Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee, Tuesday, April 14, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 5
It's what we've built our civilization on, our cultures on. It's what we continue to go to to this very day. And because of the laws of the last hundred and fifty years, we've been removed from those sacred sites. We've been removed from our ability to act as every other American citizen has. But not just for our culture and our spirituality, but for our entire culture, our entire civilization, including home development and economic development.
Across California, you can see to this very day the impact has had. Vice chair can probably speak better to me on the impacts of water rights in California, tribal water rights in California, and the impact they've had on our tribal nations. And it is everywhere, both rural and urban. And yet we persevere, and we found partnerships with California to help move our cultures and our way of life forward. AB twenty two twenty two eighteen, we believe in is the extension of the work that's already being done, but a critical next step in the relationship between California and tribal nations.
Welcome.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Do we have, members of the audience that wish to come forward as a me too? Please do so now.
Speaker 6
Good morning, chair and members. Rico Mastro Donato with the Trust for Public Land in support.
Speaker 7
Good morning. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon California support. Also voicing support for the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Watershed Research and Training Center, and MonoLink Committee.
Speaker 6
Madam chair, members of the committee, Frank Molina on behalf of Yahav Yatam of Sam and Well Nation, the San Yen is Banished UMass Indians, the Cocoon Taruk band of Ohlone Castona Indians of the Bixar Rancheria, the California Indian Environmental Alliance, the Cisco Intertribal Council, and Blue Lake Rancheria in support. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Good morning. Elaine Rovee from Eureka, California, chair of Humboldt Progressive Democrats strongly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Mihayshiya Albert Brian Wallace, former chair of the Washoe tribe in Nevada, California, current CEO of the indigenous future society, which was the former Sierra funded representing, tribal nations in the Sierra bioregional support of this bill. So thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Next question. Sure. Scott Webb speaking for Resource from Institute, BayQuest, Baykeeper, Save the Bay, and Defenders of Wildlife and Sport. Thank you so much.
Speaker 11
Avalon Provence, a student at University of California Irvine. I support this bill.
Speaker 12
Chairwoman, members of the committee, Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Water Foundation. Thanks to the author.
Speaker 13
Good morning. Kyle Jones on, here in support for our community alliance with family farmers, clean water action, and the Center for Environmental Health and Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Morning, chair, committee members. Sean Bothwell. I'm here on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance and also our 10 California waterkeepers. That includes San Diego coastkeeper, Inland Empire waterkeeper, Orange County coastkeeper, LA waterkeeper, Santa Barbara channelkeeper, Monterey waterkeeper, Russian riverkeeper, Humboldt waterkeeper, our UBU waterkeeper, and our Shasta riverkeeper. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Good morning, chair and committee members. Morgan Snyder here on behalf of Restore the Delta, the one zero one one two tribe, California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance, Friends of the River, California Water Impact Network, Golden State Salmon Association, and PCL in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Hey. My name is Craig Tucker. I'm a consultant for the Karuk tribe who's proud to cosponsor this bill, and I also wanna share support from Save California Salmon, the Klamath Indigenous Land Trust, Ridges to Riffles Indigenous Conservation Group, California Rural Indian Health Board, Friends of the Ile River, and the Mid Klamath Watershed Council. Thanks.
Speaker 11
Good morning, chair and members. Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California and CalEnviroVoters in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Alex Bloomer here in support on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resource Defense Council, California Trout, Trout Unlimited, the Environmental Law Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Information Center. Thank you.
Speaker 48
Good morning, madam chair. Andrea Aberjal with the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA represents over 86 public agencies that provide water, wastewater, gas, and electric service in California. Our members have meaningful engagement with tribes in their service territories, and CMUA values the author's intent in shining a light on California's history of mistreatment of tribes. While CMUA appreciates the author's willingness to accept the committee amendments, we remain respectfully opposed to a b twenty two eighteen.
Speaker 18
Even with the anticipated amendments, it is unclear what impact this bill will have on water supply reliability in the state. We have not had sufficient time to analyze the impacts of the new language. But from what we can assess, the proposed changes fall into two buckets of concern, legal uncertainty and vagueness. The changes to section one zero six point two would still put water supply reliability at risk. Although the committee amendments strike out the word rights from subsection b, the reference to permits is retained.
Appropriate of rights are permitted rights and would be subject to interpretation of the bill's vague concepts for implementing this policy. We are unsure how this bill will impact future appropriative right applications or projects like the Bay Delta Plan or the Delta Conveyance Project. Additionally, protection of tribal water uses may imply that use is higher than any other beneficial use, further threatening water reliability. Our members heavily rely on water rights to ensure water is delivered to their customers, and there is a huge question as to what impact this bill will have on existing water rights relied upon in many of your legislative districts, which could impact water supply reliability. Second, the changes to section ten fifty one of the water code are vague and need to be defined to understand their functionality.
The terms such as upon request, shall consult with, and ancestral territory ambiguous. In our position letter, we made the point that terms of this bill were vague and need to be defined. And as amended, this bill is still vague. Definitions or descriptions would help create certainty as to the implementation of the bill. We appreciate the committee's work to refine the language, appreciate the author's work to make this bill more workable.
However, we do urge your no vote today.
Speaker 32
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Amber Rosso, and I'm with the Association of California Water Agencies. First and foremost, we would like to take a moment to recognize the bill's intent to acknowledge the historic injustices experienced by California native American tribes. We have an opposed unless amended position on a b two two one eight. We do appreciate the efforts to refine the language and clarify certain ambiguities, including listing which agencies would be responsible for addressing these historical inequities.
Speaker 19
However, we will need additional time to review the latest proposed language. The lack of detail of how each of these state agencies will address access and control over water coupled with the lack of definitional guardrails for consistent implementation across state agencies causes us concern. Water agencies operate under a host of regulations and policies and are continuously working toward meeting and ensuring compliance. This, in addition to the state level state level efforts underway to address drought and climate resilience, Addressing inequities through incorporating remedies in every state water management action makes it difficult to plan accordingly and plan for the future of water deliverability. Additionally, there are various efforts underway by the state to improve collaboration with California Native American tribes, including the recently published tribal stewardship policy by the California Natural Resources Agency.
This policy directs the agency and its departments to institutionalize practices and build lasting tribal partnerships in the implementation of each respective mission, regulation, policies, and programs. As water agencies, it is difficult to parse out where the gaps currently exist as the state works to strengthen these tribal partnerships. We look forward to continued dialogue, to better understand those gaps and to work collaboratively on any potential solutions. We do respectfully ask for a no vote today. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good morning, madam chair and members. Beth Olasso on behalf of the water blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Valley Advocacy Fund. Echo the comments, of our friends at the table. Look forward to looking for a solution. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good morning. Charles Delgado with California State Association of Counties, oppose unless amended. We do appreciate the author's office, offering language. We're still reviewing those amendments, but currently OUA.
Speaker 23
Good morning. Lily McKay with Sandler O'Neill's of Mododa Water Authority also oppose unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Morning. Alex Bering, California Farm Bureau, respectfully opposed. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good morning. Leila Romero on behalf of League of California cities in respectful, opposition unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good morning, Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County representatives of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. That's okay. Thank you. So I'm gonna bring it back to the committee now. Questions?
Assemblymember's Bennett.
Speaker 27
Yes. Question for the municipal. You were talking representing the municipal contractors or municipal association. You're recommending a you asked us to have a no vote today. Is that Yes.
K. So in in in spite of the historical injustices, etcetera, if we vote no today, that ends this bill. If this committee votes no today, you don't want us to have the bill move forward and continue to work on your concerns?
Speaker 18
Respectfully, we have an opposed position, so I have to ask for a no vote on behalf of my members.
Speaker 27
You asked for more time. Correct. So did you but I thought I heard you say at the end that you asked for an aye vote, but opposed
Speaker 27
Correct. But if we do a no vote today, there will be a bill if this committee votes no, then then then we end at this point in time, and we don't give the tribe and these people a chance to work that out. Okay. I just wanted to be clear in terms of your positions.
Speaker 8
Thank you for that clarity. I appreciate that because that's where I was gonna kind of go on with this. You know, I I I'm looking at this really from an from an objective point of view, and I wanna give the author the opportunity to answer some of this because I think there's some missing pieces to this puzzle with respect to I know you're you're already working on some things, and you're there's some conversations that's already taken place. Can so can you talk to what that looks like in maybe future committees?
Speaker 3
Sure. Yeah. There have been a a lot of amendments, and that's why some of the opposition indicates they're still reviewing the amendments. I I think the amendments go a long way, especially in terms of creating greater specificity, removing some of the the vague terms, and I appreciate the the chair and her staff, for helping us, create greater specificity, more clarity as to which agencies it pertains to. And and look.
Speaker 12
This is the first committee of the house origin, so I'm committed to continue to work with other committees, senate committees, what have you, to further help define if there's still a lack of clarity from the perspective of opposition. Ultimately, I've I've you know, it's not not just the intention, but I think the text of the legislation is in a much better place today because of the work of the committee staff and the chair in terms of clearing up some of that vagueness. And if there's further vagueness that opposition and those that have concerns want us to work on, my my door is open to that. And I'm sure future committees will also be looking to some of that, any any, anything considered vague, so that we can clear it up. But, ultimately, as has been mass mentioned even by opposition, a lot of these agencies are already already have practice of working with local tribes.
Speaker 3
I I don't that doesn't stop. In fact, think this bill will enhance that work. The tribes also care about sustainability and job prevention, and in some cases, have the best practices to see that through. And so this is not, in any way designed to obstruct work done by the agencies that we put on them to do. But quite to the contrary, I think that it allows the opportunity, for our tribes to have, a greater voice in that process, but not to create an obstacle in that process.
Quite to the contrary, I think, create long term planning with the tribes. And I think that the the amendments, that I've accepted, today go a long way in removing a lot of that vagueness and creating more certainty as to what agencies will have responsibility moving forward.
Speaker 8
In order not to belabor the point of what amendments are going on and what's happening moving forward, I I think the the you know, I I look at all the folks that are in in support in opposition, then I think of my district and the nations that that I get the the pleasure of of speaking on behalf of. I think it's important that you you know, I I walked in here with a potential abstain. Like, let let's just get it get it out. But there are some pieces to this that I I would I would love to work with your office on to make sure that a lot of the district folks weigh in also because there's some pieces to this puzzle that are important to to me and to the district that I represent, moreover, some of the organizations that I get the opportunity to represent. So I had a ton of questions.
I'm gonna pause on the questions because I know this is still baking. And and for that reason, I I think it would be probably prudent to to keep this moving along so that way we can we can continue to work together. And I appreciate the author and and, and the support in opposition on this.
Speaker 7
No. Thank you so much, chair. I'm gonna make a comment, and then I'm gonna let my friend Frankie Myers, respond to it if he'd like to. But what's interesting to me about this bill is you have the state trying to make up for a history of atrocities that was committed against our native communities. And yet since those atrocities occurred, you have an entire system, both private and public, that has been founded on that original sin.
I think as we move forward and talk about what actual restitution means, it's going to get really uncomfortable. And I think it's gonna be very difficult. And for me, this bill isn't even the most difficult conversation, but it gives the legislature an opportunity to be steeped in that uncomfortableness and to bring people to the table to talk about how both things can actually be true, that you can recognize that our indigenous population was not considered people and were not at the table when these decisions were originally made. And then people who benefited from that have built lives, built businesses, built careers that they have passed on to their future generations who were not a part of that original decision but are concerned about the impact of that. And this legislature is either either going to have to learn to be uncomfortable in grappling with that tension or admit that we're not going to solve the problem, which I don't think that people aren't interested in that that path either.
This bill is a simple step into that uncomfortableness and into those conversations and really amounts more towards recognition of that fact than it does of any type of possible solution to it, and to me is a baby step in the direction that we have been saying we will go, for a number of years. And I and I wanna give my friend a chance to to respond if he'd like to.
Speaker 5
Thank you, assembly member. I think tribes are uniquely qualified to speak on what it feels like to have their water rights stripped from them. I think we're uniquely qualified to talk about water uncertainty. We've had water uncertainty. We've gone through the process of having our water rates taken.
We're sitting at this table not asking for that. We don't wanna destroy communities. We don't wanna take people's livelihoods away. We don't wanna rip families apart. We know what that feels like.
We know the generational trauma that comes with that. Our opposition and our tribal nations share the same goal. We absolutely want reliability. We absolutely want certainty. We also want a future where everyone can benefit.
I think what it boils down to is we're in opposition of who's at the table to make that decision. And for far too long, tribes have been left out of that decision making process, and this is a small step to correct that.
Speaker 7
Thank you. And with that, I'm a proud supporter of the bill, proud of the author for picking it up, and proud to be working with him. I think it's a baby step, and especially in this first committee, it's a a really minor step to to advance to the next committee, but I hope to see this bill signed into law. Thank you.
Speaker 1
When the time comes, we will we will note both of those items. So I I just have a a few remarks I'd like to say, and then I'll ask for the esteemed author's closing. So what's wrong? Just
Speaker 27
Thank you. And I just wanted to say, I I I think that assembly member Rogers said it really well. For us to address this, we're gonna have to live in an uncomfortable territory for a while. But it I've I really do think that we can live in an uncomfortable territory and come up with good solutions in the long run as we go forward. And that's why I asked my question earlier.
Consistently, I think we've seen water districts across the state of California be so cautious and so conservative that they want us to vote no at the very first committee hearing, and they continually ask us to do this. And it kills the ability to have the uncomfortable conversations that we need to be more comfortable with. So I really appreciate that logic. Thank you. Thank you for the second argument.
Speaker 1
My pleasure. Thank you for for all the remarks of the committee and for the witnesses as well. Some of my remarks have been touched on, like seat at the table. Sorry. I hope you didn't copyright it because it's in my field.
But, anyway, I so first wanna say I wanna thank the author and the sponsors for working with the committee on this important bill about competing interests. And there have been a lot of discussions to try to find where we can all be comfortable. So as I've said to the author, you know, I I believe that it is important to ensure the tribes have a seat at the table, especially when the state government is making decisions that affect their rights and everyone else's rights as you so eloquently, addressed. You know, in my view, this that's what this bill really is about, and that's what it's achieved. It is not that we're elevating tribes' rights over other parties, but it ensures that tribes will be taken into consideration and have a place at the table.
This is the least we can do as a state given California's tragic history within treatment of our Native American tribes. And it's interesting that the witness can talk about the pain with great sensitivity, that others might go through that pain. And I I very much appreciate those comments because a lot of this uncomfort zone is about, did I hear you? Do I know what you've through? And how can we come together in dealing with what I consider to be the most precious resource in the state of California?
Without water, we will we will have nothing. We will be in serious trouble. So for that reason, I thank the author for working with the committee, and we we really did try to find this place where where and conversations can't continue, but we really did try to find a place where everybody could be heard. So with that, would you like to close?
Speaker 3
I I I want to express my gratitude to the chair and to certainly the committee members as well that have recognized the need for us to have these difficult conversations. It's not simply about just shining a light on past inequities against tribal communities. It's about what are we gonna do about it going forward. I think the apologies that have happened in the last few years have been incredibly meaningful and important, but they fall flat if we don't follow-up those words with actions. And, you know, I I used to teach a course called Race in the Law at the Lincoln Law School in San Jose.
And beginning of the semester, the first section was on Native American sovereignty and and how many treaties we broke against our tribal communities. And and that was the opening chapters of of the course. And it's it's a great honor for all of us, I think, to be in a moment where we can write new chapters with our tribal communities. We have the opportunity to do that, and it's not easy. And I really commend the chair for it's a really tough balancing act to to figure out how to move legislation like this forward.
And I and I think the bill is in a much better place now than it was when first introduced, because of the work together that we've been doing. As our witness indicated, this is not about taking anything away from anyone else. It's about recognizing what we have taken away and that we can do better going forward, in terms of making sure that we have policies that have everyone at the table as the chair indicated. So, thank you, madam chair, and to you and your staff. I respectfully ask for an I vote at the appropriate time.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you so much. And because of procedural constraints, you're accepting this committee amendments will be taken up in ESTM this afternoon. Correct?
Speaker 3
And and that is correct. And I do wanna point out again the the work of the committee to make that possible because we're literally hearing this bill. If it gets out this morning, this afternoon in the STM. And so we will be accepting the amendments at the next Next door. Committee.
Speaker 1
Okay. With that, I see that we have a assembly member ransom for our other expedited matter. Golden muscles, we await you. Your favorite.
Speaker 1
Secretary, let's go ahead and take the role so we can establish a quorum.
Speaker 33
K. Pappin? Here. Pappin, here. Jeff Gonzalez?
Here. Jeff Gonzalez? Here. Alaniz?
Speaker 1
Do we have a motion on the consent? We got a motion from and a second from Yeah. Coloza. Gonzales has a motion in Coloza.
Speaker 55
So items on the consent calendar, number six, a b 18 o two, motion is due passed to local gov. Item number 12, a b two two zero seven, motion is due passed to appropriations. Item number 18, a b two five one three, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Item number 19, a b two five seven eight, Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Item number 20, a b two five nine zero.
Speaker 33
Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Item number 23, a b two seven two eight, Soria. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Item number 26, a b two seven eight seven. Motion is due passed to appropriations.
Speaker 33
Aleniz? Aye. Alvarez? Avila Farias? Banes?
Bennett? Bennett? I. Burner? Coloza?
Coloza? I. Gallagher? Hart? Hart I.
Marucci? Rogers?
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you so much. Thank you, assembly member Gonzalez. That, welcome, assembly member Ransom. We are ready for you in AB, 2032.
Speaker 26
Awesome. Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members. I'm assembly member Radisha Ransom. I'm here to to present a b 32, which is the Golden Mussels Response Act.
I wanna start by thanking the committee for the work on the bill and accepting the water parks and wildlife committee amendments, which will be taken up in the assembly environmental safety and toxic material committee, where the bill will be heard later today. I'm here to present this bill, which is a critical bill to allow local water agencies to quickly and effectively respond to the invasive golden mussel species. My community in San Joaquin County and Sacramento San Joaquin Delta have been ground zero for golden mussel infestation, seeing the impacts firsthand. First detected in October 2024 in the Delta, the golden mussel has rapidly spread across the Delta and all along the state water project, now reaching as far south as San Diego. The golden mussels form dense colonies on critical water infrastructure, clogging and degrading our water delivery systems across the state.
This directly threatens our water systems that provide water to millions of Californians and millions of acres of farmland. AB twenty thirty two will help combat the spread of golden mussels by equipping our local water agencies with necessary tools to expedite their response to prevent, mitigate, control, and eradicate golden mussels. This bill will ensure that water agencies can perform simple operational and maintenance work without delay. It will also allow water agencies with the guidance of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to perform necessary research studies needed to create more robust and effective control plans. Lastly, the bill will require our relevant agencies, including the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Board, to identify existing tools that enable a streamlined or faster administrative process for responding to golden mussels.
