Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Welcome. Good morning everybody. This is the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. And we have a very large agenda today. So in order to move things along, we are going to be doing a bit of a hybrid first come first serve, but also file order.

And some bills, may need to go, earlier. So we, we may be out of order. But we do have an author here. So he is file order number 20, AB 2218. Assembly member Kalra. So we will invite him forward to present.

Good morning. Thank you madam Chair, for allowing me the opportunity, to present. And I I wanna start by thanking the Chair and staff of the Senate natural resources and water committee for work as we develop amendment language to this bill. And I wanna thank you madam Chair and your staff for allowing me to accept these amendments today. Since time immemorial, indigenous communities have lived and grown in the region we now call California.

As the original stewards of the land, they had developed a deep and comprehensive understanding of its complex ecological systems, including its vital watersheds. However, Western colonization led to widespread land seizures that deprive tribes of the traditional water resources and watershed management practices. This will lay the groundwork for a water right system that continues to exclude tribes to this day.

Although state agencies have worked to engage tribes on water issues, their impact has been limited by a lack of statutory authority, statutory authority to respond to water related inequities. This means that work being done now can easily be reversed in the future.

In light of these limitations, AB 2218 establishes a state policy of recognizing and addressing water related inequities perpetrated against tries by state sanctioned actions. This bill also requires a specific set of state agencies including CNRA, the State Water Board, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to implement this policy when they revise, adopt, or establish policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria to address inequities.

By ensuring that agencies can respectfully and effectively address long standing harms against indigenous communities, AB 2218 will help the state and sovereign tribes work together to protect the water resources that give us all life. With me to provide supporting testimony are Scott Quinn, council member of the Karuk tribe, and Melissa Tayaba, vice Chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

You're welcome to come forward.

And I see, madam vice Chair here. I'm not sure if, other witness is not here, because the kindness of the Chair let us go so quickly, but we'll have our witness that is here, speaking. Thank you.

You're welcome to come forward to the microphone here and you have two minutes. You're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you. Hello. My name is Melissa Tayaba. I am the vice Chair of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. My tribe was displaced from our ancestral villages along the Sacramento River and Delta waterways, but we have not and will not abandon our role as guardians of the water.

We are distressed by the degraded conditions in our rivers, which impact the ability of our people to maintain culture, tradition, and food sovereignty. We've also heard similar concerns from other tribes and determined that current state efforts to protect tribal beneficial water uses are insufficient. Which is why we are cosponsoring AB 2218 with the Karuk tribe. I would like my children and their children and the generations that come after to maintain our cultural traditions.

Those traditions require healthy waterways that support fish, plants, and other organisms.

I want them to live in a society where their voice and their knowledge as indigenous people is valued in governmental decisions about land and water management. I want our waterways of life to have equal protection as other water uses under the law. AB 2218 would codify the need for tribal water rights and practices to be incorporated into state policies.

As this bill has moved forward, we have worked with the Assembly, water parks and wildlife committee, and the committee to develop amendments that ensure the bill requires specific actions from designated state agencies. We've also accepted response reasonable request from opposition to use terminology consistent with existing regulatory language.

However, we have not agreed to changes that would undermine the intent of the bill, which is to give us a seat at the table and codify commitments made via ex executive and agency action into law. Righting past wrongs requires systemic change. This bill creates the foundation for that change in the water space. I respectfully ask for your a vote.

Great. Thank you. You also have two minutes. You're welcome to begin when ready.

Hi, Ki. My name is Scott Quinn. I'm with the Kootoo Tribal Council. The colonization displacement and genocide of our people in California contribute to the loss of water resources and watershed management practices that support our traditional food sources and ways of life. California's water rights system, based on the first time, first in right principle, has historically overlooked the true first inhabitants of this land and original water users, California Native Americans.

This complete oversight coupled with state sponsored actions that removed Native Americans from their lands and their waters has systematically excluded tribal nations from crucial decision making processes concerning our state waterways. AB 2,218 provides legitimate statutory basis to advance policies that respond to historical harm. Twenty two eighteen does not ask the State Water Board to do something foreign to its mission. The Water Board already has a tribal consultation policy. It already has racial equity resolution.

California already has a government to government constitution consultation act. What AB 2218 does is put those commitments on firmer legal ground and water rights context where the exclusion of tribes has done enormous damage to our people, our fisheries, and our rivers. For too long, California water decisions have treated tribes as stakeholders after the fact, rather than sovereign governments with ancestral, cultural, ecological and legal interests for the waters at issue.

AB 2018 helps correct that by aligning state water law with the consultation and equity principles the state already has adopted. This bill is not about changing the trajectory of California agencies.

It's about making sure the trajectory continues with clarity, accountability and respect. On behalf of the tribe, I respectfully ask for your a vote on AB 53.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. If there are other people in the room who would like to express their support, you're welcome to come forward to the only your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. Alex Loomer on behalf of the Ramamucha Tribe of San Francisco Peninsula, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Environmental Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Trust for Public Land all in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Lauren Navarro from Sustainable Conservation here in support.

Good morning. Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, the Water Foundation, and Audubon, California in strong support.

Barry Nelson, Golden State Salmon Association in strong support.

Kyle Jones, registering support for Community Alliance of Family Farmers, Clean Water Action, California Institute for Biodiversity, Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, all in support. Thank you.

Hi. Mikaela Marquez on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper in strong support.

Good morning. Katie Hawkins with Trout Unlimited and Cal Trout in strong support.

Sean Bothwell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance in strong support.

Good morning. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League in strong support.

Cynthia Cortez on behalf of Restore the Delta, California Sports Fishing Protection Alliance, Endangered Habitats League, and Center for Environmental Health in support.

Scott Webb, on behalf of Resource Mill Institute, Mono Lake Committee, Save the Bay, Save California Salmon, Mid Claims Watershed Council, and Friends of the River in strong support.

Good morning. Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in strong support. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Now we are inviting up lead witnesses in opposition to this bill. You're welcome to come forward and each of you have two minutes.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Members. Well, no Members, but Chair. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA represents over 86 public agencies that serve water, wastewater, electric and gas service in California. We are respectfully opposed to AB 2218 because the bill calls into question water supply reliability for millions of Californians.

We recognize the bill is intended to give tribes a seat at the table, and we really agree with that notion. We want tribes to be part of the decision making process. However, AB 2218 does more than gives tribes a seat at the table. If this were simply a consultation bill or a bill that codified existing practices into statute, we would not be opposed. The sponsors and authors have acknowledged to us an intention to upend existing and future water rights practices.

The inclusion of the word permits in the bill and the testimony you just heard says as much. We are very concerned this bill does more than its stated purpose. The bill will likely impact a wide range of water projects. The vague and seemingly far reaching impact of the bill make it difficult to ascertain the nature and magnitude of its impact on water supply. What is clear is that the uncertain impacts results in an uncertain supply for projects that can range from recycled water to potable reuse to the state water project.

In fact, the policy will touch pretty much every decision made by the State Water Board or one of the natural resources agencies. That means that every bill considered in this committee requiring water board or CNRA action is going to have to be reinterpreted by a regulator through the lens of AB 2218. How will inequities be addressed when these projects receive approvals? Which regulatory mechanism applicable to these projects will be used to compel state agencies to address those inequities?

The bill answers neither question and we believe the impact will fall across the spectrum. We don't know what that means for big or small project viability across the state. AB 2218 is too vague to adequately and fairly track implementation. Some certainty is needed to implement any state policy to avoid litigating every phrase and term.

According to the sponsors and as stated in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis, it would be up to the tribe to determine whether a state agency has probably addressed past inequities when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, permits, or grant criteria. The proposed amendments to include a mediation process do not change that outcome.

Because if a tribe feels that a state agency has not properly implemented the bill, tribe could still challenge that state agency action in court after the mediation process. State agencies acting in good faith to address inequities would depend on a subjective determination by the impacted tribe or tribes. Given the bill's vagueness and the unfettered access tribes will have to challenge every decision, we can only assume the bill will be bad for statewide and regional projects.

Ma'am, you need to wrap up.

We strongly urge your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. My name is Amber. I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. We've had an opposed unless amended position on the bill since it was introduced. From the beginning, our amendments mirrored language that's already in existing law and from similar types of policies.

For example, the governor's executive orders include guardrails that make clear they're not enforceable against the state or its agencies. Likewise, the human right to water law uses the word consider and explicitly says implementation can't infringe on the rights and responsibilities of public water systems.

We believed the amendments to be reasonable because they reflected an approach that's already been taken in California state policy. Since then, the bill has changed. And with the amendments being taken in this committee, it appears that any disagreement would now be elevated to a mediator by raising issues to the Office of Tribal Affairs. That raises even more questions for us about what implementation is expected to look like. As written, the bill directs 29 different entities to implement this policy, but it doesn't provide implementation guidelines or measurable outcomes.

That includes agencies like Cal Fire, the California Coastal Commission, the California Energy Commission, and even the California Science Center. The committee analysis says agencies would have discretion in identifying inequities, but that discretion isn't in the bill's text. So our question is, who ultimately decides whether those inequities have been adequately addressed, especially when agencies are balancing competing priorities during droughts, emergencies, or other critical situations?

For example, the bill includes the word permits. During a severe drought or wildfire emergency, the State Water Resources Control Board may approve a temporary emergency change or emergency water diversion to provide drinking water or support firefighting. How would AB 2218 be implemented in that situation?

If the California Energy Commission needs to issue a permit for a renewable energy facility, how does this bill align with the existing tribal engagement consultation processes? We wanna be clear. We support addressing inequities. Our concern is that AB 2218 does not acknowledge an existing framework that's in place to address these issues. For those reasons, we ask for your no vote to to today. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express your opposition to the bill? Please come to the microphone, state your name, the organization you represent, and your position.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Kris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Biering, California Farm Bureau, also in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Beth Olhasso on behalf of the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund, Western Municipal Water District, Mojave Water Agency, and Western Growers Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Corona in respectful opposition.

Taylor Triffo on behalf of variety of agricultural associations in opposition.

Chloe Hsieh on behalf of California Environmental Voters. We're actually in strong support. Thank you.

Brittney Barsotti on behalf of California Special Districts Association.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee of one. And I'll just say thank you, Assembly Member Kalra, for bringing this policy forward. It is important that we recognize our history in this state and the actions that have negatively impacted Native American tribes.

This policy is a step toward recognizing where inequities still exist in the water policy space and then doing what we can to address them. The bill also issues a formal apology to California Native American tribes and declares it the policy of the state to recognize and address identified inequities regarding access to and control over water caused by harmful state sanctioned acts.

It requires a set of state agencies, which include the State Water Board and the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, to implement this policy in their in the policies that they adopt. The opposition, as was just expressed, is concerned that this policy creates uncertainty for the programs within the state agencies. But it does seem clear to me that the state agencies have discretion in how the policy is implemented.

And there's always a balance between how prescriptive legislation is and how much we leave it to state agencies to determine the policies that they adopt. So, I'm sure there is much more to come on this topic. But I just wanna thank the author for bringing it forward and for the engagement. So with that, I'll turn it back to you to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your insightful comments and support of this legislation. The issues that you referred to and have been mentioned during some of the witness testimony were of grave concern when this bill went to the very first policy committee, and we'll be working with Chair Papan at the time to ensure that the authority and control of the water agencies in the state is not usurped usurped by the tribes, but rather is truly a consultation bill that gives a genuine seat at the table.

