making life difficult for them. We're just trying to help prevent some of these fires.

I totally get it. I understand. I'm trying to just ask those questions so that there's clarity, right? Because of the opposition on the bill. So you again, going back to the forestry exemption, if the are you willing to take the forestry exemption or same language and apply it to the to the cattlemen language?

The forestry exemption, as I recall, actually came up at the request of the Department of Forestry Okay. For timber. There was not a similar request as to range land and farmland. We're open to discussions. I am concerned about unnecessarily increasing the cost to the state agency if they have to evaluate all the different, permutations of range rangeland and farmland.

But we are open to that if the department of forestry is open to that.

Okay. So only if the department of forestry is open to it, you're gonna address the rangeland and cattle land issue?

No. We're open to discussing it, but we also need to to discuss with the Department of Forestry. If if that department were to say we don't wanna be involved in that, it might affect the discussions.

Alright. Thank you. Same commitment from the author, obviously, controlling the legislation. Absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. That's bizarre.

Just wanted to quickly add on as a member of the Appropriations Committee to high highly encourage you to consider resolving this and not not treating rangeland differently than forestry.

that that that regardless of the department's position, some equity in the the application of these new rules is gonna be important from from my perspective.

Some

So

thanks, Mister Chair.

That input. Okay. First, I wanna confirm you're taking the amendments? Yes. Okay.

Great. Well, I appreciate you working with the committee. As we discussed, this aligns different requirements across public resource code for equipment operators working on these fire prone landscapes. Obviously, we've heard concerns here about the range land. I think the committee then is to rearrange the paragraphs, I think, in the statute, make clear more easily digestible subsections to improve the implementation.

But as discussed, I think there might be further opportunities to provide additional flexibility, similar to those provided to the timber operators working on on Timberland. So I appreciate you looking at addressing those. I do have a we'll be supporting the bill here today. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion?

Senator Allen moves the bill. Would you like to close, actually?

As always, when we do bills, we want to try to make sure that they're practical, that they're Yeah. And both enforceable, clear for for the public, but also that they're practical in their application. So we look forward to continuing to work to make sure this bill meets those high standards that we should have for all good legislation. Respectfully, Astro and I vote.

Right. Again, I know this came out of very specific situation, and we need to look at and I'm I love that. Addressing the specific situation while making sure we, you know, don't have unintended consequences that we discussed. I will be supporting the bill here today. We have a motion from Senator Allen.

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

Thank you.

Senators Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Sierato, Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon?

Aye. Grove? Laird? Cern?

Three d zero? That bill will be on call. Thank you. Thank you to your witness. We'll now move to file m 21, AB 1960.

Three d zero.

AB 1960.

Thank you very much. Sure. Sure. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments. Last year marked a historic and devastating change in terms of where we are with wildfires.

AB 1960 allows CAL FIRE to fund community level hardening projects through the wildfire prevention grants. Bless you. A 2025 study mapping the impacts of home hardening demonstrated that substantial reductions in property loss are achievable when community wide mitigations are applied. This bill incentivizes homeowners to reduce risk by working together rather than one home at a time creating resilient communities.

I have no witnesses. Okay. Anyone who'd like to add on in support? We do have a few folks approaching the mic.

Christina Skurringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Thank you.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of MegaFire Action in support.

Anyone in opposition? Support. Oh, support?

Oh, good morning, Mister Chair and members. I'll let Frankel here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support.

Okay. Great.

Jeff Neal representing the Orange County Fire Authority also in support.

Excellent. Anyone in opposition? Any opposition add on? Committee. Any committee comments on 1960?

Maybe 1960? Good to hear.

That's good to hear. Okay.

We have a motion from Senator Allen. Again, this is double referred, so this will go to emergency management. Next, committee minutes which you're accepting, but will be taking up in the Senate emergency management due to legislative time constraints.

I just I'd love to just kind of commend the author for his work on fire resiliency. We've we've talked extensively over the course of the last year or two and many years, actually, on on this subject matter, and and this is just one of many. Actually, both of those bills are are are, you know, underscore the the the dedication.

And at the end of the day, the we've all had in our communities with these devastating fires, and we all know we have to do so much more to reduce our risk, and this bill these bills are part of that effort. So we look forward to voting for it.

Amen. I'll second those comments. Do we and we still have a a motion from Senator Allen. Would you like to close? I can ask for an aye vote.

Please call the roll. The motion is, in this case, to pass emergency management. Please call the roll.

Thank you. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Saratov, Allen?

Aye. Allen, aye. Cabaldon, Grove? Loud and clear. Lear, Stern.

So two zero on call.

Okay. That one is 20 on call. Alright. See, Assemblymember Carrillo? Maybe we could take that discussion.

Simmer, Ben, if you we can take that discussion off the outside, that'd be great. Simmer Carrillo, you are here for 18O8, file number 18. AB18O8. Go ahead when running.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and committee members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 18 O8. First, I would like to thank the committee Chair and his staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the amendments.

I would also like to thank the opposition, who I believe is now neutral, for their willingness to work with me on this bill to come to a solution. Let me be clear. My intent with this bill is not to undo the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. In fact, I believe I'm the only member in the legislation in the Joshua Tree range that supported the trailer bill.

And that is in part why I feel so much responsibility to make sure it works well.

The Western Joshua Tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecologically and culturally important. Western Joshua Tree span across a large portion of California's desert. I believe it is critical that we conserve such a unique and beautiful part of my district.

We need this conservation program to work, and to make it work, we need to make sure local residents who love the Joshua tree can admire and preserve the tree, while also still having the ability to do work on their own property and have safe, effective public infrastructure.

The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the department to enter into an agreement within a county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of its Western Joshua Tree associated with single family residences, multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects.

This bill has commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. Additionally, this bill will allow the department to waive fees for the removal of up to 10 trees for single family homeowners to do work on their property and up to 40 trees for maintaining existing public works. Public works put in front of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act are pieces of critical infrastructure often surrounded by the Joshua Tree, of how prominent the Joshua Tree is in my district.

Currently, any maintenance of this critical infrastructure has a high price tag, leading to delays, unnecessary improvements, and increased cost for locals who are already low income. Similarly, local homeowners who love the Yasha tree are also unable to do work on their own property without paying high fees.

Here to testify in more depth of this effect, this house of residence is former Assembly member Chad Mayes, lowest for the city of Yucca Valley.

K. Grateful of a special guest here today. Oh. Please go ahead. Several minutes two minutes from ready.

Hello. Good morning, Chair Becker and, senators. My name is Chad Mayes. I'm a contract lobbyist for the town of Yucca Valley here in support of AB 1808. As you know, this one for me is also personal.

I grew up in Yucca Valley. I served on the town council and served as mayor. This isn't a community that I just represent. It's also my home. Josh, trees are part of who we are.