Without urgent action, California families will bear the cost through higher water rates and increased food prices. AB twenty thirty two ensures that we act quickly to mitigate this ongoing mussel crisis in California. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote when the time comes. With me today to support the bill, I have Kristen Olsen representing the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and Ernie Avila, who is the Contra Costa Water District Board President. And lastly, we have doctor Cindy Meyer, who can answer any technical questions that the committee may have.
I'll turn it to
Speaker 23
Thank you, chair Pappin and members. My name is Kristen Olson, and I'm here today on behalf of the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority in support of AB 2,032 along with our cosponsor Contra Costa Water District. I'd like to start by thanking both Assembly Member Ransom and Chairwoman for their attention to this very critically important issue. The authority's mission focuses on operation and maintenance of both the Jones and O'Neil pumping plants, which deliver water through the Central Valley to support communities, agriculture, and wildlife habitat. The invasive golden mussels pose an immediate and potentially catastrophic threat to our water conveyance system and a long term risk to the health of the Bay Delta ecosystem.
Speaker 36
A coordinated rapid response to the golden mussel invasion is essential to mitigate the impacts and protect our ability to convey water. Despite the coordination between the state and local water agencies, the response has not been rapid enough to control the spread or impacts of the golden mussels. AB 2,032 provides critical approaches to address this very immediate problem. It enables rapid response by streamlining regulatory pathways, expediting permitting for effective treatments, and allowing essential maintenance to proceed to protect critical infrastructure while implementing best management practices and environmental protection measures. It also improves coordination between the state and water agencies, identification of infested water bodies, and enables research for effective mitigation.
California needs to recognize the seriousness of this threat and not inhibit rapid response efforts. AB twenty thirty two ensures agencies can respond quickly to protect Californians' water and food supplies. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support. And as assembly member Ransom indicated, doctor Cindy Meyer of the water authority is here to answer any technical questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Do we have any me twos from the audience in support? Oh, we have more winners.
Speaker 40
Good morning, Sheriff It's okay. Good morning, Sheriff Pappin and committee members. I'm Ernie Avila. I'm the president of the board for the Cutcoaster Water District here in support as a cosponsor of AB twenty thirty two. Contra Costa Water is an urban water provider serving 550,000 customers in Central And Eastern Contra Costa County.
Speaker 37
We're wholly dependent on the Delta for our water supply with over ninety years of experience operating in the Delta. Contra Costa Water has adapted to changing conditions and the presence of golden mussels poses an immediate threat to our infrastructure and infrastructure throughout the the Delta as well as the health of the Delta ecosystems. Country Coast Water first detected golden mussels at our intake when the state detected golden mussels elsewhere in the Delta, and we took action using every tool possible knowing the severity of the situation. We proactively applied for and secured a permit to use a promising copper based treatment knowing that there was a lengthy permitting review process necessary. CCWD environmental experts took five months to secure the permit for one chemical application.
We're working with local, state, and federal agencies, academic researchers, and the industry to identify successful treatment and control options. AB twenty thirty two would streamline the permitting process, which helps water agencies respond with the urgency that this situation requires. This will also provide a path to obtain a clear guidance needed from experts in making the permitting process more efficient and will save resources for water agencies and resource agencies as well. The improved defense station mapping included in a b twenty thirty two will provide key data points needed as agencies statewide work collaboratively on long term solutions. Based on CCWD's experience, AB twenty thirty two provides practical tools needed to navigate the immediate and urgent response warranted to address the threat that golden mussels pose to water systems and the delta ecosystems.
Therefore, we urge an I vote.
Speaker 1
Well, that was that was well worth you having me you speak. I'm glad I didn't overlook you. In any event, do we have metos in the audience in favor?
Speaker 39
Good morning. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.
Speaker 27
Devin Middlebrook, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and California Tahoe Alliance. Thanks for the author on this bill.
Speaker 18
Good morning. Andrea Avergel with California Municipal Utilities Association and Sport.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Sophie Marine, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in support.
Speaker 11
Good morning. Avalon Provence, current master's student and former Ecology Lab employee. I support this bill.
Speaker 1
There's just a lot of people behind you, and I don't know if anybody else wants to be a me too. Not that I see. Okay. With that, we'll bring it back to the committee. Anyone wish there is no opposition on file.
Anybody want to oppose?
Speaker 1
I gotta move this along, people. I don't see any opposition. We'll bring it back to the committee. Assembly member Rogers.
Speaker 7
No. I just wanna thank the author for bringing a bill that allows the agencies to flex their muscle. I think that more mollusk legislation is what the public's been clamoring for, and so I look forward to this is this passing.
Speaker 1
else? Anyone else? Okay. I I would like to thank the author for bringing this bill. This bill appeals to me for two reasons.
Number one, it's about government efficiency, and we owe that to the people of the state of California. And we particularly, number two, owe it to them because of the invasive nature of this species and how dangerous it really is, and we are reaching some very, very critical levels here. So I appreciate your your tenacity and your fortitude in bringing it forward. We have a motion in a second. Would you like to close?
Speaker 26
Yes, madam chair. So I wanna first of all thank my witnesses for helping to really, articulate the importance and the severity of the situation. I wanna thank the committee members, for the support and the work that's been done thus far. This is a really, critical timing, and we need to move with haste and with urgency as the spawning period is right now for the golden mussels. Each golden mussel can reproduce 1,000,000 golden mussels.
And so we need to give these water agencies all the tools that we possibly can to expedite, and empower them to take care of, you know, securing the future of the water districts and our infrastructure as well as the quality of our water. So with that, I wanna just say that this is about us urgently responding to a cry a crisis, and I wanna thank you and respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 33
Item number two, a b twenty thirty two, due passed to environmental safety and toxic materials. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alaniz?
Aye. Alaniz, aye. Alvarez, Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye.
Baines, Bennett? Aye. Bennett, I. Burner? Coloza?
Aye. Coloza, I. Gallagher, Hart? Aye. Hart, I.
Marisucci? Rogers?
Speaker 1
Excellent. We've got Show my pictures. Eight. It'll get out, but we'll leave it open for add ons too. Okay?
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Well, I guess that leaves us with a semilember for Vacheco. Come on forward. Good morning, Assemblyman Pacheco. Take it away.
Speaker 34
Thank you, and good morning, madam chair and members. I am here today to present Assembly Bill seventeen twelve, a district specific bill to to aid one of the cities that I represent, which is Santa Fe Springs. Santa Fe Springs owns a waste a water system that faces groundwater contamination issues and requires urgent infrastructure upgrades. However, due to the system's small size, the city cannot afford a to finance these upgrades without at least a 300% increase to customers' rates. In contrast, if the city sells its system to a larger water provider, that provider will have the capacity to spread the cost across a much broader customer base, allowing rates to remain steady.
Speaker 41
However, under current law, a public entity must hold a municipal election before selling its water system to a PUC regulated provider, adding cost and delay for the city and its residents. Instead, a a b seventeen twelve allows the city to proceed through a protest process facilitating a smoother, more affordable sale. After the sale, the water system will be regulated by the PUC, which will help ensure reasonable and stable rates for residents. A similar approach was successful in this neigh nearby city of Montebello under a b eight fifty in 2021 where rates remained stable after the sale. With me today to speak in support of the bill and answer any technical questions is James Enriquez, the city's, public works director from Santa Fe Springs, and I will hand it over to him.
Speaker 42
Thank you. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is James Enriquez, and I am the public works director, city engineer of the city of Santa Fe Springs. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. I'm here to today representing the city of Santa Fe Springs to request the committee support in moving forward assembly bill seventeen twelve.
This bill will enable the city to expedite the consolidation of its water system through a sale to a larger water purveyor. This is critical since the city's water enterprise has been operating at a structural deficit for several years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future with subsidy by our general fund and our our residential population. Like many small municipal water systems, Santa Fe Springs rates have simply not kept up with inflation for decades. And as a consequence, the city has deferred critical capital improvements for decades. We currently have over 150,000,000 in capital improvement needs with literally no capital funding.
This includes an aging pipe distribution system and, more importantly, no operable wells. Our two wells are shut down due to contamination that require that would require over $8,000,000 each in, treatment upgrades. This requires us to depend 100% on imported water that is significantly more expensive and continues to rise in cost. AB seventeen twelve would enable the sale of the city's water system to a larger provider with a larger ratepayer base and more resources to implement capital improvements and provide a more reliable and cost effective water source. This option has been successful for other cities in our region that were or are in a similar situation, and we believe this is the best option to provide a long term reliable water source and long term rate stable rate stabilization for our customers.
Although the city raised rates most recently in 2020 by more than 30%
Speaker 5
that simply has not been enough. We estimate that the next, increase will need to triple rates in order to include an adequate capital improvement program as we have seen happen recently in other Southern California cities. We simply can no longer compete with efficiency and economy of scale of larger water purveyors. We ask for your support in moving forward a b seventeen twelve. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Only one witness. Right? Correct. I just wanna make sure I skipped over the last one.
Anyone from the audience that would like to come forward with a me too in support of the bill? Thank you. Gonzalez Coloza.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Kaitlyn Johnson with political solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Hi. Gabriel Menards on behalf of San Gabriel Valley Water Company in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. We can't possibly have any opposition. I'm gonna ask anyway. Seeing no opposition, I'll bring it back to the committee. No comments or questions from the committee.
I just wanna thank the author for bringing I know you come out of local government. I come out of local government. There's nothing like a good public works manager. Thank you so much, sir, for being here today. It seems like it's a a very sound fiscal bill, and I wish you the best and your ratepayers.
Would you like to close?
Speaker 33
Item number four, a b seventeen twelve. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Coloza, I. Gallagher, Hart, Murasuchi, Rogers?
Speaker 1
It's on call. We don't quite have enough yeses, but I'm sure you'll get there. If I was a betting woman. Okay. Thank you so much both for you to for being here.
See we have a seminar Aguirre Curry. You you have your witnesses. You you ready to go?
Speaker 1
No worries. While we're waiting, we're gonna take a vote on the calra bill, which was the first one we heard, but we didn't take a vote on because we didn't have a quorum. We did have a motion and a second. We can't. We don't have a quorum.
I knew that. Yeah. Unless we get a new motion. You wanna move the calor bill, anybody? Bennett will move the calor bill.
Rogers will second it. Okay. Well, go ahead.
Speaker 33
Okay. Item number one, a b two two one eight. The motion is due passed to environmental safety and toxic materials. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Alenis? Oven. Alenis not voting.
Alvarez? Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Baines?
Bennett? Bennett I. Burner? Coloza? Coloza I.
Gallagher? Hart? Murasuchi? Rogers?
Speaker 1
Let let me just give the vote. How many did you get there? Okay. It'll be on call. We'll leave that on call.
Mister Bennett, we're gonna let you add on to which number? Okay. Pacheco, item four.
Speaker 33
Okay. Item number 4, AB1712. Alvarez, Baines, Bennett. Bennett, I, Burner, Gallagher, Hart, Marucci. Okay.
Speaker 1
Thank you, madam majority leader. Okay. With that, then we will have assembly member Hadwick come down to to to present a b seventeen twenty two. Good morning. K.
We've got a motion from vice chair Gonzales, a second by Assemblymember Alenise. Take it away, Assemblymember Hadwick.
Speaker 45
Thank you, madam chair. I'd first like I'm gonna let you do this. I would first like to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. I accept the committee amendments. I also appreciate the chair's leadership in addressing the challenges rural communities face by holding a human wildlife conflict hearing this year.
Rural communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of conflict with large predators. These predators, such as mountain lions, bears, and wolves, are killing livestock, pets, and people. Currently, the federal Endangered Species Act recognizes self defense when a person takes a listed animal based on a good faith belief that the action was necessary to protect themselves or another individual from harm. Unfortunately, it is not clear what self defense standard applies when someone has to defend themselves or a loved one against a large predator protected under the California Endangered Species Act. Rather than leave it to a court or prosecutor's discretion, California should set a clear standard.
Speaker 29
Assembly bill seventeen twenty two establishes common sense exception to take under the to take under the California Endangered Species Act. Under this bill, a person can defend themselves or their family from bodily harm inflicted by an endangered species. AB seventeen twenty two will ensure ranchers, hunters, hikers, and people enjoying the outdoors have certainty that they can protect themselves if they encounter a dangerous predator. I respectfully ask for your I vote, and I am joined today by El Dorado County sheriff Jeff Lykoff. We're try we're having technical difficulties with the recording.
Speaker 1
Did you have, live testimony you wanna give while they're messing around with that? Absolutely. Thank you.
Speaker 46
Good morning. My name is sheriff Jeff Lykoff, and I come before you today with a clear sense of purpose. I wanna honor Talen Brooks by never forgetting his name and to also acknowledge the brutal attack of his younger brother Wyatt Brooks at the hands of a starving juvenile mountain lion. I wanna urge our lawmakers to act swiftly by passing California Assembly Bill seventeen twenty two to protect all Californians who enjoy our states outdoors. Taylor and Wyatt's experience is a stark reminder that the beauty of California's wild places comes with real risk.
Risks that haven't have had had an adverse ripple effect family and throughout our beautiful state of California communities to include children, hikers, runners, or anyone who seeks solace or to recreate in nature. No one should have to face a life changing encounter without a way or an option to exercise a right to protect themselves or their loved ones. Taylor and Wyatt's story asks us not only to remember and to mourn, but to support, learn, and legislate. Assembly Bill seventeen twenty two offers a common sense framework and an answer to reduce the likelihood and severity of wildlife human conflicts. While many of us cherish and respect the coexistence with wildlife, coexistence requires preparation.
Passing assembly bill seventeen twenty two is not about demonizing wildlife. It's about responsible stewardship and protecting people. It's about ensuring that when families walk our trails, school groups and families visit our parks, hunters enjoy the outdoors or outdoor workers are out there doing their job. They have clear guidance and a way to act in good faith to protect themselves if the unthinkable happens. Today, I ask you to imagine Taylor and Wyatt's families and to imagine any of us in their place.
Speaker 58
Imagine if Taylor and White had a way to defend themselves in good faith judgment on that fateful day afternoon other than yelling and waving their arms while backing away to throwing their backpack at the stalking lion. Imagine life less altered, trauma reduced, and tragedies prevented. To our legislators, I ask for your I vote on 1722 without delay. To Taylor and White and every family affected by wildlife conflict, we see you, we stand with you, and we will continue to fight for you to make the beautiful California outdoors safer for everyone. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Let me see how we're doing technically with that. Oh, I've wait a minute. I do wanna warn the audience that this could be No.
Speaker 46
It's a it's a it's a 911 tape, it just has an injury on the second the the facial injuries on the attack.
Speaker 1
Yeah. But I I wanna warn the audience that this could be something that would be difficult to watch. How are we doing on on sound? Bear with us for a second.
Speaker 1
I'm gonna give it about ninety more seconds, then we may have to move along.
Speaker 1
Do you wanna hold on one second. Do you wanna read the subtitles or you wanna just paraphrase what we're seeing? Which is it?
Speaker 46
I can basically describe. This is basically a 911 call from Wyatt Brooks. As they're walking down the trail, the lion came down. They backed away. The lion was 10 feet away.
They waved their arms and did everything they were told to do, threw their backpack. And when they tripped over backing away, he tripped over. The lion attacked him, bit him in the face. His brother, Talen, grabbed the mountain lion, was able to get the mountain lion off of him. Was a juvenile mountain lion.
And as soon as Talen got him off, he launched and grabbed Talen by the neck, and that's, the our our deputy's response. Basically, Talen telling the nine one one dispatcher, the lion has my brother by the neck. You're gonna have to kill the lion. It's killing him right now. And our response to to the call, that's all that's what it is.
Okay.
Speaker 1
Without further ado, then if you could take that down. And we will have metus from the audience, please, in favor of the bill. Okay. Seeing none, do we have opposition to the bill that would like to come forward and testify?
Speaker 48
Thank you. Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife. It's our understanding that the author is taking the amendments, offered by the committee. And with that, we would, withdraw our opposition to the bill and appreciate the work by the author and the committee to address this important issue. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Anyone else? With that, I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? Assembly Morales.
Speaker 34
I just wanna thank the author for continuing to be a voice for California to help protect us and and show the rest of us who really have no idea what goes on in your guys' neck of the woods and understand what what kind of concerns you have and what kind of problems that have been put on by other policies that have been brought up in in California. So thank you for doing that, and I'm definitely v and I.
Speaker 1
Great. And I think we had a motion in a second. Okay. So let's go ahead and take a oh, would you like to close?
Speaker 45
Again, I just wanna thank you for your time today. This is a a the number one issue in my district right now is predators and wildlife conflict, Not something I thought would be my focus when I was here, but a a huge need as the rest of the state is is just not having to deal with it like District 1. So thank you for your time, and thank you for considering.
Speaker 1
Pleasure. And you did accept the amendments. Is that correct? Okay. Great.
Alright. With that, madam secretary, we'll take a vote.
Speaker 33
Item number five, a b seventeen twenty two. Motion is due passed as amended to judiciary. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye.
Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Alenis aye. Alvarez? Avila Farias?
Yes. Avila Farias aye. Baines? Bennett? Berner?
Coloza? Coloza aye? Gallagher? Hart, Murucci, Rogers.
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll put that over. And, thank you so much, assembly member Hadwick. I see assembly member Wilson. Come on down.
Speaker 26
When you're ready. Thank you, madam chair and members. I'm pleased to present a b sixteen thirteen, a bill that would create a California off highway vehicle safety and stewardship course as a self guided certification of knowledge of safe operating practices of OHVs and require operators of OHVs to take this course in order to access off highway lands beginning in 2029. Both federal and state statute have standards for the safe operation of a OHV. However, there is no requirement that operators know these existing or other safety standards.
Additionally, there is no requirement that they have the ability to demonstrate their knowledge through a certification program. Because of this gap in law, misuse, property damage, accidents, injuries, and even deaths have become a problem in our state parks and other public lands that allow OHV recreation. California has even ranked the highest in fatalities amongst deaths associated with OHVs across the country. As a result of this need, stakeholder conversations, including several safety summits over the past few years with members of the community, law enforcement, and the department have revealed a common interest in providing additional training and education to the OHV community. AB sixteen thirteen is the culmination of years of work amongst the community and is not only modeled after similar programs in other states like Utah and Arizona, but is modeled after California's own successful voter ID card that the legislature approved over a decade ago.