That's where we've arrived at. And I really appreciate the the tribes, not just the sponsor tribes, but other folks in the tribal community that have recognized the need not to have a seat at the table, but not to be able to take that ultimate decision making power away from the agencies. That's not the goal. The goal is to have a seat at the table when that seat has for so long not been given.

And we're at a really critical and I think important and a very special time I think in the relationship between the state of California and our tribes. Thanks to our governor, thanks to the legislature that has not just made recognitions but actually taken action to acknowledge past wrongs and ensure that going forward we don't repeat those wrongs again. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. Well, thank you. At the appropriate time, we will vote. Thank you.

Next we have Assemblymember Gibson. This is AB 1795 as file item number one.

Welcome.

Thank you.

You're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you very much, madam Chair and staff. I wanna start off by accepting the committee's amendments, and I want to thank the committee and the Chair for their work on this this bill. Assembly bill 1795 established a uniform statewide standard for inspections, for testing, and remediation of residential property damage by smoke exposure for wildfires. California has experienced record breaking wildfires, including the devastation of the Eden and Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left many contaminated by smoke and other hazardous substances.

Smoke damage is a crisis for thousands of wildfire survivors who are afraid to go home because of toxic contaminations.

Right now, there are no consistent or enforceable standards for how smoke damage should be treated or clean. As a result, many survivors see their see their insurance claims, delayed, reduced, or denied altogether. After wildfire, recoveries should not be be dependent on home homeowners' ability to navigate complex insurance, disruptions while their lives is already turned upside down. Insurance companies are required to restore homes to their pre loss conditions. But without clear rules, that process is inconsistent and often unfair.

Today, there are no minimum requirements for how homes are inspected, how smoke contamination is tested, when a home is considered safe, or who is qualified to do the work. With the absence of these standards and inconsistent insurance practices, homeowners or or tenants face face face these difficulties and have a hard time reentering their home.

This bill would create a comprehensive statewide framework to ensure consistency, science based handling of smoke damage claims by establishing a science based health driven standard for inspections, testing, and and restoration of smoke damage homes, creating a uniform insurance claim handling practice and require restoration protocols, developing a health based, guidelines to determine when a home is safe for families to return back to their homes. Designating the appropriate state and local agencies to implement and enforce these standards.

Provide immediate relief by allowing survivors to to reply on local public health agencies, a standards for smoke testing and restorations while statewide standards are being finalized.

California would be the first state to create a standard base on public health and science serving the nations as a model. Assembly bill 1795 established clear standards and rules so homeowners and are protected and survivors are safely able to move back home to a restored home that are safe from health risk. With me to provide supporting testimonies and individual self introduced is a deputy commissioner for consumer services with the Department of Insurance and the deputy, insurance commissioner in the Department of Insurance.

Good morning. Chair Blake Spearman, members of the committee, Josephine Figueroa, deputy commissioner and legislative director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara. Commissioner Lara is a proud sponsor of AB 1795, a bill that finally brings statewide clarity, consistency, and accountability the way smoke damage claims are inspected, tested, and reme remediated after wildfire.

On behalf of the commissioner, I want to thank Assemblymember Gibson for authoring this important bill which establishes enforceable standards to smoke damage claims, protecting families who have been left navigating inconsistent and often inadequate insurer practices. I'd also like to state that department remains committed to continuing to work with all stakeholder as the bill moves forward.

Department values the expertise and perspective of survivors, insurers, environmental health professionals, and community organizations. And we will keep engaging closely with them to refine and strengthen this framework. California wildfire is now year round. Fires are larger, faster, larger, faster, and more destructive than ever. The Eaton Fire in Altadena and the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades alone destroyed or damaged more than 16,000 homes.

These two spires are fundamentally different from what California has historically experienced. They were not remote forest fires. They were two of the largest and most destructive urban interface fires in our state's history. They burned directly through to dense neighborhoods, exposing thousands of homes to unprecedented levels of smokes, soot, ash, and toxic combustion byproducts. We have never seen smoke damage of this magnitude in an urban setting.

The scale and proximity of these fires created indoor contamination that survivors ensures any environmental health experts have struggled to assess because no statewide standard exists. Today, California has no enforceable statewide standards for testing or remediation smoke damage. As a result, survivors face inconsistent claims handling, denials, and disputes over what must be treat tested, what levels are safe, and when a home is habitable. To address this, commissioner Lada convened a smoke smoke claims remediation task force last summer. Bringing together advocates, industrial hygienists.

Ma'am, sorry but you're gonna

call me to wrap up. It's.

I'll be a minute. Thank you. And on behalf of insurance commissioner Gallata, I'd like to ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair, Tony Singarelli, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Insurance. I'm here to answer any technical questions that may come up.

Okay, so no, no testimony. Okay. Thank you. Well now we'll go to those in the room who are wishing to express support for this bill. Please come forward and state your name, the organization you represent, and your position.

Nobody in the room? Okay. We will now go to the opposition. If you'd like to come forward. You each have two minutes.

Nobody in the room? Okay. We will now go to the opposition. If you'd like to come forward. You each have two minutes.

You're welcome to begin when ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair, member of the committee. Allison Eady on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. AB 1795 is an enormous bill, one that tackles a very challenging and complex issue. We're currently in an oppose unless amended position while we continue to iron out operational issues with the bill, particularly around the potential cost and the clarification on legal standards. The industry agrees that greater clarity around remediation standards and the expectations for them are needed in the smoke claims realm.

It's an area that has ballooned in numerosity and severity over recent years. This is why both PIF and APCIA participated in CDI smoke claims task force last year. Understanding the importance of a thorough investigation of all aspects of this emerging problem. Based on those prior discussions and the continued collaboration around this bill, we believe there are real and achievable solutions to our continued concerns. We have not yet reached concrete solutions, but we are hopeful that we're near the that point.

Though should these not be resolved, however, it is essential to know that this bill has the potential to drastically increase the cost insurance across the state for all policy holders. It's for that reason that we're grateful to the author and CDI for their continued commitment to addressing this problem. As I said, smoke is a complicated and technical issue. One that is inherently emotionally charged given the catastrophic events of last year's LA fires. However, solutions based in emotion do not result in thoughtful long term solutions.

It's essential that the solution to this problem is not a response only unique to the situation of one fire, but consider the statewide impact and application in the future. The author has pulled together various stakeholders to engage a comprehensive conversation. This is the only way we'll reach a meaningful and lasting solution. Again, we appreciate the ongoing conversations with the author and the department and are hopeful that we can reach a resolution soon.

Chair, vice Chair, and members of the committee, thank you. My name is Jane Lawton, Hotel with Eaton Fire Residents United representing more than 4,000 residents whose homes survived the Eaton and Palisades fires but were and continue to be contaminated by toxic debris. We all agree on what AB 1795 should do. Set science based, health based standards for when a home is safe to reoccupy after a wildland urban interface fire.

Smoke contamination is a public health and safety issue, not a matter of perception and is documented by science and is covered under current California law.

That is why this bill matters and why it, must be written to deliver real protections for fire survivors. Insurers already have a legal duty to investigate covered losses and restore homes to pre loss condition. That obligation isn't new. What's broken though is the enforcement. Carriers have delayed restricted testing and dodged responsibilities they already owe.

This bill doesn't create new liability. In fact, demands the existing liability finally be met consistently, promptly, and with real science. Three weeks ago, on the Assembly floor, the author agreed to take three critical amendments. We have seen no progress and these issues remain unresolved. Furthermore, AB 1795 still references trade and industry standards for determining when a home is safe to inhabit.

The industry body behind those standards told the legislature in writing on March 7 that it does not yet have these standards for WUI disasters. Science based protection cannot rest on standards that do not exist. Additionally, the bill's protections only switch on for policies issued, amended, or renewed after AB 1795 takes effect.

A homeowner whose policy renews just before the law takes effect could be hit by the exact same fire as a neighbor whose renews just after and receive no protection at all simply due to the timing. Let me be clear.

This is not about retroactivity. It is about closing a gap so that a family's protection depends on the fire they survive, not the paperwork cycle of their policy. Finally, until 2028, insurers can send their own contracted vendors to clear a home with no disclosure requirement. Homeowners need transparency now. We have engaged at every stage in good faith.

We ask this committee to hold AB 1795 until these critical deficiencies are addressed. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward and express opposition, please state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Danny Ritter with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association aligning my comments with, my colleague from the Personal Insurance Federation urging opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and member. Kim Stone, on behalf of Consumer Watchdog and, a group, coalition all in an a very respectful oppose unless amended position.

Three zero one Organics, 350 Conejo, San Fernando Valley, 350 South Bay, Los Angeles, 350 South Land Legislative Alliance, AAM Eaton Fire Recovery Advocates, Ban SUP, Civic Sundays, Clergy Community Coalition, Dina Rise Up, Eaton Fire Collaborative, Eaton Fire Renters Coalition, End Child Poverty California, Green Faith, Hello Claire Inc, Holly Wyman Design, Joan Collaborative, LA Voice, Leap of Faith, Family to Family Support, Little Tokyo Service Center, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, Mave, Mount Washington, Glassell Park, McCain Consulting Services, My Tribe Rise, Pacific Film Foundation, Pasadena's Organizing for Progress, Resilient Palisades, San Diego three fifty, Sonoma County Climate Activist Network, and 484 individuals whose names I I won't read.

I promise.

That's a long list, miss Stone. Thank you.

Good morning. Sherry McHugh representing the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, oppose unless amended, and look forward to continuing to work with the author. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and member Cleo Bluthenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation in a respectful oppose unless amended position.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? No? Okay.

Well Assemblymember Gibson, I wanna thank you for your work to address the many challenges that have arisen from the aftermath of the LA fires and beyond. It's really important that we address this with the right framework and protections for those who are impacted and also for industry. I appreciate the work you're doing to address many of the outstanding concerns coming from impacted communities.

And I hope to see more done to ensure that we are being protective given the various experiences of wildfire survivors that have been shared with us. As Chair of the EQ Committee, I wanna acknowledge that we are primarily focused on the health and safety aspects of this.

But we also recognize the broader implications of this work. I'm aware that we will be hearing a very similar bill next. The author is in the room. And there may be some duplications under Cal EPA, which I'm concerned about. For very practical reasons, it seems there will need to be some reconciling of overlapping issues and work under the agency that we oversee.

And I also understand that there are concerns with how the standards in both bills will apply in the context of insurance. Going forward, I hope to see a commitment from you, and, Assembly Member Harabedian about resolving the issues that remain to make sure that we are appropriately responding to the impacts of such fires and ensuring that we are using our state resources responsibly.

So today, I will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to seeing how this bill evolves and complements the other bill and addresses the very important issues that you're tackling here. So with that I'll turn it over to my colleague, Senator Menjivar to make any comments or questions.

Thank you. Similar to the chair's point and I appreciate that the other author is here too, so I don't have to repeat myself. I think both of these bills can't exist this way they aren't and get to the Senate floor. I would have hoped that for the last policy committee, we would have had an agreement on how to move forward with the bills that are in duplicative.

But I do know that this bill at least had went through the insurance committee, and had conversations with the trades.

So I do appreciate at least this this this bill that is impacting the trades actually had them at the at the table. So I I recognize at least, and with your bill, you were able to have those conversations there. But as I remember, in the previous insurance committee, I asked you a couple questions and the opposition seems to have the exact same concerns that haven't been addressed yet. So I'd like for you to go over, two two particular things.

The things that you committed to on the Assembly floor, you know, our word is very important and it's been a while now since the Assembly floor that you've gone through policy committees.

And I don't think saying I'm still committed to have conversations is good enough now. So I'd like to hear a little bit more about, some of those commitments. I also asked an insurance committee regarding, the concern that this is only gonna impact or help those who change or alter their policies. After this goes into effect, you said that that's not the case, but opposition brought that up again today.

So I think I need further clarity because I last last week, I was told that that wasn't the case, but they're continuing to bring it up.

So if you can address some of those things, again, because I said a lot, what you committed to on Assembly four. My question regarding this only being, I guess, prospective in a way that only if you alter your policy once this goes into effect. And the last thing I'll throw at you is this the analysis you know, I'll I'll go back to my third question. I'll start there.

So thank you very much for the question. We're we're working with a big coalition and we actually just even recently met. So we're working with a big coalition and I still stand by what my commitment was to take in the issue about asbestos and also lead. And so we're working and working over the summer to bring, again, still with the coalition to making sure that there are, and I want to also work, refer to my, the technical, person is here, on behalf of the insurance commissioner.

We have a a huge coalition.

We're trying to make sure we get this right. Right? As was say as was mentioned, this is a this is a big bill that will set a national standard for how we deal with smoke damage, and we wanna make sure that we get it right. And there's a lot of complexities to this particular I made a commitment and I still stand by the commitment.

But we wanna make sure we get it right and make sure that one, all the stakeholders, because it's a big coalition, is a coalition with insurance carriers.

It's with with the EPA, with the fire marshal, and the whole nine yards. And we bring those individuals together, and we have scientists and science based that's part of it. We just can't just put the amendments that's in it and make it making sure that we do it right. And so I stand by that and it's gonna be added to it.

But we wanna make sure that when we do it, that we do it with the, with the intense very specifics, with the insurance commission, with the, insurance industry.

And we wanna make sure that we add everything that we need to add into it all at once.

Where are your what are your current thoughts right now on the presumption? I know the analysis talked about, the rebuttal I wanna defer

yes. I wanna defer to the technical.

Yeah. Madam Chair or madam Chair, Senator, Tony Ciccarelli, Department of Insurance. To add on to Assemblymember Gibson's response, I mean, the timing of those meetings with regard to three issues that the author committed to is well known by both authors of both bills, including the other the administration that's involved in the timing of these meetings and resolving these issues, these three issues that we're committed to. And so everyone that's involved in this is aware of it.

And so the timing is already the other the other author of the sixteen forty two is aware of the timing of this bill of the three issues.

With regard to the presumption, that's one of the three issues that was agreed to be discussed. The presumption in 1795, there was a presumption in 1795 with regard to impact zones that was removed by Assembly Insurance. However, having said that, with regard to a presumption, which we're still having conversations on, a presumption is not necessary with regard to the way 1795 is structured at this time. It's essentially a mandate.

If your home is within the impact zone, it's a mandate to follow the standards and requirements developed by Cal EPA.

So while we're willing to talk about our presumption, you know, we have several questions from, you know, the other author with regard to what they mean by presumption, presumption of what. But we're happy to talk about a presumption. We're not opposed to a presumption. It's just a question of if it's necessary for the way this bill is structured, we're happy to entertain that.

And then can we put on the record clarity for the opposition on who will

be eligible for this? Yes. The everybody every policy holder whose policy is in effect once the standards and requirements are in place will be able to receive the protections in 1795.

Regardless if it's renewed before or after the bill?

Well, correct. And and this in a couple of senses. First, this is standard language that that I believe Ledge Council may have placed into, you know, almost all the insurance codes provisions where changes are made to to many of those provisions. This is the first we're hearing about it being an issue. It's been in the bill since March.

No, it's tried up in the last Right. But it's been in the bill since March, but last week was the first time we heard about this issue. This is it's a relatively easy issue to resolve if there is a reason to put express language with regard to any any claim that's that occurs after the effective date of the, the bill is perfectly fine for us to to consider.

The timing of the renewals and and the transactional amount is essentially moot in the sense that the standards and requirements by Cal EPA, by the time that those are enacted into regulation, there will be no issue with regard to those transactional dates. I just wanna and I'll come

back to you. I just wanna make sure because this was brought up last week and it just sounds like we're gonna go back and look to confirm. I wish we would have looked to confirm in this past week to have a better answer. I just got the same exact response that I got last week. I I just want clarity.

Yeah.

And it's not a matter of confirming. It's it's a matter of that's what's in the bill. It's it's it is protective of all policy holders that will have a claim after the standards and requirements are in place. It's moot basically as of those transactional issues. However, as we get through these discussions, amending, making a simple amendment to expressly state that is perfectly fine.

Through the Chair, if I could go to the opposition. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you for addressing this because it is it is important. We are looking at trying to create some protections until EPA creates those standards. Right? So we've got a good year until that happens, from from, what, yesterday.

So we need to make sure that if there is a fire in the interim, that those people who have, renewed their policies prior to the bill actually passing still have protections. Because otherwise, a homeowner who renews their policy, now and then the bill passes and then a fire happens in October, we are concerned that they will not get the same coverage as someone who renews their policy after the bill passes and then the fire happens. Right?

So there's a pocket of people that we are concerned about whether or not they're gonna get adequate coverage even if they have the same policy. So thank you for addressing this.

I hope we can continue conversations. I just wanna also address the fact that I appreciate these commitments that have been made. We are concerned whether or not that the language in those commitments and we haven't seen them yet. We're concerned whether or not they will meet what it is that we're trying to ask for, having met. Whether or not they will be effectual in the way that we are that we are asking them to be.

So that's why it's important for us to be able to see that language before time runs out on this bill. But I do appreciate there is a large committee behind this working with you and and I'm excited to hear that. The last thing I'll say about that is that sorry. So many thoughts running through my head. The presumption is really important.

It is really, really important. And so if if people don't people are litigating with their insurance companies over every single contaminant that's being found in the wildfire debris. And if we don't have that presumption in there, it it's gonna be considerably concerning for our community. We did provide language for all three of these commitments to your office and, to EQ, to review. So I just wanna put that out there that, you know, we have language presented.

So if you're having trouble finding language, I hope you will review that. Thank you.

The other thing

I would say on the other side is the industry concerns that I think are also very important and most of those questions that I have are gonna be for the next bill because the presumption isn't there. I do recognize that there's cost and there's ability to abuse, if I'm not mistaken That and the cost concerns. So, it's a really wonderful ballet balance you're doing here. Or, not ballet, but you know what I mean.

Of trying to both provide relief to fire survivors, but the concern of the trades of landing this in a place that doesn't increase the cost dramatically.

I I see the willingness in this conversation to keep going. Again, I would just reiterate, I wish these bills would have landed before. And I'll just say now that allowing the bills to go out to continue these conversations, we'll continue to do that. But on the floor, I'm really hoping that we don't have the same scenario that we're in right now. Because I think that's gonna be really hard for members to vote on on on both those bills.

But hopefully, in in the next month, while we're on vacation, you're continuing to work, to address these issues.

Thank you. And I mean, I'll just ask you kind of the open ended question of how do you see these two bills harmonizing? Do you see areas where that could happen?

Well, like I said before and I can I'll continue to say this. You know, I support Mister Harabedian bill. I support my bill, and I see both of these bill ending up on the governor's desk. I see this I see both of these bills supporting and wrapping its arms around, California's because California will continue to have wildfires.

And I see both of these bills supporting and getting the maximum support for California's, residents and having maximum support to making sure that no one falls through the cracks and they get receive the maximum support.

That's, what I've always said and will continue to say moving forward. I honor, Mister Harabedian, and his leadership supporting his residents. And and for me, I'm being selfish. I've also have relatives, who have lost great deal, who lost everything, in this fire. So I'm championing my family who has lost everything.

So I'm not immune, to this. It has reached my family as well. So I am championing their loss, their their dreams, and everything has been lost as well. I wanna make sure that no one will ever sub I have visited not only my family's loss, but also walked into a home who have suffered smoke damage, who family cannot return back to their hundred year home because they can no longer go back and have dinners, Christmas. Their home is riddled with smoke.

I had to wear I felt like a marshmallow moon walking into with a spacesuit, you know, and my heart just bled because their family can no longer, you know, live and sleep in that house. So the I'm not just carrying a bill just we're setting a standard. When when the governor affix his signature on a piece of legislation, hopefully, it's two pieces of legislation, that the rest of the nation will follow what California does.

So we're walking through this methodically, strategically because what we do, everyone will follow what California does and we wanna make sure we get it right. And so to the to the witness who spoke in opposition, yes, I'm taking my damn time.

I'm taking my time to make sure we get it right. There's conversation taking place. And when I stood on the green carpet on the floor, I made a commitment and no one in this damn place could ever say that I have gone back on anything that I've ever said because I made it my business to making sure that I make promises that I can keep.

And I wanna make it very clear that I made a promise and I made three very specific promises that I'm gonna stand by because I am the author. I own this bill.

No one else does. There's a sponsor, but I own this bill and I wanna make it very clear. So as we walk through this bill, as we walk through this bill, we're walking through it very carefully to making sure that residents of state of California are back protected. And all the stakeholders that we will meet with and continue to meet with, that we wanna make sure that we hear their voices. That's part of this process because this will be the model moving forward.

Okay. Well, thank you. That was a rousing close. If that was your close. It was.

Okay. Thank you. Well, I appreciate your, your hard work on this. I do think that there is, ongoing hard work to do because the two bills do duplicate each other. So, of course, there are many different scenarios if, if both bills do survive and make it through, ideally they would have, they would serve distinct purposes.

So they wouldn't be having the overlap. And that would mean there would need to be some shedding of certain parts of the bills in order for that to happen. But both bills could also merge to create a workable compromise. So, so we'll all be, waiting to see what happens. So with that, when we get a quorum, we will go ahead and vote.

And thank you again.

I respect the yes

when I vote. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next we have Assembly member Harabedian.

This is number - file item number two, AB 1642.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you senators. I would like to first start by saying I accept the committee amendments summarized on comment eight of the analysis. Thank you to the committee and the staff for the work. It was a very long analysis.

It was very well written. So, I appreciate all the time that went into it. AB 1642 is really as complicated as it seems; it came from a simple idea. When when the fires ravaged my community, the Eaton Fire in Altadena, we heard over and over again residents asking whether it was safe to return to their to their homes, to their schools, and to their places of work. And this came up over and over again.

And people were confused. Parents were worried about their kids moving back into a home that could be contaminated. And furthermore, going back to schools that could be contaminated. And what we shockingly found very quickly was there were no standards. There were no testing standards, public health standards that actually define when it is safe to go back to places of work, home, or school, after an urban wildfire.

That is shocking to me because of how many wildfires we have had in the urban setting. And so, the simple idea with this bill was always just to set testing and clearance standards. Make it very clear: when a fire occurs, when is it safe to return home? The reason why this is so important, and the previous author spoke about in his bill is, we now have thousands of people who have been told different things about whether it's safe or not.

You have expose after expose in the LA Times, in the New York Times, in different publications that have now chronicled how dozens of families have been told by certain entities, whether it's their insurance company, whether it's their schools, that it is safe to return.