It is time that California takes this reasonable step forward in our OHV lands in order to improve safety and enact the change the OHV community has been seeking. With that, I would like to introduce my two witnesses, Amy Grenaud, executive director of Sierra Access Coalition, and Jane Artiga, president of the California OutDare Recreation Foundation.
Speaker 49
Good morning, my madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Jane Arteaga, president of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation or CORF. We are a partner with California State Parks. I bring in a extensive background to natural resource management, having recently retired from a long career of the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. I'm here today in support at AB 1613.
I would like to thank the assembly member Wilson for her leadership and a commitment to safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring safe, sustainable outdoor recreation. Over the past several years, we've seen significant shift in outdoor recreation. During COVID nineteen pandemic, people felt safe to be outdoors. Between 2020 and 2023, sales have sat side by sides along or were the most accessible, affordable OHVs available to the public. It increased by 220%.
This rapid growth brought many new riders with little to no experience of understanding the safe riding practices or trail etiquette. As a result, we have seen significant increases in accidents, injuries, and environmental impacts. AB sixteen thirteen is the result of an inclusive stakeholder process, a safety summit sponsored by the OHMVR division, and reflects a collaborative effort to address these challenges. This bill enacts educational approach to improving safety and protecting California's natural resources while preserving the access to responsible recreation. For this reason, I respectfully urge you for your support of a b sixteen thirteen, and thank you for your time.
Speaker 31
Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Amy Granite. And after, twenty years as an advocate in the off road community, I'm now executive director of Sierra Access Coalition. Off road vehicles are amazing for the access that they allow for everyone, whether you're hiking, biking, fishing. It allows you access into the backcountry, but nothing is more important than protecting California's natural and cultural resources that we find so abundant in our backcountry.
The off highway community came together in 2017 and working with senator Ben Allen passed SB two forty nine, which significantly expanded protections of natural and cultural resources. Wildlife habitat protection and soil conservation standards were only two of those. We were able to see that enacted, and all federal agencies that also receive funding through the OHV Trust Fund plus our state parks that allow OHV recreation have now increased their standards and surpassed the standards that are actually at the rest of our state parks. Now we've come together again to recognize that it's great for the environmental scientists to understand this and for state parks to mandate it, but our enthusiasts don't really know about it. They remain uninformed, especially as my colleague mentioned, there are so many new enthusiasts right now.
We need to educate people. We need them have understand the importance of natural and cultural resources and how they can take their part. They also need to understand trail etiquette when they're traveling off road so that everybody is safe when they're enjoying this amazing sport. We ask your support for a b 16 while we thank assembly member Wilson and her staff for their leadership in bringing it forward.
Speaker 1
Thank you. So much. Okay. We have metus from the audience. Please come forward if you are in support of this bill.
Speaker 37
of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you. Now we'll move to any witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Questions come some vice chair Gonzalez.
Speaker 8
Thank you, madam chair. I'd like to thank the offer for for this bill. I have a few questions and or concerns. One of the pieces you know, I in my district, we have the largest OOHV park in all of California, Imperial Valley Sand Dunes, otherwise known as Glamis, to those who like to go, also Ocotillo Wells. So this is huge, a huge, revenue driver for us.
I I wanna kinda separate two different things, the safety side and then the economics of it. Right? Safety. Absolutely. People get hurt.
We need to make it safe. 100% agree with you on on that piece. The piece that that is splitting the the the district, as I look at some of these, support opposed letters is, the the fees associated with this, the determination of what makes what about people who have done this already in the like, because we have a lot of because it's in our backyard. A lot of people who are already lifelong OHV folks that have, you know, some on the professional level. How do you determine the differences in that?
So let me start by by allowing, by offering you the opportunity to respond to kind of those questions and concerns that I'm hearing.
Speaker 26
Not the penalties if you don't have it. Is it is it are you just referencing the fee to take? Are you because you're saying fees, plural. So I I wanna make sure I understand the question. Are you talking about
Speaker 8
The fees to take. That's really the that's what's coming out of the district is the fees to take. And if you do have it, obviously, there's penalties associated with that. But that's the that's what I'm getting the most conversation about is the the fees to take. And coupled with that is the I've been doing this my whole life.
You know, I'm 55 or I've my kids have been doing it for, you know, fifteen years, and they are 16 years old. Those types of things, how would you
Speaker 31
Okay. There's a couple of things, and I'll I'll first start by telling you a story of two 60 year old drivers or operators of a UTV or ROV, it has a number name, or side by sides is what we call them. They were in Dumont Dunes, which isn't far away from Glemis, and they were traveling down. And their thought was, I have been doing this since I am a kid. And and needless to say, their UTV flipped, they both died.
Their friends gave the story afterwards and said, well, they didn't really need helmets. They've been doing it so long. They absolutely understand what to do. All of us, especially as we get older, sometimes we overestimate our skills. Our point is to have everyone start on an equal playing field.
There may be some things that, yes, you understand from your years of experience, but there may be other things maybe in the stewardship category that you don't. This way, everybody can say, okay. We have an equal basis for going out and enjoying this sport. Not only that, as we bring our children and our grandchildren into the sport, we can educate them. So it's not just about the individual person.
Speaker 46
It's about what they pass down to others in their family and their friends as they're starting. And as Jane referenced, we have so many new enthusiasts. So I have seen this so often where people sort of say, everyone else needs to be educated but me. And it's not only about educating yourself. It's also about making sure that you're driving both defensively and protecting everyone else on the trail.
Speaker 31
And that's another area where people kind of tend to get into the mindset where, oh, it's just me, but you're not.
Speaker 8
If I could just maybe narrow down that that that piece real quick. So from this bill says that you have to take a course to get certified, so to speak. Right?
Speaker 8
Mhmm. Self guided course, and then you get the the license to operate. Right? Once you do that, every five years, you have to go through that. I'm gonna kind of I don't wanna say pick it apart because that makes it sound very, like, aggressive.
That's not what that's that's
Speaker 8
Right, where where it's coming from. The first piece is if a someone has a driver's license on the road, they don't have to, every five years, do that. Why are we adding a extra piece for a license to operate every five years.
Speaker 26
So it's not really a license to operate. It's a certificate of understanding that you understand the laws and the laws change regularly. You do get your driver's license renewed. You your driver's license in the state of California is not in perpetuity. So you do get your driver's license renewed.
And when you get your driver's license renewed, there is something that you click to say that you agree to the upon the renewance of the license to abide by the current laws. And as a driver, in order to have the privilege of having a driver's license, you have to attest to that you understand the rules of the road, and you are held accountable to understanding the rules of the road, or you get ticketed or could get a license suspension. And so this is just saying that you certify that you understand the current rules and the current rules regarding the use of OHV as well as understanding, as I said, educating about what does it mean to use this on park lands, like where you should go, how do you not disturb nature while you're using an OHV. So it's just a certification of understanding, and and and that's why it has a regular renewal part of every five years.
Speaker 8
And does that coincide with a I think driver's license is every ten years, right, if if I'm mistaken?
Speaker 8
It's every five years? Okay. So you're align are you saying that you're aligning with the same time frame as
Speaker 26
That we I don't know that I would say that we didn't think about it in terms of driver's license. We thought about it in a reasonable amount of time in terms of how much laws change around a particular area. I don't think it was intentionally tied to driver's license because it is not a driver's license. Like, a yes.
Speaker 26
Well, if they are caught doing something that is against the law, then they will be penalized. So when you go into an a park, you're not asked to show your certificate to to ride your vehicle. If you're doing nothing wrong, you're not gonna be asked to show your certificate. If you do something wrong and you also you you will get cited for doing something wrong. And then if you also don't have a certificate, you'll be cited for not do getting a certificate, which, remind you, is a self guided online course.
It's not, you know, a class you go to or something to that nature.
Speaker 49
Go ahead. I as a past federal employee, implementing so I know Glamis very well. And it's I I wanna equate this to implementing the fire permit that is now required in California. So when that became law, we didn't use it as going up to people, okay, you don't have your fire permit. We're gonna write a citation.
We didn't use it as that. We used it as an educational tool. You know, this is these are the reasons why you wanna have your bucket. This is why you wanna have these things. This is why you wanna take this course.
If you're gonna have fire, you need to have this permit because you learn all these things. And so this this is a opportunity for rangers and law enforcement staff to be able to give a little pamphlet of saying, here here's an opportunity for you to take this course and learn of why safety is important and why protecting natural resources is important. So, you know, it'll tell you, okay. Don't go off trails because this affects the resource damage and the wildlife and cultural resources.
Speaker 26
And then if if you don't mind, I'll go through the fees unless you wanna stay on this
Speaker 26
Through the chair. So on to the fees, I wanted to make sure I got it right because we don't set a fee in here, but we talk about parameters around a fee. And so on, it's page 98 if you have the the the bill at hand. But it says the division may establish fees for the issuance or renewal of operator cards in amount sufficient to cover the reasonable cost of carrying out this new OHV, safety stewardship program. We are working to figure out if we need to put a cap in there.
We haven't done that yet, but we have been open to and have talked about what is a reasonable cap. But, really, the fee should only be used to cover the administrative cost of it, not anything in excess. So that's the the only fee that we have. And, of course, we have established what the fines are, but we haven't set a fee yet. We're, entertaining what a cap would look like but haven't yet determined the cap.
Speaker 8
in talking about fees in the plural, the first violation is nearly about $500. Correct?
Speaker 26
A $100. Not to exceed a $100 and can be waived by the court. And then it's the at the end of the day, on a three if you did it three times, three whole times, you get caught doing something you shouldn't be doing. Remember? Because that's what you're getting stopped for, not for not having the certification.
It could be up to $500 for that third time. And, the court can always waive. We did not take that out, so the court can always waive any one of those tickets. So you can't you can't fight the ticket, so to speak, like you could with the moving violation.
Speaker 8
I I think, you know, overall, the the concern here is, again, we're not talking about the safety piece. I, you know, I don't want anyone cracking their skull, you know, falling off or dying at worse. The concern that I have specifically in in my district where Glamis is located in Imperial County, we have a 20% unemployment rate, highest in the state. When Glamis comes in, it is an injection into the region, a huge injection into the region. My concern is that when we talk about, you know, a $100 fee or any fee or, in an area that's that is impoverished, and this is what they do.
I I really wanna be considerate into the the amount that that someone has to pay for something, number one. The fees associated with that if they break said rule, and also from a tourism perspective, will this detract from the tourism side of it? So there's a lot of different nuances that, obviously, we won't know until this is implemented. Right? But there's some nuances to this that is really splitting the district in conversation.
Everyone no one's saying anything about the the safety side. It's really coming down to what's the what's the phase in process? You know, will it be January 1 and then everyone has to do that if there is one? If you could talk to that. Number two, does it punish parents if it's you know, this is a fourteen year old, and then the parents have to do that, but the parents weren't there because, literally, it's their backyard.
Right? Yeah. So what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 26
So I would just note that, this comes from the OHV community. This is not something Laurie thought of. This is the OHV community saying, we've been working on this for a long time. We've now come to this agreement. We need someone to carry a bill for it, And it requires the OHV community to come up with a lot of this, including the fee, and what the parameters are by June 2027, so a little over a year from now.
And then it doesn't go into effect until 01/01/2029, which is well over two years from now. So there's plenty of time for people to understand what the rules are, take the course. If someone is taking a course out of state because other states do do this, then that is honored. So it doesn't have to be a California certify certification. It could be something that you got from a different state as you're referencing what, what you noted as regard to tourists and coming in.
A lot times, those tourists are not coming from in state. They're coming from out of state. Right? And we love out of state dollars. And so if someone from out of state has this, then they're doing it.
I would note that this is very similar and modeled after the voter law, where if you're riding a recreational vote in our boat in our state, then you have to go through a process to be certified so so that you understand the rules of the waterways, so you can operate safely, be able to have a fun recreational trip, and and you be safe, but also that you keep our waterways safe, right, and and the nature and the ecosystem that exists in the waters, safe as well. And so this is that same thought process. Like I said, we don't have a fee. We're happy to entertain suggestions on what the cap should be. We're saying the fee should be set based on cost, and that is a reasonable thing that we do as a government is say, we're not gonna make a profit off of this.
The money's not going anywhere else. It's the cost to administer. And whatever that cost to administer is the fee. And so that's where we're going with this. And and like I said, wanna have a cap to make sure many people can engage in using OHV vehicles and that they don't consider this an onerous thing to do, but a a key piece of being a a good member of that community and wanting to keep everyone safe in the ecosystem that supports this safe and and protected as well.
Speaker 8
So I I'd love to talk to you more about this Absolutely. Because, obviously, having two of the largest OHV areas in the state in in my district, it absolutely impacts the district. Yep. The the five points that I'd love to talk afterwards. Okay.
But I just wanna make them clear so that way we can have some conversation is, the the cost and burdens on, you know, people of color in in my district, people that are poor in my district, what does that mean to them? The the discouraging, discouraging tourism potential. The punishment of parents. Is there punishment of parents when we're imposing the fee on the kid? Is it like, how how does that Oh, play
Speaker 26
I forgot to mention that when you asked that earlier. Parents are responsible for their children. And so, of course, if a child under the age of 18 gets any any issue with anything, doesn't matter what it is, right, riding a boat, being on a bike, whatever, it doesn't matter, they are responsible for their kids. So, yes. You know?
Speaker 8
And for further clarity on the the phase in period, again, all of this we can talk offline on, but I, you know, I wanna get to a place where I I can look at both sides of the picture. And, specifically, in my district, this is very, very important to them. So look forward to connecting and and working through this.
Speaker 27
So member Bennett. Madam chair, I'm gonna move the bill, and I just have one suggestion. And that is as this moves forward, I just ask you to consider that five year renewal period, I think makes sense for maybe people 30, but it should but it there may be some benefits to have the renewal period be longer for people over age of 30. But with that, I move the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? Assembly member Kaloza and then some member Alanis will get to you after that.
Speaker 36
Thank you, chair. I just wanted to thank the author for, leading on this. Appreciate assembly member Gonzalez's concerns that he raised specific to his district. In my district in Los Angeles, you know, the OHV issues look different. We have a lot of open spaces in Northeast LA where there's a lot of unauthorized off roading.
Speaker 50
And, consistently, safety, is is a concern to to residents of a lot of off roading that happens, in these vehicles. And so I know this is, specific to to our parks. And, just, I think that the other suggestion that I would add is maybe even just, the additional signage that may be needed to to continue to educate, folks about this since California's a leader in in these incidents and the number of deaths that happened, that happened as it relates to the the off highway, motor vehicle, issues. But, happy to support this today, and I just thank you for leading on safety issues as it relates to transportation both on our roads, off our roads, and all the above. So and thank you to the sponsors for this, happy to second the bill.
Thank you.
Speaker 34
Actually, I was gonna have you bring up the boater card, and I'm glad you did. As a prior sergeant over our off road vehicle unit and dealing with the quads and everything else that goes with it, I was very appreciative when the boater card came up as with all accidents and deaths that I had to deal with on our on our waterways. I just wanted to make a suggestion, for my colleague here who's talking about tourism. Do you have anything here in the bill that has maybe kinda like when you go fishing, you can get a one day license. Do you have something in there?
Maybe they can take a a course with the rental because I'm assuming they're gonna be renting these, these quads or whatever they're gonna be using prior to. I don't know if that's something that maybe could
Speaker 26
I don't we do. But I will note that you in order for us to even know you don't have a certification, you have to actually have broken the law. But it's something I think we can consider because I don't recall us having anything like that, do we?
Speaker 24
I know under insurance, most rental agencies, under insurance for all laws requires people to take a fifteen, twenty minute little course on on both our OHV safety. So every time I've rented a vehicle, I've had to take this whole course. So that's part of that. Maybe this is we need to consider to make sure those courses are included or if like, I have a t I've done ATV training, UTV training, and that my certification would count. And by the way, that has to be done every five years.
Speaker 26
think yeah. And I think and I think that's where it came from. But not the license, but that one but I think to your point, if you are renting and you take that course, that you could be exempt from being cited if you did break the law. You could be exempt from being cited for that day of the amount of the rental or something like that. And I we don't have that language in the current bill, but I think given that is a likely scenario, most people don't own OHVs, that that's something we definitely should consider.
So I appreciate the comment, and we'll consider it if this bill makes out of the committee as we continue on the legislative process.
Speaker 34
Thank you. And it it definitely does. Most of our accidents were, usually jet skis on the water that were all rentals. So there were people that just thought it was really cool. Let's get on this.
And, you know, I'd stop them and ask them, where's the break? And they would look for it, and there's there's no break. Yeah. So, thank you for considering that.
Speaker 31
Most of the people that go to Glamis or Imperial Sand Dunes are from Arizona. Actually, more people from Arizona than come or they're an equal amount. Arizona already has a safety law, that's why we built in reciprocity in this in that they've taken the Arizona course. They won't have to take the California course. Okay.
Shouldn't have an effect on tourism.
Speaker 8
I I would, push back on that just for the sake of people live in my district, and they are not tourists. They live there. They they experience that. So, the tourism is much more complicated than they're from out of the area. So
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you so much. Alrighty. Okay. So seeing no further discussion, I just have a couple closing comments as chair.
As the although the staff report says that there is limited data on the effectiveness of certification programs, I share the author's concern about and the desire to address the dangerous effects that can be experienced by OHVs. And by the way, thank you for your service all those years in the forestry service. I meant to start with that, and I apologize. But in any event so I I share the concerns, whether it's on roads, whether it's on trails. You know, we owe it to the people of this state to divisively to decisively, not divisively, decisively address, the operation of vehicles that can be very dangerous.
So I agree that safety certificates and age restrictions are key tools that help protect folks when operating dangerous vehicles, and I I hope that we're able to circumvent injuries that can happen. It is safety has to be paramount, and I think that this bill is reasonably tailored to address those safety concerns. So I'm happy to support the bill. The bill enjoys a do you pass recommendation? Would you like to close?
Speaker 26
Thank you for the discussion and the questions. I look forward to the offline, comments as well as the suggestions made by someone who has direct experience, law enforcement experience, addressing these types of issues, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 33
Okay. Item number three, a b sixteen thirteen. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Pappin? Aye.
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Nope. Jeff Gonzalez, no. Alaniz?
Speaker 33
Aleniz not voting. Alvarez? Avila Farias? Yes. Alvela Farias, I.
Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, I. Burner?
Aye. Burner, I. Coloza? Coloza, I. Gallagher, Hart, Murasuchi, Rogers Aye.
Rogers I.
Speaker 1
They'll remain on call, and I'm sure we'll have other people come join us. Thank you so much. Thank you, Matthew. I see assembly member Rubio. Oh, is Curio in the house?