They do their own independent testing and it is clear that it is not safe. Post remediation homes was 60 times the amount of lead, that is safe for a human to live in. And so, what this bill really does, I think, and there's gonna be a lot of questions and happy to get into all of it, is complement what 1795 is doing. That is specifically a smoke, a smoke claim bill that only dealt deals with residences.

This bill deals much broad, much more broadly, but is also much more narrow and tailored.

It's broader in that it deals not just with residences, but again, with commercial settings and schools, And it also is much more specific in just setting testing and clearance standards. I think that one thing that we should just completely be honest about is there is more work to be done. No one here, including Mister Gibson, is going to say that these are completely done. I think getting out of this committee, if we are so lucky to do that, we are committed to continue every week.

It's probably gonna be every day at this point, meeting with his office, meeting with CDI, meeting with survivors to make sure that both of these bills are complementary because I think that they can be and that they get to a place where they are not duplicative.

Because as the Chair said, we do not want duplicative legislation. It's not a good use of all of our time. But as we know, legislating is not perfect. And we we have both tried to I think, push bills that do slightly different things, but do it in a concrete way. So, ultimately, again, I think that this is a health and safety bill.

It's really just to set safe to occupy standards, that reach every context when someone is trying to return to their community. And again, we want scientists and public health officials setting those standards: period. And, we have heard about the presumption. We will get more into that. I continue to work on the presumption to make sure it's actually workable for everyone.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today are witnesses Audy Vasquez Ramirez. She's with Eaton Fire Residents United who's a sponsor of this bill. And also Doctor Theo Takai with Caltech University.

Okay. You're both welcome to come forward. We each have two minutes and you're welcome to begin when ready.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Theo Tacail. I'm a geochemist at Caltech in the group of Professor François Tissot. Our research group uses specialized instruments to measure concentrations of elements in samples. Immediately after the Eaton Fire, we found very little information to assess the risk of returning to potentially contaminated houses.

Our group, many of whom were displaced by the fire, therefore started working on this problem. I led a team that worked with local residents to collect and analyze more than 300 samples from 52 homes in the region. And we studied the composition of dust found inside homes and structures and measured the concentrations of most metals including lead.

Our results revealed high levels of heavy metals and particularly lead in the dust collected in standing homes in Altadena, but also much farther than expected, including as far away as seven miles downwind of the burn area. Contamination was highest near entry points, such as windows and doors, and even after cleaning about 10% of surfaces still tested above EPA limits.

An overabundance of evidence from thousands of studies shows that lead exposure has dramatic health effects, especially for children. At high levels, lead exposure is lethal. At lower levels, it results in impaired cognitive development, skeletal issues, and cardiovascular issues. We also observed elevated levels of other heavy metals such as antimony, zinc, cadmium, chromium, and arsenic in the burn area, but also downwind. Each of these metals has its own impact on the human body.

Arsenic is a potent carcinogen. Cadmium causes damage to the kidneys, lungs, and bones and so on. This research shows that we have a major gap in the risk assessment and remediation of smoke damage by urban fires and wildland urban interface fires or WI fires. First, we lack established standards for clearance for many of the toxic contaminants released by the fire.

And second, even for lead, which has clearly established clearance guidelines, the Eaton Fire has revealed a lack of clarity over when testing should be required. These issues have endangered the local community and highlight the need for a clear science based response protocol following WI and urban fires, where the fire fuel contains such toxic materials. AB 1642 provides such a framework, and I respectfully urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. And you're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair, Member of the Committee, and Assembly Member Harabedian. I am Audy Vasquez Ramirez, an Eaton Fire survivor from Altadena and a member of the Eaton Fire Residents United. Before the fire, my health was completely different. Since returning to the affected area, my respiratory, my respiratory health has been compromised after repeated exposure to dust, ash, soot, and environmental contaminants.

When I return to inventory my belongings, I unknowingly exposed myself over and over again every time I lifted clothing, furniture, or personal items to photograph them. I also I was also breathing in contaminated dust and ash. I went to the emergency room more than seven times for respiratory problems, and I was hospitalized for five days as a result. In fact, I'm currently experiencing another flare up this week, which is why you may hear me coughing today. This is not only about me.

My two and three year old grandchildren are exposed every day in this environment because many families like ours do not have another safe place to go. Since living in this environment, my grandchildren frequently cough and experience other symptoms from contamination. Those are only the short term health impacts. Based on similar example, we know that there may be the long term serious health consequences for children. Children should not have to live this way after a disaster.

Even after all available remediation, the efforts were exhausted. My home continue testing positive for lead. That show me that a home can look clean and is still not safe. As demolition, digging, hauling, and rebuilding continue, fine particles and contaminated dust is put into an air again and again. For families like mine, the disaster did not end with the flames. It went out when the flames went out. That's why I respectfully urge you to vote yes on AB 1642. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your story. Others in the room in support, please come forward to the microphone, and you can express your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. Cleo Bluthenthal on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Thank you. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Good morning. Chloe Hsieh on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support.

Good morning. Kim Stone for Consumer Watchdog and a bunch of others. 350 Conejo San Fernando Valley, 350 South Bay Los Angeles, 350 Southland Legislative Alliance, 805 UndocuFund, AAM Eaton Fire Recovery Advocates, After the Fire, Altadena ACT, Altadena CoLab, Altadena Community Land Trust, Altadena Earthseed Community Land Trust.

Altadena NAACP, Altadena Recovery Team, Altadena Tenants Union, Altagether, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action, Beautiful Altadena, BioMax Environmental, BLU Educational Foundation, BW Builder, California Black Power Network, California Green New Deal Coalition, California Integrative Therapy.

California Interfaith Power and Light, Camp Fire Collaborative, Catalyst California, Center for Biological Diversity, Centre for Applied Ecological Remediation, Champion Cleaners, Civic Sundays, The Change Reaction, Christopherson Builders, Clergy Community Coalition, Climate and Wildfire Institute, Coalition for a Safe Fire Recovery, Collaborate Pasadena.

Community 3.0, Conservation Strategies, Courage California, Day One, Eaton Fire Collaborative, Eaton Fire Renters Coalition, End Child Poverty California, EnviroScience, Eta Lambda Omega Chapter, Fire Safe Palisades, First Unitarian Church of San Jose, Environmental Justice Ministry Team, Glendale Environmental Coalition, Green Faith.

Holly Wyman Design, HPP CARES, Huntington Asthma and Allergy Center, Idol Dot, Indivisible Alta Pasadena, Joan Collaborative, Kids and Teens Medical Group, LZ Design Group, LA Region Community Recovery Organization, LA Voice, Lalo Vargas, Leap of Faith Family to Family Support, Lift LA, Little Tokyo Service Center, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy.

Los Angeles County Office of Violence and Prevention, McLean Consulting Services, Meteorite Real Estate, Miramar HOA, Miramar Homeowners Association, NetFresh, Neighborhood First Responders, NRDC, Pearls of Compassion, Patient, Equity, Advocates, Relationships, Love, and Support, Pacific Film Foundation, Pacific Palisades Community Council.

Pali Power, Palisades Recovery Coalition, Pasadena Community Job Center, Pasadena Tenants Union, Pasadena Altadena Ivy Foundation, Pasadenans Organizing Progress, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles, Pediatric Firestorm Team, Plant Community LA, Public Counsel, Reclaim Our Power.

Resilient Palisades, Rise Economy, Rogue Food Unites, Sander Architects, San Diego 350, Sonoma County Climate Activist Network, Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative, Town of Superior, United Policyholders, ARIU Architecture, Utility Wildfire Survivor Coalition, Vida Mobile Clinic, Xtreme Athletics.

Wow. Thank you. Okay, those who are lead witnesses in opposition are now welcome to come forward. Oh, yes. Okay. We are going to quickly establish a quorum because we have one. It's always useful to do that. So please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Great. We have established a quorum. So now we'll turn it to you. You each have two minutes. You're welcome to begin when ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee now. I am Allison Adey on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. This bill has posed significant insurance concerns since the March 2 amendments. Despite representations that this bill is not about insurance or does not impact insurance, this bill has significant insurance impacts. The testing requirements under this bill would primarily occur within the context of an insurance claim, where the testing remediation plan and remediation execution all take place.

In spite of these facts, AB 1642 has received zero insurance analysis in either house. The presumptions added to this bill last week have made this bill fundamentally unworkable. The non rebuttable presumption is, in effect, strict liability for insurers if lead or asbestos are found in a home. It is a core tenant of insurance coverage that causation is key.

By removing the requirement that causation be tied to a compensable loss, this bill opens up the ability for any homeowner downwind of a fire to submit a claim, and an insurer must cover the remediation. This does not consider distance from the fire, meaning a home 100 miles from the fire could be entitled to the protections this bill creates. The combination of the strict liability and lack of any geographic limitation in its application have led some carriers to question whether they would be able to underwrite homes with pre existing lead or asbestos at all.

For those that are willing to write those homes, the carriers would have to presume that a home could be entitled to a policy limits demand given the presumptions and causation. More and more companies are seeing policy limits claims without a single ember touching the home. Some have reported a 200 to 400% increase from the standard smoke claims cost only eight years ago.

We understand that the Assembly Member is seeking to provide greater protections for his constituents in the wake of a catastrophic event. But the outcome of this bill would further limit access to insurance for all and potentially make it cost prohibitive for those that insurers are willing to take. We are told constantly that affordability is the highest priority of the legislature in the last couple years. Bills like AB 1642 directly undermine that goal. For these reasons, we remain respectfully opposed.

Thank you. You're welcome to begin when ready.

Good morning, Madam and Chair. Karen Collins on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. I'm gonna focus on the testing framework and how it interacts with the bill's geographic impact area. While our industry supports clear science based standards, the bill establishes a highly prescriptive one size fits all testing regime requiring testing across numerous indoor locations, including attics, HVAC systems, and behind walls, and for a very broad list of contaminants regardless of conditions.

Now this departs from current best practice, which is targeted and condition based, guided by proximity, observable impacts, and professional judgment. The concern is compounded by the bills impact area or downwind ash zone, which lacks clear boundaries. Together, these provisions create an open ended impact map, triggering testing across a broad undefined set of properties.

Including those potentially with only background level exposure. The bill also conflates detection with damage. Many listed substances do exist at low levels in everyday environments. So without baselines or clear causal link to wildfire, testing may identify presence without establishing whether remediation is even necessary.

We are also seeing repeat testing or remediation cycles and practice where post cleanup testing, in many cases often driven by solicitations or fear and conducted well after re-occupancy, may identify trace contaminants that may reflect background conditions or that recontamination leading to additional remediation requests. The bill just does not distinguish between these scenarios. Although before environmental quality, the combination of the broad geographic scope, mandatory testing, and presumptions has direct insurance implications, as noted.

It expands what is treated as wildfire related damage without requiring that clear causal link noted that does drive up costs and can delay recovery. I underscore insurers support science based standards, but they must be targeted, evidence driven, and align with how contamination behaves in real world conditions. So as drafted, this bill applies that unbounded testing framework to an unbounded geographic area, which is what makes it very difficult as that combination. So we respectfully oppose this bill as drafted.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Please come forward to the microphone.

Good morning. Shari McHugh representing the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Annalee Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully adding on opposition due to last week's amendments. Thank you.

Okay. Great. We'll bring it back to the committee now. Senator Menjivar, did you wanna start it off?