Okay. Assembly member Curio. I'm sure the other two were were just delighted to see you. Please. We got Joshua Trees to deal with.
Speaker 47
Thank you, madam chair. Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to talk about Joshua Trees.
Speaker 47
Thank you again. So the assembly bill 18 o eight, it's by Joshua Treece. I would like to thank the committee chair and her staff for their work on this bill, and I accept the committee amendments. Let me be clear, members. My intent with this bill is not to undo the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act.
In fact, I believe I am the only member of the legislator in the Joshua Tree Ranch that supported the trailer bill. And that is in part why I feel so much responsibility to make sure that it works well. The Western Joshua Tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecologically and culturally important. Western Joshua Tree span across a large portion of of California's desert. I believe it is critical that we conserve such a unique and beautiful part of my district.
I fully support and committed to that. In my hometown of Palmdale where I serve as a city planner and later as a council member, we have been requiring developers to mitigate and preserve Yasha trees for decades. In fact, and depending on what development it was proposed, developers had to preserve two Joshua trees per acre of land developed. But my district is disadvantaged, left behind, and in desperate need of housing and economic development. We need this conservation program to work and make it work.
We need to make sure local residents who love Joshua trees can admire and preserve the tree while still also having the ability to do work on their own property and have safe, effective public infrastructure. The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the department to enter into an agreement within a county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Western Joshua Tree associated with single family residences, multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects. This bill adds commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. This should be a win win for everyone involved. The department, which has been chronically understaffed for decades, can pass on the leadership the responsibility to local governments.
Speaker 57
A developer can use city hall as a one stop shop and won't need to deal with the state for their Joshua Tree permits. And local governments will have more control over the timing and efficiency of delivering these desperately needed economic development projects. Additionally, this bill will, following committee amendments, allow the department to waive fees for the removal of up to 10 trees for single family homeowners to do their work on their own property and up to 40 trees for maintaining existing public works. Public works put the be put before the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act are pieces of critical infrastructure often surrounded by the Joshua Tree because of how prominent the Joshua Tree is in my district. Currently, any maintenance on this critical infrastructure has a high price tag leading to delays in necessary improvements and increased costs for locals who are already low income.
Speaker 47
Similarly, local homeowners who love the Joshua Tree are also unable to do work on their own property without paying high fees. Here to testify in more depth and the effect this has on residents is former assembly member Chad Mayes, lobbyist for the city of Yucca Valley.
Speaker 51
Well, good morning, chair Pappin and members of the committee. My name is Chad Mayes, I'm here today as a contract lobbyist for the town of Yucca Valley in support of a b 18 o eight. This one, though, is a is a little different, for me. See, I, grew up in Yucca Valley. I served on the town council and as and as mayor.
So when I say know this community, I mean it personally and not just professionally. Joshua Trees are part of who we are in Yucca Valley. They're in our backyards, in our front yards, lining the roads that I grew up on. My friends, my family have always lived alongside them, worked around them, and genuinely treasure them. This isn't a community that wants to see these trees disappear.
We understand better than most what it would mean to lose them. But loving them and living among them means facing realities that are easy to miss from Sacramento. In Yucca Valley, virtually every existing homeowner has Joshua Trees on their property. That means almost any home maintenance or improvement project can suddenly become a regulatory challenge, including CEQUA compliance, Putting in a pool that a family has always dreamt of, a new water or sewer line, hardening your home against wildfire, any of it can trigger fees that run into the tens of thousands of dollars. I've sat across the table from residents who simply can't afford it.
Speaker 37
Retired folks on fixed incomes, young families, people trying to do the right thing, buried in paperwork and fees they never expected. That's not conservation. That's a burden falling hardest on the people least equipped to carry it. AB 18 o eight seeks to provide some relief limited to the built environment. It's measured, it's reasonable, and it protects the trees that matter most while giving homeowners a workable, affordable path forward.
Speaker 51
The the Tanayaka Valley is very grateful, to the author, for so I remember Creo in doing his work, understanding, that in the Antelope Valley, where he's from and also in the Victor Valley and the Morongo Basin, people live within the Joshua Range. This is a really, really big deal that people are asking for relief. So thank you for, we ask the the the committee to to vote aye today.
Speaker 47
No. We don't not have a second witness. She's just here to, support me.
Speaker 1
Lovely. Okay. Do we have witnesses that are I mean, excuse me, members of the audience that are me too who like to support the bill?
Speaker 21
Hi. Good morning. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of High Desert Water District in support. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Hi. Good morning. Yasmeen Newbani on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance, 29, Decor Desert View Water Agency, Palmdale Water District, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, Mission Springs Water District, supervisor Don Rowe, and Morongo Basin residents for reasonable Joshua Tree regulations in support. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Nathan Scoutson with the California Association of Realtors in support.
Speaker 48
Good morning. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here on the behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and the Native American Land Conservancy. Let me first thank the author and the committee for listening to our concerns. We appreciate that the amendments have improved the bill, and we look forward to continuing continuing to work with the author on this bill as we did last year with a b, ten eighty nine. With that said, we must respectfully continue to oppose this bill until it is amended to fully address our concerns.
I'm gonna focus the concern on section two of the bill. Core principle of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act and the State Endangered Species Act is that project impacts must be avoided, minimized, and mitigated. And section two of the bill gets away eliminates all three of those, aspects of these bedrock safeguards by allowing projects to destroy Joshua trees without any demonstration of an attempt to avoid, minimize, or mitigate. Now it has been definitely reduced down in terms of what the scope of those impacts could be, but the other reason why we have a concern with this section is that we believe it's unnecessary because the Department of Fish and Wildlife right now is going through two administrative processes. First, they're doing a programmatic EIR, which they've already kicked off, issued a scoping notice, and this PIR is intended to make permitting for the very projects that this bill is intended to address, much faster.
And we expect that this PEIR will be completed by department by the end of the year. The other administrative action that the Department of Fish and Wildlife is going through right now is a statutorily mandated review of the fees. So the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act required the department to reassess and adjust fees, which they have started and are statutorily required to complete by the end of the year. We have testified multiple times and spoken with the author and others that we fully support the reduction or elimination of fees for single family residences. The Joshua Tree Conservation Act in implementation was a little clunky, and we are trying to adjust and, and reestablish a better baseline of how to implement it.
We do not believe that this bill, this section of the bill, is warranted because the issues that it's trying to address are going to be done by the end of the year before this bill even becomes in effect. So that's really the core of where we're at on this bill. With that said, we again thank the the author and the committee for the amendments. We look forward to continuing to work on the bill, but we will still oppose this bill currently.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any other witnesses to come forward or members of the audience in opposition?
Speaker 1
Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? I think we had a motion and a second already. Correct?
Okay. Any any questions, comments? Okay. I I do have just a quick comment. It seems like today is a lot of bills about balancing competing needs, and certainly that's what this bill has taken on.
And, it is my hope that, it does so in a way that is is measured and tempered. And and I think we kinda got there, but I appreciate the opposition's comments as well. And we'll continue on talking about Joshua Trees, I'm sure
Speaker 1
Thank will. You so much. With that, we will take a vote. Do you wanna close?
Speaker 47
Yes, madam chair. Thank you. And, to the comments, concerns from opposition, we've been working on this since I got elected in 2022. I think that it's it's been a mutual respect between my office and and your office, and I I do believe that we we can continue this conversation. The concerns raised have to do with eliminating the fee.
I fully understand that the department is working on it. EARs can be complicated. They can take a long time, and that's really one of the concerns that I have, being a recovering city planner. I'm familiar with those processes. But nevertheless, I want to thank you, madam chair, and committee members.
My office has been in conversation again, and we hope to continue to do that. And with that, I just respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 33
Item number seven, a b eighteen o eight. Motion is due pass as amended to Natural Resources. Pappen? Aye. Pappen, I.
Jeff Gonzalez?
Speaker 33
Avila Farias, I. Baines? Bennett? Burner? Burner not voting, Coloza?
Coloza I, Gallagher, Hart, Murasuchi, Rogers? Aye. Rogers I. Okay.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Let's see. We have senator I'm sorry. Close enough. Assemblymember Rubio, welcome.
Good morning.
Speaker 38
Golden muscle queen. Thank you, madam chair, mister vice chair, and committee members for giving me the opportunity to present a b eighteen ninety four. This bill is in response to several water districts concerned that the prohibition of water imports to recharge groundwater supplies is detrimental to the community and the water we all rely on. We have all heard a lot about the golden mussel this last year, and I am the first one to acknowledge that we absolutely need to mitigate the effects of this invasive species, and I have committed to be part of the process. Yet out of the 58 counties in California and, golden mussel found throughout waterways in the state, only one county took the drastic measure to shut off water imports to local water agencies.
Speaker 33
I introduced this bill knowing the only way forward is to coordinate as a state while re retaining specific local control to address the threat of the golden muscle. Thank you, to the committee chair and staff for working, extensively with my office on narrowing the bill to alleviate concerns about hindering local agency control and focusing on restoration and imported water deliveries for groundwater replenishment. I have accepted the committee's amendments and look forward to continuing the work to ensure this bill retains its core purpose without unintended consequences to local cities. With me today in support of this bill is Jose Reynoso from the San Gabriel Valley Water municipal San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. Thank you.
Speaker 54
Good morning. My name is Jose Reynoso. I'm the general manager for the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. We are a state water contractor and one of three wholesale agencies responsible for importing water to replenish the main San Gabriel groundwater basin. In our region, imported water is not optional.
It's required under a court adopted adjudication. The basin operates under a physical solution that depends on imported water to offset overdraft, maintain groundwater levels, and protect water quality. Without it, the system fails. This system is fundamental to ensuring a reliable water supply to the communities we serve. AB eighteen ninety four addresses a critical issue.
Invasive mussels are a statewide challenge that require a statewide coordinated response that is science based. However, across California, water agencies including the Department of Water Resources have continued to move water while implementing treatment and mitigation strategies to mitigate the invasive mussels. However, in Los Angeles County, we experienced a disruption in imported water deliveries for groundwater replenishment due to concerns over invasive mussels. While the formal suspension has been lifted, the conditions placed on imported water deliveries remain involve evolving and in some cases not feasible to implement. As a result, deliveries for groundwater replenishment have not resumed.
Speaker 16
This has real consequences. It disrupts a court adopted water management system, delays groundwater replenishment, and creates uncertainty for the approximately 2,000,000 residents that we serve. AB eighteen ninety four is an important step towards improving coordination and consistency in how the straight the state addresses invasive species. A clear science based pathward framework is essential to both protect the environment and maintain critical water reliability. At as this policy more moves forward, we respectfully encourage continued efforts to ensure that invasive species response strategies are implemented in a way that does not unintentionally disrupt essential imported water deliveries.
Speaker 54
I would like to thank assembly member Rubio for her leadership in making sure that all Californians have access to imported reliable water and for her efforts in in supporting our region. And with this, we urge the committee, to vote yes on a b eighteen ninety four. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Members of the audience who would like to be, a me too in support of this bill.
Speaker 26
Karina Cervantes with the San Gabriel Valley Water Association in support.
Speaker 18
Andrea Abigail with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. So we got any opposition? I don't see any opposition witnesses. Okay. Any me too's to oppose?
No. Okay. Well, with that, we'll bring it back. Some member Gonzalez, you look like you're ready to put your finger on the button. Take it away.
Speaker 8
Thank you, madam chair. It's an effort to move this process along. Wanna thank the author. This is a a part two of today's already, Golden Muscle. He's so glad to see that that, there's also follow on, legislation.
I appreciate the author for your efforts, and the Golden Muscle issue is not, just in one area. It you know, someone takes a boat and brings it to the Colorado, we've got a problem. So I thank the author for that.
Speaker 1
Jeez. I've called you a senator now. I've got to go. Okay. So, Rubio, would you like to close?
Speaker 38
Thank you. This is really important for for, my community, but also the framework I think could be work throughout the state. So with that, I respectfully ask for an eye vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second from assembly member Coloza. Item
Speaker 33
number eight, a b eighteen ninety four. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alaniz?
Alvarez? Avila Farias?
Speaker 33
Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye.
Burner? Aye. Burner, aye. Coloza? Coloza, aye.
Gallagher, Hart? Murasuchi? Rogers?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. It has enough to get up. It has enough to get up, but we'll leave it open for add ons.
Speaker 1
A similar Aguar Curry. Thank you for your patience and waiting as we go through the the role here.
Speaker 1
witness on crutches. That might explain part of what we went through. The stairs were not an option.
Speaker 10
I like the year. I'll never forget this bill. Thank you, madam chair and members. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work on the bill. I am pleased to present a b twenty twenty six, a bill to help California recharge more groundwater.
This bill is com complex, but so are the permitting process for groundwater recharge projects. Today, permitting can can be too slow or too rigid. In some cases, applicants need more certainty before taking on costly, timing time consuming process. My goal is to streamline permitting process for groundwater recharge and make sure that the permits can actually be used when we need them. Groundwater recharge is absolutely essential to helping California navigate our new water reality.
We are living in a time of weather extremes. Most of this water comes in short, intense storm events, and our current system is not designed to capture those big floods when they occur. During floods, we need the ability to divert the 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 a natural way to store water that can support both water users and the environmental flows in dry times.
Speaker 3
Groundwater recharge creates environmental and public benefits by preventing land subsidence, diverting flood flows, and helping communities meet their sigma goals affordably. Last year, the legislature passed s b 72, which required the California water plan to identify 9,000,000 acre feet of new supply to protect against water scarcity. Groundwater recharge could be a major factor in finding water solutions. Right now, 1,500,000 acre feet of water has been authorized for recharge. But because of the permitting and structural barriers, only 58,000 acre feet has been diverted for recharge over ten years.
Speaker 10
During the winter storms in 2023, that brought extreme flooding to our communities. The state water board issued two permits for the recharge. Of the 21,200 acre feet that could have been diverted, only a 119 acre feet actually made it into the ground. We are missing opportunities that could be a win win for our communities and the environment. We can't maintain the status quo.
We have to take a look at the issues, make and make changes how to store water for our future. This bill makes needed common sense changes to streamline the permitting process and make the permits more usable. For example, this bill allows the water board and the groundwater agencies the tools to create flexible permit timelines for operators. This means that people can apply for permits before they know if the rainy season will be wet or dry. It allows 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. And importantly, these changes are designed to move water during high flow conditions while maintaining existing environmental and water use protections. With me today, I have Kristen Sikh from on from the Yellow County Flood Control And Water Conservation District and Lewis Baer from, Reclamation District one zero eight. The bill sponsors Ryan Okan from the Regional Water Authority and Cam Bestic from the, Northern California Water Association are also available to answer any technical questions.
Speaker 12
Good morning, madam chair and committee members. I'm Kristen Siggy, general manager of Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The fabric of Yolo County is deeply rooted in the agricultural heritage and the rich, productive soil and the legacy of the Bracero program. Farm workers are essential to Yolo County's agricultural industry, and as we all know, that's very dependent on water availability. Our irrigation district is a conjunctive use district, which means we use groundwater and surface water to farm, and surface water from our upstream reservoirs in Cache Creek is available during wet years, and groundwater serves as our savings account during dry years.
Speaker 26
We have optimized our system to divert excess winter water from Cache Creek into our unlined earthen canal system, And the infrastructure is all set up, and it is considered to be a very cost effective groundwater recharge program. We are considered to be the most successful applicant of the one hundred and eighty day temporary permitting process with the state. And of the eleven years that we've submitted a hundred and eighty day applications, we've successfully diverted for seven years, all while protecting downstream water right holders and the environment. And we've diverted about 42,000 acre feet in total over those seven years. The first time that we submitted in 2015, the hundred and eighty day permit, we were fortunate to work with state and federal agencies for about two months in the consultation period, and we received an eight page permit after six days of submitting the application with very nominal fees.
Speaker 12
This last year that we applied the eleventh time applying for the hundred and eighty day permit, we received a 30 page permit, and it took a hundred and twenty five days to issue the permit. And the fees were about $35,000. And so as assembly member Aguirre Curry mentioned, we think that a b twenty twenty six will give us the critical tools to help streamline or or simplify the process. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Madam chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Louis Baer, and I'm the manager for reclamation district one hundred eight. RD one hundred eight is the largest local levy maintaining agency in the Sacramento Valley. We're in the middle of the flood plains, and we're also very proactive. We've been, out there on the front, working on salmon recovery, flood plains, fish food, really see ourselves as a steward in the Sacramento Valley.
I'd like to share really three experiences with you that I think illustrate what Kristen has just said. So the first is one of our sister agencies that we staff, the Dunnigan Water District. They too applied for a hundred and eighty day permit. Fortunately, had some financial support because they probably couldn't have afforded to go through the process on their own. They're a smaller district.
And although RD 108 was on flood patrol for two months that winter, they were not able to divert one drop of water under the hundred and eighty day permit because of the, the very protective or, you know, restrictions that were in those permits. And so I I I, like Kristen, think this is a process that would help direct that towards a priority that's really essential with climate change and us losing our snowpack. We we need to change how we think about water. So the other two parts I'd like to mention really relate towards RD one 0 Eight's role in floodplain reimagined. We've been leading the local communities, helping them develop things that they can do to benefit the environment.
Speaker 15
These growers during the winter, right, they farm during the summer, but during the winter, there's a lot of opportunities to really change the landscape into something that our native animals appreciate. And so what we've seen whenever we've put water on the landscape for fish food or flood plains is that our native species respond instantly. These fish recommend or or, I mean, these species recognize they probably also recommend we do more, but, they recognize that landscape, and they immediately flock to this. And, certainly, the Pacific Flyway leads the way, but all of our other terrestrial species, it's critically important, and this is what's gonna help us have a more, vibrant valley. The last thing I'd like to mention is maybe something that's quite as direct, but I think it's critically important.
Speaker 32
And we saw in 2022, when you have the inability to recharge and you end up with lower groundwater basin levels, when you come into a drought like 2022, the river becomes a losing stream, and it's really hard to keep flows in that river. If we're able to recharge those basins when we come into a drought, that river will be a gaining stream, and it'll help our river and our fish, in those critically dry years. So it's really a big deal. And until 2022, it wasn't, as obvious. Folks were really surprised with what happened in 2022.
So thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Witnesses in support. I mean, not witnesses, members of the audience. Come on forward. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good morning, chair and members, and thank you, assembly member Aguirre Curry. Ryan O'Jackian with the Regional Water Authority, cosponsor and in support. Thanks.