My first question is gonna be to the opposition. Can you clarify if the recommend or what the bill is asking to do is part of the CDI's working group recommendations?

No. It is not.

Is all of it outside of the recommendations?

There are components that the working group had sought out such as establishing clearance standards. That part of the bill we are supportive of.

This has a much broader application than 1795. But that piece we think is at least going in the right direction. The testing standards are well outside of what the working group had come to.

To the author. Given the working group was put in place by CDI to come up with some solutions on this, I'm wondering why the bill didn't stay within the framework of the stakeholders that with expertise or just came together for these recommendations.

No. I appreciate it, Senator. Thank you for the conversations we've had and and all your questions. And to be clear, the task force was put together to specifically address smoke claims within homes. That was a very narrow charge in some ways, very complicated charge and they did that.

This bill again goes beyond just residential smoke claim insurance settings. It is actually just set setting standards for safe to occupy for homes, businesses, and schools. So Aye, technically, it would be impossible to stay within the task force, when you were establishing scientific standards for safe to return to communities as that is simply a insurance smoke claim process. Secondly, and it's been noted, the task force was comprised of very good folks and good organizations. It lacked scientists.

There were no, for example, on the ground institutions that were doing the testing. And frankly, many of the task force members that were part of that actually support my bill. So the United policy holders, for example, were part of the task force, and they support sixteen forty two. And so I do think that it's a good question as to the task force job and the work of this bill. They're not completely overlapping.

There's a Venn diagram where they do some similar things but that's why it doesn't stay within the the neat bounds of that task force.

And can you because these bills have put me through the ringer

I'm sorry.

Of trying to understand the technicalities behind it. Can you help me understand the testing behind all that? Yeah. Isn't that part of the smoke damage as well?

It will be. And what we're hoping and it's a great question. What we're hoping is that the smoke claim bill seventeen ninety five actually incorporates references the testing and clearance standards in this bill. The testing and clearance standards that our bill would set out are very specific as to which contaminants, will be tested for by, the DTSC in terms of coming up with the standards that there should be pre and post remediation testing, and what that downwind ash zone actually looks like.

The homes and the residences and the schools, and the businesses that will be affected.

And so I do think that ultimately, the testing and clearance standards at 1795 will eventually incorporate, I hope actually adhere to what this bill does. Right now, if you look at 1795 and there's a lot of good things about 1795, it effectively kicks the can down the road a bit to EPA to come up just broadly with standards and it also, which we think is actually very concerning, allows for industry to set some of those standards in the interim.

And that I think would be very harmful for any community that goes through wildfire recovery, especially the, you know, our community but the next community. We think scientists should be establishing that those standards and not industry.

Now I do agree with you on having a third party, to establish that. But the answer that I just got by default, doesn't that bring in the smoke issue into the conversation then brings in the into the purview of the working group then because of the testing.

I think, I think yes. I think inevitably this is overlapping with some of the work that they did. Absolutely. I think that this brings in, schools as well. This is gonna bring in the business and profession code.

This is going to implicate any part of a community that is trying to recover. And so, I think it's again, I don't think it was possible for us to not, in some ways, duplicate what the task force was doing. But and to assuage some of your concerns. We were waiting on the task force for over a year. We had no indication of what the recommendations were going to be.

We continued to reach out to the task force and to the department and to all the parties involved. We were given no information. There Senator Allen can can potentially attest to that as well. I introduced my bill in January over a year after the fire. This bill, 1795, which came from the task force didn't come until months later.

Right. We couldn't just wait. Right? We had to introduce our bill and go forward. And so I just want to be clear.

At in no point was I trying to step on the toes of the task force. We were just trying to get out in front of this issue so that we weren't left with a whole legislative session over a year and a half or two years later where we weren't dealing with it.

I appreciate that. My next question is around the opposition's talking about the undefined or or no definition on the boundaries.

Yes.

You can imagine for any kind of industry that

That's worrisome. We should have exact parameters and define it.

Yep.

Yes. And I couldn't agree more. They are currently asking for a zip code based parameters. That's problematic because the definitions that they would incorporate through 1795 and even what they propose, we know that the zip codes that would be included wouldn't be sufficient. We know that there is Soot, char, and Ash from the Eaton fire that went well beyond that.

We do think though that ambiguity here is not great. What we have said, and thank you to the committee for the amendments, is the downward ash zone should be set by CalEPA, DTSC along with Cal Fire based on the maps and the science that we know from the individual fires. And what that will mean is that there isn't an arbitrary line that is drawn. It's actually going to be tied to where did the smoke, the particulars, and the contaminants go for that particular fire.

And I do think that we're able to do that with the data and the science.

And I think that it actually won't be as ambiguous as as the opposition is letting on. I actually think it will be very tight. In some ways, it'll be narrower than just putting zip. We've talked about this in the insurance context on moratoriums. Zip codes are just not perfect.

They're actually not very good at addressing this. So we actually want the science and the data to to drive the area.

To the opposition through the Chair if I can, given the amendments and there won't that then define and create a boundary?

It's not a concrete boundary because we don't know what the criteria that they're going to be looking at when they determine that zone is, zip code to clarify is not an industry requested amendment. Those were the Assembly insurance committee amendments that were made based on their experience and best judgment. That did not come from us, and that was in 1795. I would also like to clarify, if I may, there were scientists on the task force.

The California Department of Public Health, the LA Department of Public Health, as well as multiple industrial hygienists who do this every single day.

Okay. So, while the amendments are gonna create, standards on what would be considered that boundary, there's no set requirements of what to be considered in setting that boundary?

There is. And so and with the amendments, it will be the boundary will be defined within the fire perimeter. So you have the fire scar and that is going to be determined by CAL FIRE. So those are the experts on determining that. And then the adjacent downward, ash zone would then be, would then be defined by Cal EPA and the experts within, the rule making setting.

But it's impossible and each of each fire is different. Right? So technically speaking, the downward ash the downwind ash zone will be dependent on the actual fire. And what we will do and what the the rule making process will do was we'll have actual maps and the science showing where did the fire go, where the contamination go, and set it based on that, which will have to be backed up by presence of soot, char, ash, some sort of contaminants from the fire.

And every fire is different though. So the process and the rules would be the same. The map of the individual fires will obviously be different but it will it will be a uniform process, a uniform set of rules that would depend on the fire.

Okay. I have two more questions, Madam Chair. Is the testing. There's concern that testing happens post occupancy and now there's a direct assumption even though testing has happens post occupancy that it comes from WUI. Right.

Yeah. So the wildland urban interface, which is not a very easy acronym to say. WUI. Yeah. WUI.

So this is sort of the heart of, I think, the debate which is this, presumption. Right? And whether there are high levels of lead, asbestos, or other heavy metals in the house post fire, where did they come from? We would like to set a presumption that says if there are lead, asbestos, certain contaminants that DTSC will set out, that there's a presumption.

In other words, in terms of causation, we are presuming that they came from the wildfire because that's what is actually a reasonable conclusion based on the science as we know it of fires.

When wild land, urban interface fires happen, car batteries, home products, rubber tires, all these things are burned and we know the contamination and the contaminants that come from it. If a high level of those contaminants are in the house, it is reasonable to assume that it's tied.

What opposition is saying is that there shouldn't be any sort of presumption and the party should be able to, whatever the parties are, the school district, an insurance company, the city council, can debate with each survivor as to whether the lead, the asbestos, the arsenic, the cyanide, whatever it is. There should be a debatable point of fact as to whether each of those contaminant contaminants were caused by the wildfire. That is what is happening now.

What that results in is residents spending hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket to test and then hire lawyers to debate that. That's why over 13,000 smoke claims between Palisades and Altadena are still open, unresolved because people are literally desperately fighting for their lives and litigating these issues. You can see why we should actually have some sort of causation standard, some sort of presumption that, the state adheres to.

This may not be perfect and we're gonna continue to work with everyone, on making it, more perfect. But that I think should be clarity to both sides.

And I do think that there are going to be, I think someone said some abuses. Look, is someone going to file a claim potentially outside of the downwind ash zone and say we have lead in our house and it's from lead paint? That's why presumption, a presumption is is able to be litigated after the presumption takes place. That's lawyer speak.

In other words, if there is only a trace level and and one of the opposition witnesses said something about trace levels, this this standard would be only above the unsafe levels this would apply.

If it's above an unsafe level, you can actually present evidence to say, well, that was actually part of the lead paint in the house from 1905. They're able to present that. That the process that we set out here would allow them to do that. But right now, the process as I described it is very lengthy, costly, and there is no objective standard.

While there should be a standard, I agree. And I think it's an industry wants a lot of standards and so forth. I think what you just explained is a concern to some members, at least for me, as to why it should have gone through the insurance committee. Because that has you just laid out the connection, the direct connection to the impact on insurance claims post this presumption and so forth.

So that's I think one of the biggest concerns is that I feel that this bill did not get its adequate time in the appropriate committee that has the experts behind that.

I do recognize that leadership is involved in both of your bills, and they're gonna have their fingerprints all over, both of these bills. And when we come back in August, there should be the plane should should have landed by then. I do I do feel that, both bills are duplicative. I think the Chair already mentioned.

And the last question I have is, given the recommendations that the analysis pointed pointed out and what what could be done I'm wondering if you could speak on any of them or you feel that there's room, in terms of commitments to some of those suggestions.

I do. And I am committed to those suggestions. I'm working with Mister Gibson on trying to marry the bills. Frankly, we're we are having now, constant meetings between him, my staff, the Department of Insurance is at the table. And we think that there is a clear path forward and we think that we are going to get to that place.

And I'd like to thank the Assembly member for all his work in the department. And we do think that where this ends up in a real concrete way is our bill is establishing the testing and clearance standards and the presumption and the zone that is affected. And his bill actually incorporates that and continues to lay out the other the other elements of a smoke claim.

And I think that when we do land at that spot and again, I think we've been working in good faith to do that, I think everyone will be happy. And I'm I'm hoping for that.

Maybe that's Pollyannaish, maybe it's not going to be the case. But I think we need a little bit more time. I mean, we, I think as Senator Gibson said, we're going to be meeting over the summer where everyone's gone. We are going to be working in earnest to get this right. And, I would appreciate more time.

And, but I think your question and your point is a good one. And, I take it to heart. And, we're hoping that an imperfect process, and it has been imperfect, actually gets perfected, in the coming weeks.

Okay. Thank you for those great questions, Senator Menjivar and and also really insightful answers. Thank you. We'll go to Senator Allen.

Well, I just want to thank you Assemblymember for your leadership in this area. I think you and I probably knew a lot less about toxicity led fire damage than than we than we wanted to when we were both running for our positions. And, of course, we've all gone through this awful experience of our, communities burning.

And I just wanna, just say what a great partner you've been and along with, you know, the Senator Irwin and and Senator Perez as we've all been working so hard together to try to get some relief for our constituents. So I'm proud to support your bill today and I just want to thank you for your leadership.

You know, obviously, the line of questioning that you just engaged with with Senator Menjivar speaks to the symbol yeah. The work that that lies ahead between these two bills. Your bill, of course, didn't touch upon a number of these insurance issues that need to be addressed. Obviously, we know that there are some concerns about 1795.

Obviously, one of the things I really love about this bill is how much it deeply engaged the voices of fire survivors, you know, who have been going through it and and, you know, whose voices are so critical in this conversation.