Speaker 40
Thank you, chair assemblywoman Nagoya Curry and members of the committee. I'm Cam Vestec with Northern California Water Association, also a cosponsor and also here in proud support. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 51
Good morning. Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies in support and working with the sponsors on some amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Jennifer Pierrot, State Water Contractors. We do not have a position on this bill. We want to get to support. This is super important to get done this year.
Just wanna flag, we have to make sure that water rights are protected. We're dealing with flood flows, there's a number of issues. We'll provide some comments later, but just wanted to get on the record because there was confusion that we weren't. We're hoping to solve this with the author. Thank you for all you're doing.
Speaker 1
So you're in limbo land. Do we have, witnesses in bonafide opposition? How's that? Got a few coming forward. Okay.
Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 23
Madam chair, members of the water parks and wildlife committee, Ashley Overhouse. I'm the water policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife. We respectfully oppose assembly bill twenty twenty six unless it is amended to address our concerns. So I guess not bonafide opposition, but close enough. I know.
I know. And, we are grateful to the assembly member and her staff, for the time and effort to work with us and for the amendments offered by this committee. While we look forward to continued conversations, we must remain opposed even with the committee amendments. And I wanna walk through five significant issues. First, this bill will allow diversions from the declining Bay Delta estuary even if they violate existing endangered species act and water quality protections.
This bill codifies highly technical water operational measures for federal and state water project operations instead of relying on the state water board to set regulations to protect the public trust. I cannot stress enough how dangerous it is for us to rely on the federal government's operation of the system to protect the Delta ecosystem and downstream communities. This is made worse by the fact that there is no good framework, unfortunately, for determining what is excess right now in our system. Instead, what we have is an over appropriated freshwater surface system of rivers and an overdrawn groundwater system that must be recharged for the safety of communities and wildlife. We need the state water board's oversight of a diversion program to ensure there's an accurate baseline of how much water is needed to keep the Delta healthy and resilient.
Speaker 51
Second, this bill would allow any agency with flood management responsibility to make a flood declaration without a plan. The committee's proposed amendments make this problem worse by expanding that determination to allow individuals with little flood management expertise or responsibility to make these critical decisions and to allow multiple entities to make flood declarations, thereby creating the potential for multiple conflicting declarations. Flood declarations should be limited to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board or the primary local regional flood management agency. Third, the bill redefines flood flows to include any flows downstream of a dam that is releasing water for flood control purposes by the US Army Corps of Engineers, a court settlement, or any other binding rule. This definition is overly broad and would allow diversions of flows to the detriment of the environment, water quality, and public health and safety.
Speaker 23
Fourth, we respectfully oppose deleting or extending the current sunset for 12/2001. There are not nearly sufficient guardrails in place to ensure this water diversion program can't continue to harm our overappropriated freshwater habitats. The current sunset of 2029 should remain in place. Finally, this bill includes an exemption for the issuance of permits for diversions from CEQUA and lake and stream bed alteration agreement laws. These exemptions further degrade protections to our rivers and streams.
If these concerns are not addressed, we urge a no vote. Thank you for your time and consideration of our views.
Speaker 27
Madam chair, could I just ask the, witness to repeat your very last, concern? Absolutely. I caught everything else, but that one.
Speaker 23
Finally, this bill includes an exemption for the issuance of permits for diversions from CEQUA and the lake and stream bed alterations agreements laws. Mhmm.
Speaker 17
Alex Lumer on behalf of Golden State Salmon Association in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 43
Chris Shoots on behalf of the California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Morgan Snyder on behalf of Restore the Delta, California Water Impact Network, and Friends of the River in opposition.
Speaker 49
And good morning. I'm a bit of a tweener, so an opposing less amended position. Is it okay if I go now? On behalf of Turlock Irrigation District, we're members of the San Joaquin Tributary Authority who put in a opposing less amended letter. We absolutely agree with the goal of the bill.
Speaker 55
We need to get more water in the ground. We need to streamline that process. It's broken right now. It's not working. However, there are some provisions in the bill that actually add barriers in our region, in our communities, on behalf of our tributaries.
Specific to the Delta conditions language, we look forward to continuing to work with the author and the sponsor who have been super gracious with their time on solving this issue, and we wanna continue conversations. It's complicated. The Delta's always complicated. You know that. So you have our commitment to, you know, keep working on that issue.
But at this time, we do have an opposing less amended position. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Good morning, madam chair and members. Karen Lang on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District with very similar concerns to what, Jamie Minor represented on behalf of her client right before mine. I would also wanna just observe too that when Merced flooded, when Planata flooded, the Delta was with restrictions, and that flood would have continued under this bill even with everything well intentioned. But, of course, the author's office has been fantastic, and we just wanna continue working to get to a solution for the tributaries. Thank you.
Speaker 52
Morning, chair and members. Alex Alenes on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District. Share the same concerns of the previous speakers, but look forward to conversations with the author and everyone and all the other stakeholders. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Sean Bothwell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance in opposition.
Speaker 1
Well, seeing no further input, I I'm gonna first call on assembly member Alanis, and we'll go to Rogers, and we'll go to Bennett.
Speaker 34
Thank you, chairwoman, as they're needing me in BNP after this. So thank you.
Speaker 34
So I want I wanna make some statements. As as you guys may have seen, a lot of the opposition are are from my area, and so I have concerns also. So I just wanted to start by saying to the majority leader, thank you for you and your team. I appreciate the serious important conversations your staff has had with my staff for the last few days. And unsurprisingly, your team has been extremely professional and accommodating.
So thank you for that. I cannot say enough about the standard professionalism your staff has shown while hearing the concerns of my district and the Central Valley has with, some concerns with this, the language in the bill. I appreciate that you've gone out of your way to understand my perspective regarding the concerns raised on behalf of the communities I represent. I believe that we share the many many of the same goals making long term poll water policy for all Californians a healthy delta ecosystem, continued productive and prosperous agricultural industry for California, and especially in agricultural rich districts like yours and mine. And, of course, capturing water and diverting it towards useful and vital purposes like groundwater recharge.
Speaker 4
However, as you probably know, I have a serious concern with the language that, in my view, adds an additional barrier for the San Joaquin tributaries to divert excess water for recharge in our communities. This specific language disallows diversions even when the delta is in excess unless there is no conditions on exporters south of the Delta pumps. This doesn't work for me because those of us in the San Joaquin Valley have to view this language as written as more restrictive than existing law. And most importantly, it will result in less recharge, which I believe is the opposite of the goal, of this bill. To highlight that last point and was brought up here with some of the me too's, I wanna state for the record that for my tributaries in 2023, one of the wettest years on record in for California, the pumps were under restrictions for two hundred and thirty three days out of the year and in the wettest months of a major flood year for my region and district, including during the floods of the community of Planata in Merced County.
Speaker 34
The pumps were under restrictions for all of February and most of January in 2023. While the delta flows were in excess, meaning overflowing, my tributaries were unable to pump and divert water back for any purposes, let alone groundwater recharge. So as you can see, how my stakeholders are highly skeptical about these arbitrary conditions and restrictions, and that is a serious problem that must be addressed. I could tell you with certainty certainly, my stakeholders understand and share the goal of groundwater recharge and want to be good stewards and operators. They have been at the table in good faith with water contractors for over a year.
And, madam majority leader, the honest truth is that my district in the Central Valley, they've been told countless times in the past that, things like we will work with it, we will work it out, and let's just get the new policy in for in place first, only to have those promises go unkempt. Those words ring, hallowed, and my constituents continuously are left behind on these important policy decisions, especially with water. Delta exporters operate under a highly complex regime with well over 100 combined regulatory conditions in order to operate, but many of these conditions are specific to the Delta operating agreement and Delta pumps and do not have anything to do with the flow of management of San Joaquin tributaries upstream. I know that you care deeply about your farmers as we also sit on ag together, and I love that, in working with families in the Central Valley and across all of California. I want this bill to work for all communities in the Valley, and I know you do too.
But without an agreement between the water contractors and my local tributaries in place, this bill could could and probably will harm my communities and all communities and districts with tributaries south of the pumps. So I have a couple questions. Would I have your commitment that you will continue to resolve this part of the bill specific to arbitrary delta conditions, restrictions to ensure we achieve the goal of more recharge for the entire state and not less?
Speaker 10
Assembly member, thank you for, your speech. I appreciate that. I am committed to continue to work on this, and we wanna make sure that the communities, can do groundwater recharge when there isn't more than enough, enough water to go around. As you know, I never give up, and I'll work hard with your stakeholders. The thing that we have to remember is that we will and I wanna just remind everyone is that there is a a working group in the San Joaquin Valley focused on this issue called the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program.
And I wrote a letter to CAP and asked local stakeholders to come to a decision about flood flows and provide feedback to my office and the bill, and we will continue those conversations. Because, obviously, I want everyone at the table. Water's a tough issue, but we need to take this on. And, you know, the vision is is that there's a lot of things changing with the climate, and I I think that we can work really well together as we have before. Thank you, miss
Speaker 34
Thank you, majority leader. Obviously, we're not in the business of picking winners and losers when it comes to who can recharge and who can't. So, I'm glad you feel the same way. And, my second question would be, with, the example that I gave about the flood years in '23, I hope you can understand the very real concerns I have with the specific language around these arbitrary and broad restrictions around the pumps even when the delta is in excess. Just making sure that you're okay that you have the same concerns.
Speaker 10
Absolutely. We don't want, communities that are flooded who wanna help them out. So yeah. Yes.
Speaker 7
Thank you, madam chair. I wanna start by appreciating that you got opposition from folks who both think that you're making it too difficult to do aquifer recharge and people who think that you're making it too easy.
Speaker 7
As you and I have talked about, I actually I do think that it's important for us to figure out how to do more aquifer recharge. And so I'm I'm absolutely willing to give you a lot of grace on the bill as you try to find some some space to do that. I do have some concerns, and we've had a chance to talk about some of them. But first, I wanted to start kind of, with the the definition of excess. And we currently have a state water board who is charged with figuring out exactly what excess is and what the impact on the environment would be and the way that that filters down to the local level, and how much water is available.
How are you making sure that you're not running a rough shot over that authority from those folks and including, I don't wanna say not interested because that's not the right term, but make sure that the decision is being made by by people who have less of a of an interest, than the on the ground folks who who might be making these chain these choices.
Speaker 12
Well, I think the delta in excess definition is actually something that becomes a little bit more complicated. And, I think as you hear with the opposition here, right, I feel like this question should be punted to Jennifer Pierre because they definitely know much more about how those decisions are made. So, Jennifer, do you want or Ryan?
Speaker 13
for the question, assembly member, and thanks, Kristen, for the giving me the space here. So the bill requires that the delta be in excess, which as we heard means there's a lot of water on the landscape. There is an existing process by which that determination is made. We're not changing that existing process by which that determination is made. We are just inserting that that is a requirement before, really, all of the times when we talk about the bill allowing for diversion being able to take place.
And that's
Speaker 7
leads to in a into another question, which is my understanding of how this process would work out is that folks would be able to obtain their permits ahead of time. And what we have seen, especially this year is a good example, where you have potentially excess water at the beginning of the year, but then as you move through the year, the conditions change. Creek beds go dry. So if the regulator is no longer involved in the process at that point, who is making the once somebody's obtained the permits, who is making the determination whether or not they can actually execute those permits later in the year?
Speaker 12
So the conditions are laid out in the permit. And so for Yolo County, for example, we have to have the delta in excess in order to be able to divert at the Cape A Diversion Dam. So that's a daily decision that comes in as mentioned by Ryan, how the equation is done. And then based on that, we know whether or not we can bring it in. So we'll turn it off as soon as the delta is no longer in excess.
Speaker 7
Okay. I think somebody else was trying to answer the question too. Please.
Speaker 21
Yeah. I just wanna clarify what excess means, and it is a daily calculation, so I appreciate that. Excess means that all water rights holders have been satisfied. Environmental rules have been met. Water quality standards have been met.
Then and only then does a delta get considered excess, and it is a daily calculation. So a groundwater diverter would go online and say, is the delta in excess today? It is, therefore, I can divert. And, again, that means that the water quality standards, the environmental rules under ESA, CISA, the water quality control plan, senior water right holders, they've all been satisfied. Now there is a debate, of course, ongoing about whether those are sufficient enough, but the bill itself does not change the sufficiency or what those are.
What if the, for example, ESA regulations become more restrictive, those would be calculated within the excess condition as well. If and when the state water board adopts a new water quality control plan, that would then become part of the excess condition. So the excess definition is not stagnant. It's based on the fulfillment of all other rights and obligations, that's what it ultimately makes it excess. I also wanna be clear.
We are not interested in flooding communities, and we've been very clear with the opposition for multiple years that we are open to instances where we would be impacted to avoid flooding communities. So I'm I wanna correct some of the statements that were made earlier.
Speaker 7
But before you run off, can somebody also address the eighty twenty rule?
Speaker 1
Just a minute. Yeah. Just a minute. Yeah. Okay.
We're gonna let the the designated witness go first. If we need some technical advice, we will take it.
Speaker 32
ahead. So I I think it's important to have context on the ninety twenty. The ninety twenty was something that was produced by a lady at UC Davis that was looking at a different type of decision. It was a decision looking at rivers and geomorphology and, you know, how could you create something to never affect that? Right?
Had nothing to do with trade offs, what's best for the state, how do you balance. Right? And it's it's a extremely high standard. Right? And so what we're suggesting is that for California, there's there needs to be some balance in that.
And I I think for your your last question that you asked, I think it's really important you know, we're talking about the state board. And I I think if you look at the levels of gum governance from defining parameters where you could divert down to the actual folks that are operating on the ground, the time frames change dramatically. So the state board is looking at all winter in the types of conditions. But the folks on the ground floor, like I said, we weren't able to divert in the year where we had ninety twenty part of our permit. There were actually twelve hours during that winter when we could have permit we could have diverted.
But that's operationally. You can't do that. There's three days of travel down a canal. So you do, you know, have to accept some sort of, you know, flexibility or, you know, operability for these permits. And I I think what we're trying to do here is move away from something that we knew wasn't working, right, and then to bring into something we still believe is very protective but allows a really important activity for California.
Right? I mean, we are losing our snow melt. We, you know, we need to to be able to recharge our aquifers, and there's trade offs between terrestrial and aquatic species. There's really improvements for flow in the rivers, as I had mentioned. So I think there's you know, it's it's a broad complex set of of issues here, but, you know, broadly, what was doing what was going on before is not gonna be effective for us.
And so this is a way for us to lay out some criteria and a proposed process forward where it could work, we think, consider those trade offs.
Speaker 7
Oh, Before I move on to my next question, I wanna see if the opposition has anything to add to the discussion.
Speaker 23
Well, thank you, assembly member. I think the only thing I would add is that the definition of excess in the bill right now does include when the delta is with restrictions. So those outdated and, as I would argue, inadequate over thirty year old water quality standards and then ESA protections, they would be there would be flows potentially meeting those obligations during that time. So that's included in the definition right now of excess in this bill, and that is a source of concern for us. Just wanna make that clear.
Speaker 7
One of the concerns that I heard from some of the opposition, actually, in some of the opposition letters was around the definition around, flood flows. And I heard a reference to working with folks on that that that that making sure that when the army corps or whomever releases some water for environmental purposes, that that doesn't infringe on what the new definition or the the the ability in this bill for flood flows looks like. I'm wondering if you can address that a little bit.
Speaker 12
I think the intention was more for if the army corps is releasing water for flood purposes, that that would be classified as flood flows in the system, not for environmental purposes.
Speaker 7
So does that mean that you're willing to continue to work with the environmental community to make sure that that definition is tightened up?
Speaker 10
Absolutely. Just to you know, this this bill's complex, and so, obviously, we're gonna be working on it. Water never seems to go away. The discussion seems to always sprout somewhere. So we're going to continue to work on this.
Absolutely.
Speaker 7
Great. And then in that spirit, the the last question that I had for you and I wanted to lend voice to that wasn't the main opposition, but from the folks who have been working really diligently on restoring our salmon populations. And in particular, in some of the opposition letters, there is some concern not just about how much when we're in excess, but also making sure that there's a corresponding understanding of when spawning season is to make sure that we're not shortchanging salmonids that are particularly the juveniles as I understand it?
Speaker 10
Well, we wanna make sure that we have enough water before we that so so we can make sure that we have the saw the salmon have the time to do their spawning and so on and so forth. So we're meant, this is the time that we really wanna make sure there's enough water for both the users and the salmon in the environment as we move forward.
Speaker 7
So Great. Yeah. And I know you've you've given your commitment to me to continue to work with the the salmon folks, and so I appreciate you for that. I
Speaker 1
Thank you. You you done some member Rogers? Okay. Assembler Bennett? I'm sure a lot of your questions are already answered.
Speaker 27
Assembly member Rogers made a good start. But but this is really a big bill, and it's a really complicated bill. And this is one time well, I I I won't rush because of because of this. But the first thing is I appreciate the recognition that we have to do better with recharge because of the snow melt that that we have, because of the changing conditions. But we have to do better with recharge in the right way.
And the question is is is are the are the provisions of this bill and doing this by a bill, is this the right way to do this? So I I recognize we need more recharge. We need to be able to do this better. But putting this into a statute is a big responsibility. Mhmm.
Because when you put a bill into a statute, something as detailed as this bill and I wanna get into examples of the details. Something as detailed as this bill, it is very hard to get things out of statute. I think what we recognize here in California over and over again is that it's hard to get a bill to pass. There are so many choke points, but it is really easy to block any reform bill. So if we get something wrong here, that something wrong will benefit somebody, and they will be very powerful and very good at blocking any effort to try to change the bill.
So that's why I just I appreciate, and I think I I feel a real sense of recognition that you have to get this one right
Speaker 27
And that there are still many things that that have to happen. And so I appreciate the commitment to to more amendments. But let me give you just some examples of the detail. I mean, there's a reference to Old And Middle River flows. I don't imagine most people know what what that means when they first read the bill about Old And And Middle River flows without getting those details.
There's an issue in here about credits. Originally, bill said they automatically got a credit, And now there's an amendment that says the groundwater agencies may grant a credit, but that's a big issue for the groundwater agencies. Minor application. Minor application sounds like doesn't do very much. It's a minor application.
But it actually, in your situation, means that you don't you would be able to get a thirty year permit, instead of being having to do it every year. Big deal. I'm not I'm not saying I'm opposed to that because if you've demonstrated over five years, that it might make sense. Those are all big things. So I have four just technical questions that I have.
And, the combination of the technical people, if you wouldn't mind being up at the microphone and the and the and the people down here, I'd like to ask. And, and the first one, because I'm gonna bounce to like the assembly member did, I'm I'm sorry, to a number. And that is, the issue that any agency can make a flood declaration sounds pretty broad. And so I'd like to have the proponents start with why is it okay to say any agency can make a flood declaration?