You know, as you all know, we've got thousands of constituents, more in well, in both communities, but certainly a lot in my district as well that are actively navigating disputes with insurance companies over some damage claims. And and I think one of the challenges with the with seventeen ninety five is that the bill is currently written, doesn't provide me immediate recourse or legal footing to support their claims.

And so, you know, we also know that it's really important to get the standards right and that's what the heart of your efforts, Making sure that they're rigorous, making sure that they're scientifically backed. Just because your house is still standing, we know it's not habitable and we wanna have some good science based standards and I appreciate that spirit that goes behind this bill 1642.

So, one of my other kind of enduring concerns about 1795 is that it may still be and this was discussed a little earlier but maybe maybe too open to interpretation, not result in the protections that we need for folks that are just trying to make sure they can return home safely and stay healthy.

So lots of commitments have been made, including a number of ones, you know, with 1795 on the Assembly floor that haven't been adopted yet. Senator Menjivar has brought some of those issues up. So, I just appreciate the work that, you know, that we all know is gonna be hey. Well, I think we're all gonna be involved with some of that work along with a lot of the folks that are here in the room.

I will say I'm concerned about the lack of progress in marrying the the two bills, but I really appreciate the fact that Mister Gibson's committed to working with you and survivor stakeholders, Senate leadership, our office, to address the concerns that have been raised.

I mean, this is all about you know, really trying to get this right and I and that's a top priority for me. And I just appreciate the fact that your bill is really injecting the voice of survivors and toxicologists, at front and center, into how we approach this this issue.

So I'm gonna support both bills today and understanding that this negotiation is going to be happening intensely over the course of the next month and, you know, but I certainly hope that the I hope and expect and I think, you know, it's a essential and really important that the that at the end of the day, whatever that the final solution is centered on the rights and protections that I think are at the heart of your bill, Assemblymember.

So with that, I'll move it when appropriate and look forward to supporting both bills today and working in tandem with you and the committee and others on our on a final deal that we'll do right by our survivors and and future fire survivors.

Thank you. Well, first of all, I wanna recognize the intent of this of this bill. And, you know, having grown up in the San Fernando Valley and Santa Clarita, wildfires have been a part of life my entire life as I can remember. My family has had to leave, you know, during a fire. And that question of when to return is is always something that you're thinking about and, you know, wondering is it safe to return.

I also think back to the Northridge earthquake. And remember living outside in our car for a week. Well, we went through that safety assessment program, which is we call now. And the the tagging of of homes. It's just blows my mind that we don't have this process for wildfires.

And that's the simple question for me. Right? Is why do we not have this process? I recognize though that this is a big bill. This is a it's needed.

But there are gonna be, there is gonna be a cost benefit analysis here. And so I'm gonna be supporting this bill because I wanna see it move forward. I think it's important, but I have some concerns especially around affordability. And I, but I do wanna know from the opposition, you know, is there any other states that have this type of program? I don't know that if that exists.

Whether it's for wildfires or for hurricanes, flooding, you know. Is there any other state that is doing this where they have a program that works? And is there another approach that should be considered when it comes to balancing not only ensuring it's science based, but that it's practical and it's affordable?

Karen Collins with APCIA. So our organization is the national trade and so we've been working with across the Western US states that have had these larger conflagration fire events. All of these states are watching California very closely. Colorado is the only other state that's actually taken action to conduct a study. There's actually some good insights to be had for policy makers here in California to learn from that.

They presented a draft study report that unfortunately was not grounded in credible science and threatened to derail their insurance industry. And after a outside external review, they determined that was not something that it could put forward and they retracted that study and are continuing to pursue it separately. California took a different approach instead of using a third party vendor. They convened the the task force. And and this is where the insights of the task force are incredibly important.

I think it was earlier raised, you know, how how does this scope of the task force overlap with AB 1642? And I think that when you look at a lot of the issues that led the department to convene is that there are fundamentally different commercial versus residential exposures. In the commercial context, there are standards for how workforce exposure is, occupational exposure standards determined by EPA and other entities.

And in the residential space because of the way that we live, the natural environment of do we burn candles or incense or smoke or use fireplace, cooking matters. All these different things create very unique background levels.

And that is where there is a true gap in the science community and how we should be looking at residential communities from preexisting exposure. And so that is really where the task force scope was. And the policy forms as well from an insurance perspective are very different from commercial as well as residential. And so that truly was where the scope of the task force was because that's where the greatest gap truly is.

Not to set aside other things like schools or churches or other commercial entities, but that's why they are so focused there.

The presumptions as well. The other states they've not really looked at it from a presumption standpoint. California is where this is really uniquely emerged. And where that language came in with let's focus on the burn area and the adjacent zip codes downwind. When you look at it from an insurance context and what we see, Utah right now has the largest burning fire in The US.

And their smoke plume is the entire state and beyond. We've seen Canadian wildfires with smoke planes consume the entire Northeast. Even in California 2020, we had record acres burned. And the majority of the state was covered in smoke. And most of the West of the rest of The US.

And so we talk about a smoke impact map. Anything within that in this current AB 1642 would have certain presumptions that then necessitate testing be done at the level that is being prescribed in this. And so if you look at the cost of that, that is essentially a $20,000 comprehensive testing panel according to what Eaton Fire Residents United even presented to the task force. That is what their panels cost.

And so if you were expected across the entire state with wherever that smoke plume goes, that's $20,000 of just testing alone that insurers would be expected to cover.

And they're asking for that prior to and then post. That's $40,000 in just claims extent before anything is actually done. That is where the severity of that impact really jumps and where it's becoming that unbounded with no geographic containment where we wanna see some balancing of that from an insurance standpoint.

So and I'll just say to, you know, the author. I don't know if you wanted to to weigh in at all. But I do think it would it would be wise to try and find and strike the balance as to what the opposition's concerns are.

We absolutely will. And, you know, could can debate the particulars of the Utah fire and that being a forest fire, not an urban fire. But the point is well taken. We will continue to deal with this issue and and come to an agreement with the experts and that's I'm not the expert.

We ensure that the bill allows the experts to make those determinations. So, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? Well, I appreciate this robust discussion. Thank you.

Thank you to the witnesses. I appreciate that example of, a full statewide or continent wide, smoke because that is a reality that we see unfortunately increasingly. And I also just wanna say thank you to the witness who came and shared your personal story about, I think, giving voice to the many people who feel unsafe in their home now a year after the fire, and what that means in a daily way.

You know, that really centering the victims who are still living with that is just, such an important part of this picture. So I appreciate that you were willing to share that.

And I think it's emblematic of many people's stories. So we will of course continue this conversation. I, the depth and the complexity is enormous. So thank you for diving into this. And I think since we do have a quorum, we will go ahead and take a vote if we have, after you close, if we, if we have a motion.

So with that, I'll turn it back to you to close.

No, thank you madam Chair. Thank you again to the committee and the senators for the great discussion and the questions, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Please call the roll. Oh, do we need, we need to have a motion? Okay. Thank you.

Senator Menjivar moves the bill.

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

It's three zero. We'll keep that on call. And I think you're presenting possibly for Assembly member Wicks.

Yeah. Yeah.

And as you as we transition, this is a file item AB 1976, number 17. But as we transition, we'll go ahead and call the roll on, number one and also on the consent calendar. So number file item number one was AB 1795 from Gipson.

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Senators Blixspear?

I don't think we have a motion quite yet. So we we can wait until we have a motion. Okay. Senator Menjivar moves the bill.

[Roll Call]

Okay. And we and we've moved we have a the vice Chair has moved the consent calendar. So let's call the roll on that. Okay. Okay.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That's 40. We'll keep that on call. And just us so that we have accurate expectations of time.

Right now, we are hearing AB 1976 from Assemblymember Wicks that is being presented by Assemblymember Harabedian. And then after that, we are going to Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry's three bills that she has filed, item seven, eight, and nine in whatever order she prefers. So, with that, we'll turn it to you to present.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll go quickly so that the majority leader can come with her three bills. I am presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Wicks, AB 1976. As we all know, there's been an increase in pedestrian related accidents in California with many people who are seriously injured or killed in traffic related accidents in the state. There are approximately a thousand to twelve hundred pedestrian deaths per year, and there has been a fifty percent increase in these deaths since 2014.

With these high numbers of injuries and accidents in California, we need to do more to to improve and implement pedestrian and bicycle related measures in order to provide safety and accessibility for people to live, walk, and travel safely. Unfortunately, while well intentioned, there are a number of processes and regulations that have made it harder to get much needed transportation safety projects done for pedestrians and bicyclists in our local communities. In addition, there has also been examples of delays in establishing a pedestrian mall.

To address some of these challenges, this bill includes a CEQA exemption for establishing or expanding a pedestrian mall. The bill also limits the city or county from holding a community input meeting to reconsider, delay, or prevent implementation of a project after the project has passed 90% of design.

Meetings are allowed on design features, aesthetics, or implementation details, however, that do not materially affect or alter the project. The bill also limits canceling of contracts without having a public meeting, if a city or county makes specific formal findings. And it also limits the threshold for the request for a traffic calming measure to no more than a majority of the total number of persons whose residences are within a thousand feet of the proposed traffic calming measure. With me today is Mark Vukcevich for Streets for All.

Good morning, Chair and members. Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. I know that there's a member - a number of members waiting, so I'll be brief. This bill come what the premise of this bill, what this comes down to is what process should safety and livability and environmentally benefit, beneficial projects should have in terms of both public process, in terms of environmental process, in terms of just general procedural steps that happen in advance of construction and delivery of those things.

And so, you know, with specific regard to this committee's jurisdiction and scope, the bill does a number of things, but with regards to pedestrian malls, and if you're not familiar with pedestrian malls, these are areas that have been pedestrianized, oftentimes roadway space.

Probably most most well known in Sacramento is K-Street, right by Mayahuel, is a pedestrian mall, under the Pedestrian Mall Act of 1960, as well as, 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, Mariachi Plaza in Los Angeles, and, Murphy Street in Sunnyvale, just as a number of as a handful of examples. And so the question before us is, you know, whether those pedestrianization efforts should have to go through a CEQA environmental process.

And what we're saying with this bill is that we don't think it should have to do so and to and that it should, yeah, it should be easier to pedestrianize spaces to make spaces that are more livable, more walkable, and to emphasize small business activation as well. So, with that in mind and with the smaller scope of the bill after Senate Local Government Committee, I wanna just acknowledge that we've removed a number of opposition, including the League of Cities, off the bill.

And at the end of the day, we're just trying to deliver more safeable, livable, and better communities.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the testimony. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support? Now is the moment.

Please come forward. Thank you. Please state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. Nina Wilder Harwell, AARP California, in support.

Thanks very much. Alright. Anybody in opposition to this bill who'd like to come forward? Lead witnesses in opposition? Okay.

Not seeing anybody. Anybody wishing to express opposition, please come forward to the microphone. Okay. Not seeing anybody. Well, this is a bite sized CEQA exemption as relevant for this committee.

This creates a CEQA exemption for pedestrian malls in the same code section that we've created numerous other CEQA exemptions for active and clean transportation projects. These are the type of projects that really do benefit from a CEQA exemption because closing city streets to only pedestrians adds vibrancy and is unlikely to have a significant environmental impact. So, given that, I am happy to vote I on this measure today. With that, I see no comments from my colleagues. I will turn it back to you to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of Assemblymember Wicks, please vote aye.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Let's - yeah, I don't think we have a motion. No.