Speaker 32
I mean, from one zero eight's perspective of a flood control agency, it needs to be crystal clear who's making that decision and how it happens. And I know we work with our counties to come up with parameters in our emergency response plans to do that. It's a very deliberate process. We have times when we're called to, you know, start flood protection, duties on the levees. I mean, I I think that's our vision is that that responsible chain, would be the ones that, you know, would be appointed, and it would be crystal clear that those things would happen that way.
So for me, that's
Speaker 27
that's how I You're telling us how you do it. I I'm I'd like to address the concern that having any agency be able to do this, we might end up having an overly broad and conflicting definition of a flood, an overly broad definition that might mean that we end up doing recharge when it when when it wasn't appropriate. Can I ask the technical the the two technical people? I'd like to hear from both of you up there real quick, but as quickly as you can.
Speaker 39
Okay. So hi. I'm Kristen Peer. I'm an attorney representing RWA, with this bill. My understanding of the the change in that language was that we were trying to be consistent with the way that the executive order was written.
Speaker 57
That language was modeled after, s b 72, that which is 12 42.1, water code 1242.1. And so, the way that it was originally written, it was too restrictive. It it required a flood control agency to have a plan. And and currently so it was and a lot of these flood control agencies didn't have a plan in place already, and so it was revised to make it more available Thank for for agencies to divert under these conditions.
Speaker 13
Just one addition to that. Not every place on the landscape has a flood control agency. Right? Like, that was the issue that the executive order hit on is that we were missing large swaths of landscape that that you couldn't actually access the floodwaters because there wasn't a specific flood agency covering the area. So I think we can look at, though and Kristen hit it on the mark with what was in the bill as what was in the executive order.
I think we can look at being responsive to the concerns raised by some of the oppose unless amended to make sure that we're being really tight with that language on not just
Speaker 23
Sure. I'd welcome the future conversations. To be fair, the any local agency was in SB one twenty two in the original trailer bill package in 2023. S b thirteen ninety by senator Caballero attempted to, amend twelve forty two point one, that that, language. So the issue of conflicting declarations has existed now for a couple years in law.
I feel like the the committee's amendments to any person is just going to make that more confusing, unfortunately. And I do feel like if there's some amendments like primary local flood agents, we can easily address that.
Speaker 27
And then dam and then the second one, dam releases. Is every dam release going to be appropriate to, to say, okay. Now we can recharge this because it's just because it's a dam release doesn't necessarily mean that the river has excess. And I'm gonna preface this by by saying this. My understanding is what we're trying to do is we're trying to take all of the recharge water we possibly can that doesn't have negative impacts.
Mhmm. So as long as the river is truly in excess. But I'm not sure that the that the definition is I'm not sure. And again, this is all technical. I'm not sure that just saying, hey.
There there's water being released from the dam because they know there's a big storm is coming, and so they're gonna release some water, that that necessarily means the river is is going to be in excess. Just means there's temporarily some extra flows, but doesn't mean the river's gonna be in excess. Can you help us with that?
Speaker 13
Thanks. And sorry for the unconventional process here. The intent of the bill is to focus only on those flood flow waters. Right? So I think, again, with with this section of the bill, we still have the controlling of the delta being in excess.
Right? So there's lots of water on the landscape, and then you have a a flood control facility that's releasing water. Right now, that water isn't necessarily available for for access under the flood provisions under existing law. That's the issue that we're trying to get at with with the bill. So I I hope that answers the question.
Speaker 27
So so you're saying we're protected from this being sort of abused or or or inappropriate because it would only we you could only use the dam releases when the delta is in excess.
Speaker 27
Alright. I'm just I'm trying to move us along in terms of the answers. Please stay right there. Let me ask you a question and ask us. Are there ever benefits to high flows, you know, that some people might want to say, you know, large flows?
Aren't there benefits sometimes to having the river literally flush itself out, having the ecosystem the ecosystem is used to having that. So are those all, you know, opportunities, or aren't there some benefits for the ecosystem? And how do we make sure we capture enough of those high flows to get those economic, those ecosystem benefits?
Speaker 13
So I wanna start the answer again by thank you, chair, and thank you to the author of the bill for indulging me and allowing me to respond to these questions. I think we've heard, and many members here have heard, this this argument sometimes that we're wasting water. I don't sympathize with that. We're never wasting water. But that's not the question that we're asking with the bill.
Speaker 31
The question that we're asking is how can we do a better job to maximize the value of the water? So to answer your question, sure, there's gonna be some value, but the the really, what we're trying to drive at is is that the best use of of the water? And I think the assembly member, the author of the bill, stated this well and even you, yourself, assembly member Bennett. Right? We have this challenge with the system that we have today of it not being capable of having enough water in the system when we need it in those drought times and then having too much water in the system in those wet times.
Speaker 13
Right? There's a huge margin here where we can we can do a better job. You heard the assembly member present. Right? We've had 58,000 acre feet of recharge in the last decade through the permitting process.
PPIC, and this is in the analysis, characterized 2023. There were 14,000,000 acre feet on the landscape that year that there was some struggle in accessing. Right? So we have a huge margin here. Right?
That 14,000,000, to put it in context, that's twice urban use. So every member, the people who are using their water at home, twice in one year, right, we have that much water on the landscape. So I I just think, right, yes, there is value to your point in all of that water, but the question is, can we do a better job? And I would argue, can we do a better job even for the environment as we heard Lewis present? Right?
The the stream does better when we recharge more water. That's what we're seeing. And so it's really it's really, can we do a better job there? So I I hope that answers your question. I I may be outside of
Speaker 27
I'd like to go to the role of the water board, as my colleague Sorry. Sorry. Was was was referring to. What I hope this bill does is empower the water board to be able to do and approve more recharge. That way we have the safeguard of the water board being able to say, hey.
We've got a problem here. And, we want them to be able to move faster. But what I hope the bill doesn't do is tie the hands of the water board and have them say, hey. This is a problem. And that's the that's the sweet spot that we're trying to hit with with with all of these details.
And I hear and I thought it was pointed out. It's very interesting that we have opposition saying this bill is too tight on recharge, and we have opposition saying this bill is not tight enough on recharge. And I'm saying there's a nuance in here that we all have to work really hard at, to try to be able to get to that. So a question I have, the water board has indicated they're willing to look at other alternatives besides the 9020 arrangement. And if they are willing to do that, how is it that you that that would work into your movement of this bill, those conversations with them and their willingness to do that?
Do you have any response to their willingness to say, hey. We'll look at something other than 9020. I think you look like the person well, so far.
Speaker 32
Yeah. So we we had actually proposed an alternative approach working with the state board for our permit, and we still ended up with 9020. So that was pretty frustrating for us. That was a few years ago, so maybe they've moved a little bit. We've spent a lot of time working on something that we think would be protective with some of the best water rates folks around, and I I think this bill can work to kind of support the state board's risk level if it's done right to help help encourage them to work in the buffer area we're all talking about.
I think that's what we're advocating for, and I I think this would help encourage that. That's my opinion. Great.
Speaker 27
Do you want you have anything you wanna add before I make my final comment?
Speaker 23
Thank you, assembly member. Yes. Just a couple things. The bill needs some serious amendments still further after committee amendments if it's going to empower the state water board to do anything. So I think that we are looking forward to conversations with both the board and all stakeholders to get there because their oversight is desperately needed to bet to, protect and balance all beneficial uses, including what you referred to.
Speaker 27
So so where I end up at at at this point in time, I I would just offer is that I made the comment about we need we we do need to have more recharge. We want to try to take the water, and I I like the the analysis saying we wanna put the water to its best value as it moves. So we we have a we had a have a water board that has a particular role to play, And that role is sort of to protect us from individuals taking advantage of the water situation that's out there. So I'm my vote today is is trying to decide whether the pro proponents of this bill are making the appropriate good faith effort to try to find that sweet spot, that nuance spot in the middle here that gives us the guardrails and the protections so that recharge doesn't overdo it or doesn't cause economic harm. And at the same time, it's not so restrictive that we don't get the the good value out of recharge.
And I just want to say that as based on these questions, based on the conversations I've had and the conversations in the last couple of days with people about this bill, I'm convinced that is the case, that that is the intention. And I just have to hope that your commitment to taking more amendments and to work with the water board and to work with all of the stakeholders here is is is is is going to be strong enough that you can find that sweet spot as this goes through. Because this is it's not all the way baked yet, but you're making good faith effort to try to get there. So I will be supporting the bill with those comments.
Speaker 10
And as assembly member, I am committed to try to find that sweet spot. We cannot continue down this road that we've gone so many times before, and so I'm committed to make sure that we get this process to move forward. And then we do it thoughtfully, and we work with all the stakeholders and continue those conversations.
Speaker 50
Thank you, madam chair. I mean, we had a pretty good oversight hearing on this, and I think we identified we got a major problem with not you know, the current process is not working to get recharge, you know, diversions, and the process has been overly cumbersome in state water resources control board. So I appreciate the author for bringing this forward and trying to find a way to help streamline that and ensure that we're taking advantage of of flood flows. Like, I've talked about this a lot that, you know, there's ton there's tons we have a lot of water, you know, coming through the system in those winter flood flows, capturing those, know, either through storage. You know, we have a pretty great project on the Horizon Sites Reservoir that would do that, but also through groundwater recharge.
Speaker 59
And so, you know, I think this is a, you know, a really good first step at trying to, you know, weave through, navigate that issue. I do share the concerns of of my colleague, mister Alonis Mhmm. About trying to work that out because I know there are concerns, you know, with different districts about some of the requirements in there and so I think I'll just go to you to the author like you you're committing to work with that and try and you know, read some language that actually make sure that all districts can kind of utilize this this process maybe in the same way?
Speaker 10
Yeah. Absolutely. So we did submit a letter. You weren't here for that one, but we submitted a letter to the San Joaquin Valley. People focused on this issue.
I wrote a letter to CAP and asked the local stakeholders to come to a decision with flood flows, provide feedback, and address this these with my, with my office, and I think we can get there. We're just waiting for some more responses. We gotta clear that up.
Speaker 26
I will not belabor the points of assembly member Rogers and Bennett who were very extensive, but I do wanna make sure that we have appropriate guardrails, and we do need recharge. So thank you for continuing to work on this. With that, I'll give you a courtesy eye today and take a look on the floor. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Going once, going twice. Okay. Well, I thank you for the robust discussion and and the thought that was put into to the questioning and to how this bill is gonna work. From where I sit, I I feel like there is uncertainty in the bill as to who's gonna make these decisions and how are they gonna be made as to whether there's excess and whether we divert. That said, because of climate change and because a lot of our water now is not gonna be dependent upon snowpack and a melting snowpack.
It's when we have these big deluges of water from atmospheric rivers. And I see this bill as an attempt to try to be nimble when those incidents happen. And when you just oppose that on groundwater that has to be recharged, I think we need to have some some ability to be nimble and to be flexible. And I think that is, to use your words, assemblymember's Bennett, the sweet spot we're looking for. It may not be that, it's gonna be perfect, but in my eyes, given what we are confronted with climate change, we're gonna need to be a bit more nimble.
I recognize you're afraid of the federal government, and I applaud you for having seven years of of of doing some decent diversion in your eleven mere years of having this, emergency permit. So we do have some history to say that we have had some success in in this and and not to the expense of the Delta per se. And so I I'm giving the bill the the ability to get out of this committee because I I really see the import of being nimble given where we are right now, and it is not the way things used to be. And, the the days of let's take five years to get a permit and spend hundreds of thousand dollar, but we just, And, again, it may not be perfect, but we we've got to do better. So I I'm actually, welcoming of the bill, and it's, I really wanna see what it can do here.
And and I know the author's gonna be very sensitive to other folks, but sometimes we may not have everything set in stone, and that might be a good thing when it comes to to atmosphere, rivers, and those sorts of things. So, anyway, that's where I'm coming from as chair. Do we have a motion in a second? And would you like to close?
Speaker 10
the day, let's face it, this bill is about making our water system work in the moments that matter most. We have to take advantage of every opportunity to secure our state's water future. When we have water, we should be able to store it. And when we don't, we should be able to rely on it. A b twenty twenty six helps us do both.
I continue I will continue the conversations with all stakeholders, and we'll keep working on this bill, but we must make progress on this issue now. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Do I have a motion to second? Assemblymember Bennett, second? Assemblymember Coloza. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Okay. Item number nine, a b twenty twenty six. Motion is due passed as amended to Natural Resources. Pappin? Aye.
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez?
Speaker 33
Avila Farias, aye. Baines, Bennett? Bennett I. Burner. Aye.
Burner I. Coloza. Coloza I. Gallagher I. Gallagher Heart.
Heart I. Mersucci. Rogers I.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Very much. Ma'am. The members go break for lunch, we have some bills that we'd like you to cast your votes on, not the least of which is Kala because he's gotta get that bill to ESTM this afternoon. So, madam clerk, yes, please.
We'll okay. We'll start with consent. We'll go in order.
Speaker 33
On the consent calendar, Alvarez, Avila Farias Yes. Avila Farias I. Baines? Burner? Aye.
Burner I. Gallagher?
Speaker 33
Gallagher I. Marucci? K. So that's it. K.
Item number 1AB2212218. Motion is due passed to environmental safety and toxic materials. Jeff Gonzalez? Alvarez? Baines, Burner
Speaker 33
Item number two, a B2032. Motion was due passed to environmental safety and toxic materials. Baines? Burner?
Speaker 33
Burner I. Gallagher? Gallagher I. Marucci? K.
Item number three, a b sixteen thirteen. Motion was due passed to appropriations. Alvarez, Baines, Gallagher?
Speaker 33
Gallagher, no. Heart? Aye. Heart, I. Rodriguez I'm sorry.
Mersucci? That one's out. Okay. Item number four, a b seventeen twelve. Motion is due passed to appropriations.
Alvarez, Baines, Bennett I'm sorry. We have Bennett. Burner?
Speaker 33
Gallagher I. Hart? Hart, aye. Murasuchi? And item number five, a b seventeen twenty two, do pass as amended to judiciary.
Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alvarez, Baines, Bennett? Hedwig.
Hedwig? Bennett not voting. Boehner? Woodville. A B seventeen twenty two?
Speaker 33
K. A b eighteen o eight Carrillo. Motion is due passed as amended to natural resources. Alanis? Alvarez?
Baines? Bennett? Bennett I. Gallagher?
Speaker 33
Item number eight, a B1894, Blanca Rubio. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Alanis, Alvarez, Baines, Gallagher?
Speaker 33
aye. Hart? Aye. Heart, aye. Marasucci?
K. And then we just did Agliracuri. K. I think that's it. Okay.
Speaker 1
Okay. So we'll stand in recess until after ESTM clears out of this room, and we then we will reconvene for the remainder of the calendar. Thank you. And just for the record, the cholera and ransom bills are out, and they'll be heard in ESTM. Okay, guys.
We're gonna call to order.
Speaker 1
We are re whatever you call it. Reconvening. Reconvening. I was gonna say what I was gonna say. Anyway, so I understand that assembly member Alvarez has some witnesses that might have some time constraints.
So we're gonna take out of order assembly member Alvarez with give me one more second here. AB 2770. The San Pascual Battlefield State Park. Welcome.
Speaker 30
you, madam chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to, to present and allow our testimony, which has to return to the furthest point from here, Southern California. So I appreciate that. Wanna start by thanking the work, the diligence, that was done by your committee staff, working with our staff, and thank you for the proposed amendments, which we are accepting. Thank you.
I appreciate the motion to move the bill. Very briefly, to keep us moving here, AB twenty seven seventy is a measure that mandates a transfer of approximately 3.68 acres of land within the San Pascal Battlefield State Park from the state to the San Pascal Band of Mission Indians. This initiative aligns with California's ongoing efforts to address historical injustices faced by Native American tribes. Just so you know, the San Pascal Band of Mission Indians is federally federally recognized tribe, deeply rooted in the Kumeyaay Nation, which spans from Northern San Diego all the way through my district all the way into Mexico. I border Mexico, in my district lines, and the Kumeyaay people still reside in that entire region.
The land is not merely an unused parcel. Unfortunately, it is. It encompasses a tribal cemetery, underscoring its profound and sacred cultural significance to the San Pascua people. The tribe has a deep spiritual connection to this land that has endured despite generations of displacement and broken promises. So, AB twenty seven seventy aligns perfectly with the state's newly launched tribal stewardship policy, which sets a statewide goal of expanding tribal stewardship over 7,500,000 acres as we have already seen with the return of over a 103,000 acres to California tribes.
This bill is a tangible step toward achieving that with one of our local tribes, and I'd rather rather turn it over to them to speak to the significance of this to the community. First, we'll have Robert Phillips from the San Pasquale Band, and then Ryan Crow, who's legal counsel.
Speaker 61
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Robert Phelps, and I am a member of the San Pasquale Band of Mission Indians and a retired professor of history at California State University. Our tribal homeland is located along the Santa Isabel Creek in a fertile valley near present day San Diego. Our people had friendly relations with The United States when federal authorities first entered the region and, in fact, actively assisted the United States Army during the Battle of San Pasqual, the largest battle in California during the US Mexican War. When authorities from the US army investigated our village some years later, our tribal elders presented American officers with papers received from the Mexican government in 1835.
Those papers granted the entire valley along the Santa Isabel Creek to the San Pasquale people, making us the only tribe to possess such a grant in California. This fact was communicated to US authorities in Washington. As a result of this discovery, president Grant signed an order creating San Pasquale's first reservation in 1870. Unfortunately, the reservation order was rescinded a year later in response to the protest of white settlers. San Diego County sheriffs cleared the valley of tribal members, setting fire to Artuli homes.
Speaker 8
American ranchers quickly moved in. The San Pasquale people would have to wait until 1910 for another reservation. But because of a surveying error by government officials, our traditional homeland was inaccurately located on barren land to the north. There is evidence that this error was the result of bribes by Valley residents. The opportunity for the return of just a few acres, 3.6 acres of our traditional homeland, is extremely important to the people of San Pasquale.
Speaker 61
It will link us once again to our historic lands and to to the burial grounds of our tribal ancestors. It will at least partially undo the injustices and broken promises of the past. We ask not for the return of the entire valley, but pour a few acres to reconnect us with our history and our home. This is a matter of great importance to the San Pasquale people, and we thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 62
Thank you. And I'm, Ryan Kroll, counsel for San Pasquale. And I just will be quite brief, but I do wanna echo what Robert had just talked about that one of the great honors and privileges of the last twenty years of me being a lawyer is being able to work on this project to hear so many tribal members talk about what it would mean to them to have this land returned to them and how important that would be to to really right wrongs. And that's the way they're able to just explain it, you know it comes from a
Speaker 62
that they grew up with being told what happened to their relatives. And this opportunity now to have even just a small parcel of that land return, it just I get to hear it over and over again. It just means the world to them. And, you know, the word heal gets used a lot, but that that really is what this is about. And really the to me, the the perfect part about this project is that everyone benefits from it.
Right now, this is a closed state park. There is no funding to reopen it. There is no path forward for this to open at this point. And what the tribe wants to do very clearly is open up their own educational center to be able to, you know, not only preserve their history, but teach others about it, to teach the community about it. And I can just say as a, I was born and raised in Florida.
Speaker 9
I remember as an elementary school kid thirty five, forty years ago going to something that the Seminole tribe had like that, and it really stuck with me. So here I am thirty five, forty years later advocating on behalf of the tribe, and I think just that opportunity for San Paswell to be able to explain to the community their history and have children visit it and to just remind them of of what their history was, I I I just think it's a perfect project that everyone wins. If the tribe wins, the community would then have a stay a park that is open, and and that's what we're here for, Ashley. So I appreciate everyone having this ability to listen to us, and, hopefully, this bill moves on.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Do the members of the audience in support? Okay. Seeing none, do we have any opposition? Look at that, Alvarez.
No opposition. With that, we'll bring it back to the, to the committee for comments, questions, or a motion. We got a motion and a second. Great. Okay.
Well, I just, I wanna thank you and some member Alvarez for being this for bringing this forward. You had perfect witnesses. I'm a historian and an attorney, so that was fantastic. And I I think returning the labs land to the tribes is certainly an important and righteous issue. And I think it's also important, to ensure public access and to ensure that the land is protected and preserved.
And it looks like we're getting all of that. So I wanna thank you very much to your, sponsors and and help with the language that we talked about so that it continued to be used for such wonderful purposes. So it's been a great collaboration, and in my view, the amendments really strike a great balance. So, we've got a motion and a second. Would you like to close?
Speaker 30
I just wanna say again thank you. Thank you to the committee, and, obviously, thank you to the Santos Squall, people for, helping us recognize that this is something that was done as an injustice and that we can now participate in correcting a wrong for, many people in San Diego that, again, still, by the way, are in this region and, really appreciate the commitment to from them to maintaining the access, which is so important and that they value tremendously. Respectfully asked your I vote. Thank you, madam chair.
Speaker 33
Item number 25, a b twenty seven seventy. Motion is due passed as amended to governmental organization. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye.
Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alaniz? Alvarez?
Speaker 33
Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias. Aye.
Baines. Aye. Baines. Bennett. Bennett.
Burner. Coloza. Coloza. Gallagher. Heart.
Aye. Heart. I. Mersucci. Rogers.
Speaker 1
Assembly member Connolly, thank you. Come on down. Okay. AB twenty forty five when you're ready. Thank you.
Speaker 42
Yes. Thank you, madam chair and members. Thank you to the committee for your work on AB twenty forty five. I will be accepting the committee amendments to this bill. Proud to present, this bill which would extend the sunset date of the Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Act, HREA, to 2032 and require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to send a report to the legislature on HRA on 12/31/2029.
Speaker 63
The HRA was established in 2014 and facilitated the approval of small voluntary habitat restoration and enhancement projects by providing an expedited permitting process. These projects include things like restoring streams and coastal wetlands, reconnecting floodplains, removing barriers for native fish passage, reducing sediment and pollutants in urban waterways, and planting native vegetation, all of which are vital to protecting California's biodiversity, restoring wildlife, and strengthening our climate resiliency. By combining multiple California Department of Fish and Wildlife permits into a single approval, we are cutting the green tape, so to speak. It is critical we continue this program and ensure the future ensure that future projects are approved in an expedited manner helping strengthen California sustainability. With me to testify today is Mark Fenstermaker representing sustainable conservation and Megan Cleveland from the Nature Conservancy.
Speaker 7
Thank you, madam chair. Mark Fenstermaker here for sustainable conservation, proud sponsors of AB 2,045. Back in twenty twelve, twenty thirteen, we were hearing a lot from our restoration partners that trying to get, restoration projects implemented was just simply taking too long. So the team put their heads together and worked with then assembly member Gordon on AB twenty one ninety three to establish the Habitat Restoration Enhancement Act. We spent a lot of time that year working with the Department of Fish and Wildlife to understand their concerns, trying to create a streamlined and essentially ministerial permit for a class of projects that made sense.
Speaker 29
And we landed on voluntary small scale restoration projects that align with the state water board's four zero one certification process. And those projects would get an expedited permit review so that these small scale projects can move forward in a more efficient manner. And by all accounts, we think that HRA has worked well. Since 2015, over 240 projects have been approved. Just in the last five years, we've seen a 143 projects permitted with only one deemed ineligible.
So the track record suggests that the act is really working. It should continue beyond the sunset date at the end of the year so we can have more of these highly effective restoration projects experience a little less green tape and be done in a more streamlined fashion. And we thank assembly member Connolly for bringing the bill forward, and respectfully ask for
Speaker 28
Great. Good evening, chair madam chair and members. I'm Megan Cleveland with The Nature Conservancy, and I'm we're pleased to be in support of AB twenty forty five. The Nature Conservancy is a science based organization that works worldwide to deliver conservation solutions that benefit people and nature. And in California, we have protected over 1,500,000 acres of landscapes and have implemented on the ground projects to restore and enhance habitat.
As the author and the sponsor outlined, the HRA created a simplified permitting process at CDFW for voluntary small scale habitat restoration enhancement projects. This process has been widely used by TNC and other conservation and restoration practitioners for important projects that benefit the state's fish and wildlife populations, including our threatened and endangered species such as our iconic salmon and steelhead trout. In recent years, TNC has used the HRAA for more than half a dozen projects in the North Coast and the Central Coast that remove fish passage barriers, restore and enhance habitat, and install large wood structures to increase habitat complex complexity. For example, TNC used the HRAA for a suite of projects in the North Coast along the 10 Mile River that restored more than 11.5 acres of critical habitat for endangered juvenile coho salmon, creating the kind of habitat they need to survive winter storms and grow before heading to the ocean. These and other restoration projects have commit have contributed to last year's remarkable coho returns in the Mendocino Coast.
Speaker 60
The HRAA has saved the Nature Conservancy and our partner organization significant time and cost, allowing Habitat projects to be completed faster and cheaper. Without legislative action, the HRA will sunset next year resulting in the loss of this essential permitting tool for Habitat projects. This will make the HRA continue in the future. This bill will make the HRA continue in the future ensuring that this will remain a valuable and available tool for future habitat projects. In doing so, it will help increase the pace and scale of habitat restoration and enhancement efforts and support thriving fish and wildlife populations as well as contribute to the state's efforts to implement the salmon strategy and achieve our 30 by 30 goals.
Speaker 28
For these reasons, we strongly support AB twenty forty five. We thank assembly member Connolly for his leadership, and we respectfully urge your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Alex Lumer on behalf of Audubon, California, the California Native Plant Society, Unlimited, Sonoma Land Trust, California Trout, and Trout Unlimited in support. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Jake Schultz on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, Save the Redwoods League, Conservation Corps of North Bay, and the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon, chair and members. Cam Bazdek with the Northern California Water Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Any opposition? No opposition witnesses? No me too's? We'll bring it back to the committee.
Comments? Questions? Don't see any. Do we have a motion to cut the green tape?
Speaker 33
Item number 10, a b two zero four five. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Pappen? Aye. Pappen, aye.
Jeff Gonzalez?
Speaker 33
Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alanis Alvarez? Aye. Avila Farias, I, Baines, I, Baines, Bennett, I, Burner, Colosa, I, Hart, Hart, I, Murucci, Rogers.
Speaker 1
That'll be out, and we'll leave it open to someone O'Connelley. Thank you so much. Does someone recalled her on?
Speaker 40
Good evening. It's evening now. Right? Thank you, madam chair and members. I'd like to start by thanking the committee, for your work, on us with this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments.
Speaker 18
Assembly bill twenty two fifteen preserves the Department of Water Resources' water rights to the state water project until 2046, which will maintain water reliability and affordability for the majority of Californians. The state water project is managed by DWR, and it provides water to 27,000,000 Californians. Over the past several years, DWR has been working diligently to enhance their infrastructure in order to appropriate water up to their established limits. This important work includes mitigating against climate change and its effects on our water supply. Anticipating needing more time to do so, DWR submitted a request for an extension with the state water board in 2009 and an updated request just last year but are still awaiting a response.
Speaker 40
Without the full development of the DWR's water rights, DWR will be capped at their capacity to appropriate water. This will eventually lead to unmet demand and subsequently increase water rates for the millions of Californians that rely on the state water project for their water needs. I wanna clarify that this bill doesn't approve any future project nor does it diminish the rights of members of the public to participate in future state water project permitting processes. This bill is simply seeking to protect water ratepayers as affordability remains a top concern for our constituents. With me in support is Jennifer Pierre on behalf of the state water contractors, the sponsors of this bill.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Good evening, chair Pappin and committee members. My name is Jennifer Pierre. I'm the general manager for the state water contractors. Together, our public water agencies deliver water, as the assembly member said, to 27,000,000 people and 750,000 acres of farmland in Solano, Napa, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kings, Kern, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego Counties.
Speaker 27
Two out of every three Californians gets about 30% of their water from the state water project, and the water right is in limbo. Since 2009, the Department of Water Resources, which is the owner and operator of the project, has been attempting to extend the time it has to fully develop the water right that it was originally given in 1972. What has typically been an administrative process that requires water rights holders to do two things, basically demonstrate they still have a need for their water right and that they've been diligent in pursuing it, has become a significant handicap for the state water project to address climate change. We can no longer wait for the state water board to process this time extension, and we seek this simple bill. Each of our public water agencies has executed contracts with the state of California and are obligated to pay for the cost of the state water project through 2085.
Speaker 21
And in the meantime, we are also responsible for ensuring clean, affordable, reliable supplies for the vast majority of Californians. This bill simply provides the Department of Water Resources and millions of Californian ratepayers certainty that they will have time to develop the existing water right. It's important to note that this bill does not create any physical changes in the environment, approve any projects or operations, impact other water rights holders or shift mitigation obligations to others, or circumvent any environmental review. But what it does do importantly is extends the time that DWR has to work on development of its water right. It reduces the cost of the state and water rate payers.
It preserves the public's ability to challenge any actual project that DWR pursues through CEQA, water rights proceedings, and a myriad other permitting processes. It creates certainty and affordability for DWR and its ratepayers, and it also addresses climate change. We respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 32
Madam chair members, Mike Monaghan on behalf of the state building and construction trades council in support. Good evening. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the Alameda County Water District and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in support.
Speaker 39
Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.
Speaker 15
Brenda Bass with KP Public Affairs on behalf of Western Municipal Water Mohave Water Agency, and Western Growers Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 59
Danny Merkley with the Guaco Group on behalf of, Kern County Water Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District in support.
Speaker 22
Jack Worson on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.
Speaker 20
Madam chair and members, Beth Olaso on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Municipal Water District of Orange County in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Adam Quinones, California advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support.
Speaker 13
Hi. Good evening, madam chair members. Glenn Farrell with GF Advocacy on behalf behalf of the Southern California Water Coalition, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and the Milk Producers Council, all in strong support.
Speaker 25
Kyle Griffith, on behalf of Californians for Water Security, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce, Gateway Chambers Alliance, and the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District. Thank you in support.
Speaker 63
Charles Watson on behalf of the West Valley Water District in support. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Good evening. Danielle Coates with Rancho California Water District in support. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Good evening, chair and members of the committee. My name is Morgan Snyder with Restore the Delta, and I am presenting the comment today on behalf of Chris Schutz with California Sport Fishing Alliance who was unfortunately unable to stay this evening. For fifteen years, starting in 2009, the Department of Water Resources didn't do its homework on its petition to extend time on its water rights permits. In 2010, DWR promised an environmental analysis. It never even started one.
Speaker 17
D d DWR said it would use an environmental document from another process instead. DWR didn't do that either. In 2024, DWR tried to shoehorn extending time on its permits as what it as as what it called a minor change to its water rights petition for its proposed Delta Tunnel. The hearing oss officer for the Delta Tunnel told DWR, no dice. To inform her hearing, the hearing officer required DWR to say how much water the tunnel could divert with and without a permit extension.
Speaker 15
She also told DWR it didn't get to piggyback a time extension into d DWR's change petition for the Delta Tunnel. We're here today because DWR and the state water contractors want more water for their Delta Tunnel and because the hearing officer told DWR to follow proper procedure. The water board isn't the bad actor here. Neither is the water rights process. DWR never started its homework, but the state water contractors want to let DWR graduate with honors.
The only bigger water rights holder in California is the Bureau of Reclamation for the Central Valley project. If its permits also require extension. If DWR skates, how will you answer if reclamation comes knocking? In 2018, this legislature established the state water board's administrative hearings office. It is a functioning mechanism for the water rights permitting system.
All voices get to be heard and get due process. Don't unravel that good work. Vote no on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 58
Thank you. Good evening, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Ryan Hernandez. I am an assistant deputy director for, conservation and development department at Contra Costa County. I'm also the Contra Costa County's water agency manager.
I'm here on behalf today, this evening of the Delta Counties Coalition, a consortium of five Delta Counties, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo working to give the Delta one voice. We submitted an opposition letter last week, and are joined by other local agencies, water users, and interested members, and public interest organizations in opposing this bill. The main purpose of two two one five is to remove a significant barrier to to the contentious delta conveyance or tunnel project. It's worth reiterating that the Department of Water Resources has had at least fifteen years to drive that required permit forward but failed to do so. Last year, the administration attempted to fix this problem in a budget trailer bill that would have made state water project permits perpetual, unlike any other water rights in the state, but the legislature wisely rejected that.
Speaker 41
Now the water contractors are asking for an extension to almost 20 to 2046 into the future to build the tunnel to set aside up to 2,000,000 additional acre feet of water for exclusive use by SWP. The state water contractors are seeking the special law to literally eliminate due diligence and the permitting process, which means there's no checks against potential harm to other users of water in the system. The two two one five is unfair to other water rights applicants throughout the Bay Delta Watershed, and these applications would be pushed aside in favor of the department's massive water right. Regarding the proposed amendment to shorten the permit's extension to twenty years, this does nothing to fix the problem. The bill because, with this bill because a shorter extension still allows the tunnel to be built without the necessary oversight by the state water board.
Speaker 58
In particular, building the tunnel without determining how much water could be put into it would be unfair to everyone involved. The water board exists for a reason. The legislature shouldn't be eliminate shouldn't eliminate its authority to manage water rights and protect other beneficial users of water, please vote no on two two one five. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Do we have, me too's in opposition from the audience?
Speaker 17
Alex Lumer on behalf of Golden State Salmon Association opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Scott Webb on behalf of Ozlem Clear, Resort of the Delta, Action for a Healthy Planet, Environmental Council of Sacramento, California Water Impact Network, Friends of the River, SF Beekeeper. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good evening. Keira Ross on behalf of the city of Stockton out in opposition.
Speaker 23
Ashley Overhouse on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Brett Baker on behalf of the Central Delta Water Agency in opposition. Thank you so much.
Speaker 64
April Bird on behalf of the Sacramento Area Sewer District in opposition.
Speaker 56
Ocean Reserve on behalf of local agencies of the North Delta, we've also submitted a detailed comment letter. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. We'll bring it back to the dais senate member Bennett. Here we go.
Speaker 27
Thank you, madam chair. This is a big deal piece of legislation and and a big deal change. So
Speaker 27
to ferret out all of the implications of it with just a few days is is always challenging. But one one issue that was brought up is the issue of this setting a precedent. If if we do this and does this allow other things to happen? And I know staff came up with some amendments to try to claim that wouldn't be the case, but what is what I'd like to hear from from state water contractors, your thoughts about how how much this could potentially be a precedent for others to to go forward?
Speaker 21
We deliver water to the vast majority of Californians, and I understand there are other permit holders that have a similar issue that we do, but we really see this as a very urgent need. We are already seeing weather whiplash, and our ability to use existing infrastructure with certainty is really at risk. So I think it's up to, all of us in the community, including, our environmental friends, to start talking about how to make the system work better. But right now, we have a very urgent need for the vast majority of water supply, needs in the state. And so it's, you know, it's not the ideal mechanism for addressing this, but we've kind of hit a wall.
And we're trying to address it without setting a precedent, but with the idea that we do need to figure out how to make this a more functional process for all.
Speaker 27
Thank you. So I'll ask the author. Do you know I mean, why this bill why was the EIR not done?
Speaker 21
Okay. So, unfortunately, when we go through this process, we, we go into an ex parte situation, so it makes it very difficult to communicate. Under previous, extensions of the water right, there was no EIR required. After 2009, the board changed their mind and said, no. Now we want one.
For other water rights holders, there hasn't needed to be environmental before the prop permit's been processed. So there's been a, lack of, of consistency with how the board has even applied the need for an EIR. I think there's also questions about what does an EIR and extending time even look like. We're not building a project. There's no physical change in the environment.
It's it's a water right that exists today. There's so without having the ability to have dialogue because we're now an ex parte, it makes it really challenging to sort some of those things out.
Speaker 27
So was the was EIR not done because there was a disagreement about whether it was appropriate to ask for an EIR and therefore there was a resistance, or was it just other issues that kept the EIR from not getting done?
Speaker 21
A whole host of things. I think just the ability to coordinate, to define the scope of it, to figure out what was needed. There was multiple droughts that occurred since then. There's been other water rights hearings. I mean, the board has been very busy, and so kind of having attention on this to solve it.
Then with the communication, you know, difficulty. I think it's just been hard to get over.
Speaker 27
So and this takes me to my most important question, and that is if we stay with the status quo and this bill didn't pass, what would what would happen? And why is it that what will happen if we if we what will happen if we don't do this? What are the specific negative impacts that we have to avoid and therefore need to take this action?
Speaker 21
Well, we don't know how much longer the board will take to process. So and we've already had instances where there's, a lack of clarity around how DWR can operate the system. We we don't there could be instances where you have a deep drought followed by a lot of water, and our ability to flex the existing infrastructure even within our ESA requirements or existing rules is uncertain. And so that has a potential to limit how the department can operate the system. That's actually what we find as the most urgent thing because as we're looking at ways of maximizing the existing system, there's a huge question mark over whether DWR has the ability to do that.
And the longer it takes for the board to process an extension to say, yes, you're extended or no, you're not or you're extended with these conditions, the longer there's a question mark around how DWR can operate.