Okay. So, we will get to that when we get to that. Thank you. Okay. So, now we are actually going to do... we're going to have one Assemblymember, Aguiar-Curry bill. I believe is it AB 2026?

It is AB 2026.

Okay. Great. And then after that, we are going to go to Schiavo's bill, which is number AB 2674. Or actually, no. I'm sorry.

It's AB 28. We're going to go to AB 28. Okay. Great. So, go ahead.

You're welcome to begin when ready.

Anyway, first of all, I want to thank you for your flexibility this morning. I know there's a lot going on. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the Chair and committee staff for their work on this bill. I'm committing to continue to work with the committee on the diversion criteria.

I'm committed to addressing an issue raised by semi tropic on a permitting concern with the bill, should it pass out of committee today. I am pleased to present AB 2026 to help California recharge more groundwater to help our communities and the environment mitigate the impacts of climate change. This bill is complex, but so are the permitting processes for groundwater recharge projects. Today, permitting is a time consuming and expensive process in a wet year. This can mean that applicants do not get permits in time to use them.

My goal is to streamline permitting processes for groundwater recharge, and make sure that permits can actually be used when they need it. Groundwater recharge is absolutely essential to helping California navigate our new water reality. We are living in a time of weather extremes. Most of the state's rains come 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 to 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 users and environmental flows in dry times. Groundwater recharge creates environmental and public benefits by preventing land subsidence, diverting flood flows, and helping communities meet their sigma, goals affordably. In many places, ground water and surface water are connected. And the banked water continues to benefit streams and rivers in drought.

In the Sacramento region, about half of the water that went to groundwater recharge has contributed to stream flows and ecosystems. The legislature recognized the need for water solutions we've had when we passed s p 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 adapting adapting to our new water reality. Right now, relatively few permits have been issued for ground water recharge, even though reports have called for more.

Even when recharge is permitted, less than 4% of the permitted recharge actually takes place. We are missing opportunities that could be a win win for our communities and the environment. We can't maintain the quote, excuse me, the status quo. We have to take a look at the issues, make changes, and now to prepare for dry years. This bill makes needed common sense changes to streamline the permitting process and make the permits more usable. For example, this bill allows water the water board and ground water agencies the tools to create flexible permit timelines for our operators.

This means that people can apply for permits before they know if a rainy season will be wet or dry. It allows the applicants to secure permits in advance, but only use them when conditions are right, instead of losing the opportunity because of rigid timelines. This bill also makes it easier to capture flood flows safely. This portion of the bill only applies to emergency situations where it can be dangerous for people to divert flows once a flood has begun. This bill also codifies CEQA exemptions for diversions to recharge our groundwater supply.

These exemptions have been used based on executive orders for over a decade and provided regulatory certainty for operators. AB 2026 provides additional guardrail by clarifying that these exemptions do not apply for construction projects. This bill also ensures tribal consultation to mitigate and avoid impacts on tribal cultural resources. Most important, these changes are designed to move water during high flow conditions. After all environmental and water user needs are met.

This bill also maintains protections for the environment, fish, and wildlife. I'm committed to working continue working on this bill should it move forward today. With me today, I have Kristen Sicke from the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Kristin Peer, legal counsel to RWA and NCWA. Thank you.

Welcome. You're both You're welcome to proceed when ready. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. As mentioned, I'm Kristen Sicke, general manager of Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The fabric of Yolo 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 agricultural 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 NOCWA's Sacramento Valley flood diversion and recharge 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 use surface water and groundwater to grow food. Surface water comes from our upstream reservoirs and Cache Creek during wet years.

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. We're considered to be the most successful applicant of the state's a hundred and eighty day temporary permits. And we are not using the ninety twenty water availability analysis. Of the eleven years that we've submitted a hundred and eighty day temporary permit applications, we've diverted winter water in seven years, all while protecting downstream users and the environment.

And the diversions have totaled greater than 42,000 acre feet. Again, utilizing a unique watershed water availability analysis. In 2015, the first time we submitted a one hundred and eighty day permit, we spent two months in pre consultation with the state water board, CDFW, DWR, and the bureau. 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, a hundred and twenty five days after submitting it.

Thirty day 30 page permit. Excuse me. And the fees were about $35,000. AB 2026 will be very helpful to advance ground water recharge, protecting communities during dry and critical years in a way that protects downstream water right holders and the environment. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Kristin Peer, an attorney with BKS Law Firm representing 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 very 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 is 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 for unpermitted diversions of flood flows for, groundwater recharge. AB 2026 builds on previous legislation and incorporates many of the previously contained provisions and executive orders to help facilitate what we hope will be the next generation of groundwater recharge projects throughout California.

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

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

Both approach 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 the bill, and I am available to answer any questions that the committee members may have. Thank you.

Thank you. That was exactly two minutes. Good job. Now we will take test we will take, support in the room. If you support this bill, come forward and state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning, Chair and member. Ryan O'Jackie with the Regional Water Authority. Proud cosponsor. Thank you, Assembly member.

Good morning, Chair and committee. My name is Kim with the Northern California Water Association, a proud cosponsor and in very strong support. Thank you, Assembly member.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Jeff Neal representing the Board of Supervisors of Yolo County, also in support.

Good morning. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Sam Bivens for the semi-tropic water storage district. Just wanna thank the member for her commitment to, addressing her concerns and looking forward to the amendment process. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Now we will move on to opposition witnesses. If you are a lead opposition witness, please come forward.

Welcome. Welcome. You each have two minutes and you can begin when ready. Okay.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Mateo Kushner and I'm here on behalf of Community Water Center, Clean Water Action, and Leadership Council to respectfully oppose AB 2026 unless amended. We work with communities across the Central Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and Coachella Valley that depend on groundwater for their drinking water. Many have experienced both severe flooding and widespread well failures, so we understand the importance of groundwater recharge.

We support expanding recharge where it is done responsibly and in a way that advances long term groundwater sustainability.

However, we are concerned about the approach this bill is taking to facilitate responsible and sustainable recharge. First, we have concerns about the process used to develop this bill. While there was some initial outreach when the concept was first introduced, many organizations representing groundwater dependent communities and systems were not included in subsequent discussions as the language was drafted. Continued engagement with the organizations represented here in opposition today could have led to a more productive dialogue and potentially some degree of consensus on the bill's language.

Second, we are also concerned that the bill could undermine groundwater sustainability by allowing recharge credits that overstate the amount of water actually available for future pumping.

For overdrafted basins, the proposed approach taken in Water Code 1242.1 fails to account for natural loss during recharge, and more importantly, it increases reliance on an uncertain water supply. Rather than treating water diverted pursuant Water Code 1242.1 as available for extraction, the majority of water recharge should be reserved for basin health and addressing groundwater overdraft. We also recommend caution in making significant changes to temporary water right permitting at this time.

The state's water rights system was largely developed under hydraulic conditions that are no longer valid due to reduced snowpack, earlier runoff, increased precipitation variability, and more frequent extreme weather events. Before pursuing such changes, California should first fully understand how its water rights system needs to evolve to reflect climate change and increasingly variable hydrology.

Last, streamlining permitting and environmental review for recharge runs the potential risk of contributing to further groundwater degradation if the appropriate oversight is not put in place to ensure no risk of further degradation. The Department of Water Resources is currently mapping safe recharge sites and that work should be completed before pursuing large changes to recharge permitting. Proceeding ahead of DWR's assessment could undermine efforts to identify the most appropriate and protective locations for groundwater recharge. We look forward to working on amendments.

Until then, we respectfully oppose AB 2026 unless amended.

Thank you.

Chair Blakespear and members of the committee, Cintia Cortez, Policy Program Manager with Restore the Delta, testifying in opposition of 2026. AB 2026 creates broad sweeping secret exemptions and weakens the state water board's ability to establish conditions when granting permits for groundwater recharge. By assuming that existing standards are sufficient to protect public trust resources, the bill overlooks the critical reality of California's water crisis. The Delta ecosystem is in critical ecological collapse.

This decline threatens public health, an annual $7 billion delta economy and the long term security of water supply for all Californians.

First, the CEQA exemptions removes the ability to identify environmental impacts before a permit is approved and removes the opportunity for public review, allowing for local impacts to go unidentified and unaddressed before diversions occur, potentially harming the same communities this bill claims to try to protect. Additionally, bill proponents have falsely claimed that bill language was informed through robust stakeholder engagement processes.

I can testify today that Restore the Delta and Delta tribes were not part of these conversations and continue and continue to be to be excluded from ongoing discussions by sponsors, perpetuating California's history of excluding marginalized communities from water planning. Second, excess water exports are altering the Delta's ecosystem...

Sorry. Second, excess wire exports are altering the delta ecosystems. Reduced flows are the primary drivers of harmful algal blooms currently plating the delta. AB 2026 authorizes additional upstream and delta diversions, exacerbating to rating impacts to the community by removing flows that are vital for reducing the formation of toxic algal blooms and restoring our native fisheries by treating environmental beneficial waters as excess. As a result, the system has never given an opportunity to regenerate and then and it is marginalized communities bearing the brunt.

For these reasons and more, we urge the committee to oppose AB 2026, and we hope to continue working with the author over the next month to address water quality issues if the bill passes committee today. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody in the room wishing to express opposition, now is the time. Please come forward, state your name, position on the bill. Your name, organization you represent, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. We have an oppose unless amended position.

Lauren Navarro with Sustainable Conservation. We have an oppose unless amended position because of codifying the 80-50-20 rule and the 90-20 rule. We do thank the author for her commitment to recharge. Thank you.

Barry Nelson, Golden State Salmon Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Alex Leumer on behalf of Audubon California, the Environmental Defense Fund, and California Coastkeeper Alliance, in a opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Scott Webb with the Resource Institute and Friends of the River, opposed position.

Good morning. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League, being opposed unless amended

Molly Colton, Sierra Club California, in opposition.

Christie Ralston, San Francisco Baykeeper, in opposition.

Max Gomberg, California Water Impact Network, opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Katie Hawkins with Trout Limited and Cal Trout, opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Jamie Minor on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District. We're a bit of a tweener along with my colleagues here. We are members of the San Joaquin Tributary Authority and have had substantial conversations with the author and the sponsor on addressing some concerns that we had in the bill. Many of them have been have been addressed, or at least we have a commitment to address them, and so we thank them for for those efforts.

We do have one remaining issue which is on the, conditions related to the delta.

This is not the opportunity for that much testimony. Thank you.

Right. So, we look forward to continuing those conversations, but thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, as well as the Merced County Board of Supervisors. Just wanna echo the comments right before you to keep it brief. So, appreciate it.

Thank you.

Alex Alaniz on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District. We do have the opposed unless amended but echo my two colleagues. And looking forward to have conversations over the summer. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll bring it back to the committee. And I just, I wanna recognize Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry that you have passion and a lot of motivation for this.

And I appreciate it because, we do need to achieve our goals with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which is basically, we need to get more water moved more quickly into ground water recharge. So, it - and that that is just a really important goal. I also recognize that the various guard rails that you've worked into this bill make sure that we do that in a responsible way. And this is a difficult task because it's so complicated.

And it's particularly important that we make sure that we're protective of the environment and that we mitigate negative impacts when we identify them, which some of that was brought up by the opposition today. Thank you for coming to speak. I am concerned about the issues that have been raised regarding the diversion methods in this bill and their implications for water quality. So, I hope that you'll continue to engage with the committee staff, and the concerned stakeholders to make sure that we are approaching that responsibly.

I know this bill has some work to do given the various commitments that have been made, but I do believe that it will get there.

So, I am recommending an aye vote today. Thank you. And I'll ask any committee members if you'd like to make any comments. No?

Okay. Then we'll close it turn it back to you to close.

Great. Thank you very much. You know, at the end of the day, this bill's about making our water system work in the moments that we need it most. We have to take advantage of every opportunity to secure our state's water future. When we have water, we should be able to use it.

When we don't, we should be able to re rely on it. We should be able to store it. AB 2026 helps us do both. This bill is intended to maintain protections for the environment and water users while helping the state make progress on groundwater recharge and adapt to the changing, climate. I will continue to work with our - have conversations with all stakeholders.

I appreciate the opponents. They've been working with me. We will continue to do that. And with all stakeholders, we'll keep working on the bill, but we must make progress on this issue now. Time is wasting away.

Water is life. Thank you. I ask for your aye vote when it's appropriate.

Thank you. We we could entertain a motion now, if there was a motion? Okay. Great. We have a we have a motion and the motion is do you pass as amended to Senate appropriations?

Thank you very much. We'll let Mister go next.

[Roll Call].

So it's two zero. We'll keep that on call. And now we are going to file item number three, AB 28 from Assembly Member Shiavo. I do understand she has a busload full of people from our district here.

Me too. I'm so grateful. And I told them the this process is a little bit of a hurry up and wait situation. We were down. We were back up.

We got in breakfast. We're back down. We're going to a press conference. So thank you so much to the Chair and, the majority leader for working with us to get us back in order here. Very happy to be before this committee again.

So just to kind of recap what's happened and and how we've come back here, we introduced AB 28 last year. We were before this committee last year.

And then, while the bill is on the Senate floor, at the end of session, we decided to hold it and allow for the process of the CARB landfill methane regulations to move forward so that we could ensure that our bill was not duplicative or didn't conflict in any way, and was really complementary to the good work that happened over at CARB to better regulate landfills, and especially when we have these subsurface, elevated temperature events.

So today, we are here presenting the new version of AB 28. And the and as, many people know, I've talked about Chiquita Canyon Landfill, the burning landfill in my district, which has now been burning for at least four years, probably much longer.

Experiencing symptoms, in, you know, 2016 and before that even. We know that the temperature in the waste mass has increased to over 260 degrees. This is hotter than boiling water inside of this landfill. And as of last year, the landfill fire had tripled in size from 30 acres to 90. Now, we think it's encompassing most of the landfill and is expected to burn for twenty years or more.

And there's really no way to tell when this disaster could end because of this out of control landfill fire. Have children who live in this community who are probably going to be having children before this disaster is over. And this is a public health crisis that's affecting residents within five miles, at least, of the site. Thousands of homes and families. And to make matters worse, it's projected to burn.

You know, we don't we don't know when it will end. This disaster is no small matter. Numerous departments, from the county and the state are issuing over 300 notices of violation for air quality, water contamination, and exceeding the collection waste limit. Millions of gallons of leachate are being extracted from the landfill weekly and shipped to various states around the country as far as Arkansas.

And because of the toxicity exceeded California limitations, there are fewer and fewer options within the state for us to actually take this toxic landfill liquid, or leachate that is being shipped now all over the country.

This is costing landfill operators millions of dollars a month, a million dollars a week just for the leachate alone to be shipped around the nation. And millions of dollars to state agencies that are incredibly engaged on the oversight but don't have capacity to do this all over the state if more landfills get out of control. So if landfills go bankrupt, we know that the state will let be left holding the bag.

And local enforcement agencies, no one thinks we can afford those millions of dollars a month, that this kind of cleanup costs or mitigation costs. And due to the gases that are being emitted into the air, over 27,000 air quality complaints have been registered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

That's unheard of. Usually, if there's a few 100 complaints, it's raising huge red flags. And we now have 27,000 air quality complaints in our community. In 2025, the LA County Department of Public Health declared the landfill a public nuisance and directed them to do a root cause evaluation for public health impacts. There have been only five imminent and substantial endangerment orders under Section three zero three of the Federal Clean Air Act in the history of this country.

No other facility in the country has ever been issued an an ISE under the Cleared Air Act and the Resource Recovery or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Chiquita Canyon is the only location that has that. The air is so toxic that landfill operators and employees wear supplied air and basically space suits, you know, hazmat suits when they're doing direct excavation on the site. And yet, a couple football fields away, our community lives right there with no protections.

All they can do is close their doors, have industrial air purifiers, and keep their air conditioning on 20 fourseven and cross their fingers.

They are breathing this toxic air with carcinogens. We know benzene, arsenic, methane, acrolein. I slept there at the landfill myself and have experienced these conditions myself when I slept at the slept near the landfill. Burning eyes, burning skin, a bloody nose. I can't remember the last time I had a bloody nose.

You know, unstable when I was walking. It's it's it was just one night. And our community members are there twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. We know that landfills are a critical part of our infrastructure, and we need to make sure that they are a resource for our community, but we need to make sure that they're safe. Right now, there are 11 landfills that have applied for waivers to operate at higher temperatures.

So this is not just a Chiquita Canyon, Valverde, or Castaic issue. This is not just Avenal. This is not just El Sobrante, where we know there are subsurface elevated temperature events or set events happening. There's 11 other landfills that are asking to operate at higher temperatures. And we know that when these, when these temperatures get out of control, they turn into uncontrollable fires like Chiquita that we can't control again.

So this bill requires that landfill operators will diligently monitor their subsurface temperatures and requires consistent reporting to the lead enforcement agencies and state agencies of elevated temperatures established established by the EPA. This, Cal EPA. The temperatures, if they rise above safe levels, the landfill must alert the local enforcement agency and CalRecycle. A multi coordinating group must be pulled together of all the agencies that have oversight authority to be coordinated in their response.

And Cal EPA, as the agency in charge, would give advice on, or CalRecycle and Cal EPA and the corrective action with enforcement.

It also creates a community mitigation fund. We, Chiquita Canyon Landfill, at one point was helps helping support the community to redo HVAC systems, new windows, pay for extra electricity bills. None of that's happening anymore. There's no support for our community as they are paying the cost both through their health and through their pocketbook, in our community. And aside from the policy of the bill, I just wanted to, really quickly talk about folks who are in the community who can't speak today.

But we have Jennifer, whose children are getting uncontrollable bloody noses, other, families who are here today with their kids with uncontrollable bloody noses, skin rashes, eye irritation, to the point where Jennifer actually moved her kids to a different school district and different schools, and they left all of their friends in the community that they grew up in, because they were worried about their health. And And they have improved since they have started going to a different community, but they still live in Val Verde.

Darcy, who's a veteran who has cancer, he could look out his window and see every neighbor has cancer that he looks at. I went to lunch with him, and he could not eat his soup because his hands were shaking so much. Tremors are very common, as Jose will speak about today.

Brandy is a neighbor. I camped at her house. She had five miscarriages. Miscarriages are very common. Fifty seven times higher than the normal rate.

And, cancer is higher. Hypertension, heart disease, all of these issues that have been a huge, huge issue in our community. We're in we're we continue to be in discussions with the opposition, have, you know, made, I mentioned, a number of amendments, and we'll continue to do that, and work with them as much as we can, over the summer recess. And I wanna turn it over to my witnesses who are here to testify. Resident, from Avenal, Delilah Barajas, and from Valverde, Jose Luis Babadilla.

You each have two minutes each.

Can you hear me?

Okay. Yeah.

No. If the now it's on. No. You turn it off.

No. Okay. Now it's on. Okay. I'm sorry about that.

I'm going to interpret what Mister Bobadia just said to you. Good morning. Good morning, madam Chair and members. My name is Jose Bobadia. I have been a resident of Valverde since 1982.

I bought my house in 1994 where I lived very close to the landfill. I started my business in 2002. I owned a restaurant, and I was the cook. I started experiencing health symptoms in 2016, tremors that have gotten worse. My symptoms worsened when the disaster at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill started in 2023.

I developed many other health symptoms as well. Headaches, nausea, dizziness, stress, tingling and numbness, very high blood sugar, difficulty breathing and cardiovascular issues. My hands started to shake so much that I could no longer use a knife to carefully cut my food. My health problems caused me to lose my business because I could no longer cook or operate my restaurant. Then, I lost my home.

A home I worked so hard to buy. A home I thought I would retire in. A home where I now lost everything I paid into. Now, I am living with my family and depending on them because I'm so sick. I have become disabled and can no longer support myself.

A b 28 will help prevent these landfill disasters from happening in our communities. I will help protest residents health. It will create a community fund to hopefully help people like me to be able to move away and no longer have to live in a toxic landfill air. Nobody should have to suffer the way that I am suffering, the way our community is suffering. Please help us.

Please vote yes on AB 28. Thank you.

And now you have two minutes.

Yes. Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of AB 28. My name is Talila Barajas, and I am a resident of the community of Avenal and a member of Avenal Care, which stands for Community Action for Restorative Equity. I am here today in solid solidarity with the communities surrounding Tequila Canyon Landfill and all landfill communities around the state.

I support AB 28, the Landfill Safety Act, because the impacts of toxic landfill pollution does not stop at city limits or county lines. This issue has no geographical boundaries. What affects one community today can affect another tomorrow. As someone who lives in a community that experiences the en dis environmental burdens from toxic landfills firsthand, I know how important it is that we strengthen protection for the people who are most impacted. I have lived in Nava now most of my life.

About fifteen years ago, I started to develop neurological problems along with severe headaches. Recently, I have been diagnosed with cyst on my back and a tumor. I am constantly in pain and experience loss of balance and disorientation on many and on many occasions. On the past six months, I have lost my balance, which have caused me to fall numerous times. Living with these health issues has been very difficult.

I believe that most of my problems have been caused from living in Avenal next to the landfill. Communities across California are living with the consequences of toxic landfill pollution that threatens our health, our quality of life, and our future. Too often often, residents are left to carry those burdens, while polluters, landfill owners, and operators are not held to the level of accountability and communities they serve that the communities they serve. We need stronger protections that could you wrap up first? If you could wrap up, please.

Okay. And we need prevention and early action to prevent disaster like Chiquita Canyon, Landfill Fire, and Avenel from getting out

of control. Thank you. Thank you. Now is the time for anyone who would like to record their me too in support of this bill. Good morning. Nicholas with Californians Against Waste. Just I've gotten the chance to get to know the members of both of these communities and nobody should have to Just a few, please.

Just a few. I just wanna say, nobody should have to go through what they've gone through.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jennifer Elkins. I'm a resident of Val Verde, president of the Val Verde Civic Association, and I'm with, grassroots organizers for accountable landfills, and I support this bill. Thank you.

I'm Matt Holmes, California Environmental Justice Coalition. I spent three nights there. I got a nosebleed. Thank you. A 94 member organization and

that you're supporting.

Hi. My name is Robert Melanson. I'm a resident of Val Verde and we support AB 28. Thank

you. Hi. My name is Ashley Rollaford. I'm a resident of Val Verde and I support this bill.

Good morning. Robert Dresser for California LULAC League of United Latin American Citizens, we strongly support.

Sophia Athaekoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Mandy Estrella on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Rethink Waste in support.