Speaker 27
Can you give can you give us a specific example or examples of something going wrong, DWR not knowing how to operate, because they don't have this extension in hand?
Speaker 21
I can give you not an example of what's happened, but something that could happen, for example.
Speaker 21
So there's six water rights, and some of the a lot of them have to do with rates, not volumes. So if you are trying to refill Oroville, and let's say it's very empty, and now all a sudden you have a number of atmospheric rivers coming in, is DWR allowed to fill at rates higher than they've filled before 2009?
Speaker 21
Are they? Do they have to let the water through? Can they store it? We're you know, we we don't those are the sorts of questions that allow certainty when you extend the time to say, yes. The water right you have, which allows for that, is going to be extended into the future.
Speaker 27
So with with changing conditions and climate change and the potential for more atmospheric rivers, the concern is potential things that might happen. There's not something specific that's going to happen, but potential things that might happen because the the permit has not been extended. Is that accurate sort of?
Speaker 21
Yeah. But I'd say they're more than potential. I think we can easily see. I mean, in the last several years, we've had major, major whiplashes, and there's definitely a focus on when water is in the system. And we've had this conversation, over the course of the day, how do you maximize the ability to move and store it?
And I think there are projects on the table. The tunnel is a project. There's also the North Bay Aqueduct. There's also the ability to store water. There's also ongoing adaptive management of existing facilities.
In fact, there's a number of parties who are even participating in the tunnel, and in fact, one who's suing the tunnel who supports the bill. So this is really about utilizing the the water right that the water rate payers have been paying into.
Speaker 27
Final question. Yeah. Do you from your perspective, will can the tunnel go forward? If this if this passes, can this tunnel go forward without other permits or permission? Does this bypass the whole tunnel approval process?
Speaker 21
The tunnel approval process is currently with the state water board and the Delta Stewardship Council, and this will not impact either of those processes what no matter if the bill passes or not.
Speaker 27
And I wanna turn to the opposition. Do you have a different different take on that?
Speaker 27
path, does it? But will there still be other things that will have to happen? Yes. Yes. It So so there it it does it doesn't doesn't if this passes, it doesn't automatically go, hey.
The issue's done in terms of whether we're gonna build a tunnel or not.
Speaker 58
That yes. That's correct. That is but it's it's but it's treating differently than to the other water users in the system. Got it. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you, madam chair. To the, to the author or to your technical expert, the opposition, opened up with with, quite a few comments. I'm sorry. Were you done, mister Bennett?
Speaker 27
Yes. I am done. I I'll have comments about the bill after the other questions take place. But yeah. Fine.
Speaker 8
Back on track. So is there any comments, response to their what what they had talked about?
Speaker 21
We would not characterize the ongoing proceedings as have been characterized that way. I think that, the administrative hearing officer did say what happens with and without time extension, and that's the that's the question. The time extension's needed regardless. So, you know, that's a in our opinion, separate process. Totally separate.
Will not be impacted. The change in point of diversion water right proceeding will continue regardless if this bill passes, regardless if the state board takes action. That's a separate track, and the AHO made that clear.
Speaker 27
If nobody else has comments, that sure. I, like I like I said, this is a big, this is a big deal bill. It's a big deal precedent, but it's also a big deal. And that's why a big deal bill, I think, is is appropriate at this point in time. But as this moves through the process, I I hope we'll be able to continue to address the questions as to does this really subvert the decision making process on the Delta?
Does this create precedence, etcetera? But I think you've articulated enough potential risk that I would be supporting this bill at this point in time with those caveats and hope that there can still be very constructive dialogue as we go forward. With that, I'll move the recommended act I'll I'll move the bill.
Speaker 8
the bill. Do you have a second? Do have a second from, mister Hart? K. With that, to the author, if you'd like to close.
Speaker 40
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. I respectfully ask for a nay vote.
Speaker 33
Okay. Item number 13, a b two two one five. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Pappin? Jeff Gonzalez?
Speaker 33
Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alanis? Alvarez? Avila Farias? Aye.
Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Aye. Baines, aye. Bennett?
Bennett, aye. Burner? Coloza? Coloza, aye. Gallagher, heart?
Hart I? Rodriguez? Sorry. Murasuchi? Rogers?
Speaker 65
Thank you, mister chair and staff and members and advocates. Today, I'm here to present AB twenty two fifty four, the Coastal Monarchs Protection Act. This bill would require local governments within the coastal zone that have monarch butterfly overwintering sites within their jurisdictions to develop and implement overwintering site protection policies. And we have heard concerns from opposition, and I am committed to having further conversations with them. We've had numerous conversations, we'll continue to do that.
Every year, as many of you know, the western monarch butterfly population migrates from California's coast to rest in highly specialized habitats known as overwintering sites. These are primarily coastal sites with microclimates, but, unfortunately, many of these sites are being destroyed. And we've lost over 95% or we've seen a 95% decrease in the Western monarch population since the nineteen eighties. And many of us that live at the coast, I remember as a kid going to the butterfly groves and seeing, you know, thousands upon thousands of butterflies. And now sometimes when you go to various overwintering sites, you can only find a handful if that.
So a b twenty two fifty four will help address concerns in the loss of population, which, by the way, is also an economic loss for the Central Coast in particular, but anywhere along California that has or along the coast that has monarch habitat knows that we have ecotourism because of our monarchs. People come and spend money in our local communities when they come to see the monarchs. So a b twenty two fifty four will help address the loss in monarch populations by creating a consistent level of protection through local government to update through an update to the local coastal coastal plan that would include overwintering site protection policies. And I wanna be super clear. We're not requiring any new LCPs or new local coastal plans.
We're simply saying when a jurisdiction is updating their local coastal plan that they would add monarch protection policies. And, coastal commission, in conjunction with Department of Fish and Wildlife, will be developing model policies to give to the cities so that, they don't have to develop these on their own. So joining me is Serena Jepsen, endangered species program director for the Zeri Society for Invertebrate Conservation, and Rachel Norton, executive director for the California State Parks Foundation.
Speaker 10
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Serena Jepsen, endangered species program director with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Our organization has been working across California for decades to conserve monarch butterflies and the habitats they depend upon. I'm here today in strong support of a b two two five four. The science is clear.
Speaker 66
Monarchs are in trouble. US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the monarch butterfly warrants listing under The US Endangered Species Act. The Xerces Society's Western Monarch Count documented only 12,000 monarchs last winter, down from millions in the nineteen eighties. These extremely low population numbers put Western monarchs at risk of serious collapse. Overwintering sites are forested groves along Coastal California, and they are absolutely critical for monarch survival.
Without these sites, we will no longer have migratory monarch butterflies in California. Yet sites are destroyed or severe or severely damaged every year primarily due to the trees where monarchs roost being topped or cut down. Once these overwintering groves are lost, they are impossible to recreate. While some regulatory protection exists through the Coastal Act, there are significant gaps and inconsistencies in implementation. AB two two five four offers a practical, tailored solution.
By integrating Monarch Protection into existing local coastal planning processes and directing the Coastal Commission to develop model guidance. This bill creates clarity and predictability while protecting vital monarch habitats. For the future of California's monarchs, I respectfully urge your support for a b two two five four. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Good evening, members and chair. I'm Rachel Norton. I'm the executive director of California State Parks Foundation, and thank you for the opportunity to speak for monarchs. For more than fifty years, California State Parks Foundation has partnered with the state to protect all 280 state parks, and that includes work to steward monarch overwintering groves through restoration, volunteer engagement, and public education, which gives us direct experience with the importance of these habitats, the communities they serve, and the pressures that both face. State parks play an important role in supporting monarch overwintering habitat.
More than 50 overwintering sites are located across roughly 40 state parks, including Natural Bridges State Beach and Pismo State Beach. Each year, more than a 100,000 visitors, including many school groups, come to state parks to see monarchs. It's a simple but very meaningful experience and often an entry point to understand understanding and caring about the natural world. Over time, many coastal communities have developed a deep connection to the seasonal return of the monarchs, and their arrival brings celebration and visitors during the the winter months, helping support local economies during a typically slower season. More broadly, monarchs are deeply valued, and research from the US Geological Survey has found that people across the country place billions of dollars in economic value on conserving monarch populations.
AB twenty two fifty four offers a practical way to strengthen protection for these habitats by providing clearer guidance and consistency within existing coastal planning processes. Without action, we risk losing more than habitat If the groves and the monarchs that return to them are lost, we're gonna lose forever a seasonal rhythm that communities have come to know and depend on, something that brings people together and supports local livelihoods. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 8
Hey. Do we have any primary witnesses in, support? I'm sorry. Additional support in the hearing room?
Speaker 48
Kim Delfino with Defenders of Wildlife, California Association of Zoos and Aquariums in support.
Speaker 24
Good evening, vice chair and committee members. Melissa Sparks Krenz with the League of California Cities. I just wanted to start by saying we've been working very diligently with the author staff and the sponsors, providing feedback and good dialogue, multiple rounds of amendments. And, however, we do still believe a b twenty two fifty four needs additional changes. First, under the coastal act, LCPs are a very challenging process, time intensive, and costly for local governments to have to go through, to gain coastal commission approval and to retain their local land use permitting authority on in the coastal zone.
LCPs are not site specific plans. They are long range land use planning documents developed in addition to general plans, zoning documents, and local ordinances. They, there are already local governments that have adopted habitat management plans for these sites, and the bill would impose an LCP mandate on local governments in addition to some of those plans that exist now. I think fundamentally, approximately one third of these habitat sites are actually outside of the coastal zones. This is a a challenge for us in looking at the solution that this bill proposes to only protect two thirds of the remaining habitat despite losing 95% since 1980.
Speaker 21
We do believe that a more holistic approach to addressing the species decline is needed, since these are endangered, species. Next, as previously noted, the monarch butterfly warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act formally. We recognize the decline in the species, but this species and its habitat is not listed currently listed under CISA. So could this bill be a reform bill to allow migratory invertebrates and their habitats to be considered eligible as listed species to provide far greater protections under the California Endangered Species Act? And third, I'd like to raise that the Coastal Commission started identifying over identifying overwintering habitat sites as environmentally sensitive habitat areas or ESHAs from our research in the mid nineteen nineties.
Speaker 24
So why has the commission not been prioritizing that such sites be designated as ESHAs in every LCP amendment that they have received over the last three decades. Instead, the bill places the mandate on local governments to fill all of these gaps where the state's most robust environmental laws, we believe, have been lacking. We are not opposed to providing protections and policies for these habitat sites. The bill currently defines model policies inclusive of habitat management plans, LCP amendments, or other local policies. All we are requesting is that local governments have the flexibility in developing the most appropriate policies that work best for them in their communities.
For these reasons, we remain opposed unless amended to the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed unless amended for the reasons outlined by my colleague at the league. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good evening. Eric Will on behalf of rural county representatives of California in alignment with the league, oppose unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Mister Bennett and then mister Hart.
Speaker 27
I would just like to have the author respond to the, concerns being raised.
Speaker 65
I would say well, number one, we're, in active conversations about how to address a number of the concerns. But the general approach here to go through the local coastal plan, we believe, is a pretty gentle approach while still having a meaningful bill. We're not requiring a new local coastal plan. That's a pretty targeted bill, really, targeted to the coastal zone, but setting out a general framework around monarch protections while still allowing flexibility.
Speaker 67
Yeah. I just think this is an important, bill because it does proactively take the initiative to try and address the issues that are facing, monarchs. I appreciate what the league is saying about, the difficulty of doing local coastal plan amendments, but the fact that the bill is asking that to only happen when that would naturally occur is, I think, a great middle ground. And I appreciate the dialogue that's gonna continue, and I think that that will be productive. And, you know, ultimately, in a situation like this where a species is on the path toward being listed as an endangered species, I think there is an urgent need for us to be proactive and take these steps and to go to extra length to protect that from happening.
And I think that local governments understand the value of monarchs and want that to happen, too. And I think you're going to get there. So, I'd like to be added as a co author if I could and would move the bill if no one else is wanting to skip. We
Speaker 8
have a motion and a second. Mister Hart, mister Bennett. Any other question? Any other questions from the committee?
Speaker 8
Number, the the first one would be, you know, first of all, I love monarch butterflies. Don't know why, but With prerequisite.
Speaker 8
My, marine corps and multiple combat tours, I love monarch butterflies. The the question or or the concern I have is is local control. Right? That's really where it comes down to for me. I I get it with with respect to monarch butterflies.
You know, I'd love to see them in my backyard all day long. Right? But then this removes, the authority from the local control. So how would you how would you, answer to that?
Speaker 65
Now I were you know, I really appreciate that question, and I'm probably one of the bigger fans of local control in this state legislature. I fought for quite a few unpopular local control bills. Some of them I've won. Some of them I haven't won. But and I come from local government of a city in the coastal zone, and I governed while we were updating a local coastal plan.
Speaker 61
And it's no easy thing to do. Anybody who governs in a coastal city would tell you it's no easy thing to do to go through that process. That said, we're not requiring anything new in terms of extra, LCPs. We're not adding a burden when it comes to the local control plan process. So number one, we're really trying to keep within the existing process, but it also does on our local voice in that there's some flexibility, and we're working with the opposition in terms of how to create more flexibility where we're able to while still having a meaningful bill that, that will protect monarch habitat, if that makes sense.
Speaker 65
So a variety of ways to meet these requirements. And then, the coastal commission and working with Department of Fish and Wildlife would have model policies, but that isn't necessarily prescriptive to what a local government would adopt. But we put that in there primarily to ease the burden of going through any kind of LCP process on local governments so they could pick up those model pop, policies and then make them their own within certain requirements.
Speaker 24
Yeah. I would just say, oops. There we go. I would just say, you know, like we mentioned in our testimony, we're not opposed to developing policies to protect these habitat sites. I think for us, the the LCP requirement is a very large hurdle to meet.
It's not an unfamiliar process to our local governments. It's just a very challenging one. And I think the the concerns that we raised in our testimony you know, the commission has had the authority to determine these as ESHAs, environmentally sensitive habitats, for three decades, and there have been hundreds of LCP updates that have gone through the commission in that time. And those haven't been required by the commission to be included in the LCP. So, again, we're pointing out that, in the absence of the state laws working in in the way in which they should have been over the last several decades to help protect these sites, What we're asking for now is rather a not a mandate, but flexibility.
And, like the assembly member said, the model policies referenced in the bill that, commission and CDFW would develop together would provide a variety of planning approaches. It could be a habitat management plan. It could be other local policies. There could be local ordinances that a city may want to adopt specifically for their jurisdiction that would provide greater protections in some senses at the local level. Right?
And so that's exactly what we're asking for is whether it be an LCP update or an ordinance or a habitat management plan, let us determine what that looks like at the local level. It is challenging to govern in the coastal zone as was mentioned, and so give us the flexibility to be able to determine that path, and and we will do that. Right? And that's what we're saying in in our in our testimony today. So thank you for the question.
Speaker 65
close? Thank you, madam chair. I really I appreciate the questions, and I appreciate the dialogue. I think, you know, the reality is the western monarch is on the brink of extinction. And if we don't act and we don't act soon, then we very well may lose this very important species.
And while that's devastating from an environmental perspective and from a perspective of loving the natural world, it's also bad for our coastal economies because these Western monarch bring thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, into our coastal economies. And so with that, we'd love to protect them, and we'd love to have your support and respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you
Speaker 33
Item number 14, a b two two five four. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Nope. Jeff Gonzalez, no. Alanis?
No. Alanis, no. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye.
Avila Farias? Baines?
Speaker 33
Baines, aye. Bennett? Bennett, I. Burner? Coloza?
Coloza I, Gallagher, part, part, I, Marucci, Rogers,
Speaker 1
That bill's out, but we'll leave it, the roll open. Thank you. Thank you. Senate member Schultz. You're pinch hitting for some member Wicks.
We'll start with that one if that's okay with you.
Speaker 68
Yes. For any witnesses in the room, I will be presenting AB twenty fifty one. So with that, good evening, madam chair and committee members. I'm pleased to present AB twenty fifty one on behalf of assembly member Witts. AB twenty fifty one would direct the natural resources agency to convene a coastal resilience permitting working group who will meet to develop a road map for projects proposed along California's coast and in the San Francisco Bay.
Under current law, a project sponsor on the coast may need to secure up to 10 separate permits from state, federal, and local agencies. The process is beset by redundant and inconsistent application requirements, no aligned review timelines, sequential rather than concurrent permitting processes, and no single lead agency to coordinate or resolve conflicts as well as chronic staffing vacancies in agencies that require highly specialized expertise. Attempting to cut green tape is not a brand new idea, and recent administrations, including our, our current administration, governor Newsom, have sought to move faster and with less bureaucracy to adapt to the realities of climate change. However, the challenge here remains massive, and our work as legislators is not done. Decades worth of well meaning permitting processes are overlaid on top of one another, and it is still too expensive and time consuming to move with the speed and cost efficiency that our coastline is going to need to adapt to sea level rise and an altered climate.
Allow me to be clear, AB twenty fifty one does not change existing permitting requirements or weaken any environmental protections. An advisory group mandated in the bill is specifically charged to ensure that streamlining streamlining efforts do not weaken protections for fish and wildlife habitat, tribal cultural resources, or public access. With this bill, assembly member Wickes intends to set California on a path that will lead to actionable recommendations that improve permit issuance timelines, align mitigation requirements, accelerate permitting, and assess how to recruit and retain essential permitting staff. Here today to testify in support of the bill are Laura Tam with the Bay Area Council and Len Matterman with One Shoreline, the San Mateo County flood and sea level rise resiliency district. And at the appropriate time, on behalf of assembly member Wicks, I'll request an I vote.
Speaker 69
Thank you very much. Good evening, chair Pappan and assembly members. My name is Laura Tam. I'm actually the CEO of the Bay Planning Coalition. We are cosponsoring AB twenty fifty one with the Bay Area Council.
BPC represents nearly a 100 different organizations, public agencies, business, labor, and environmental groups working to advance environmental and economic resilience in and around San Francisco Bay. We urge your I vote, and here's why it matters. First, with weather whiplash and a changing climate, urgency is real, and our permitting system has not caught up. The Ocean Protection Council projects up to three feet of sea level rise by 2100. Voters passed proposition four.
The legislature passed SB two seventy two. The money and the mandate are there. Yet today, a project sponsor can face up to 10 separate permits from multiple agencies moving sequentially with no single entity accountable for the total timeline. We have less and less time to get restoration and flood risk reduction projects in the ground to outpace growing hazards, and we owe it to our communities to build a system that can meet the moment. Second, the bill does not lower the bar.
It helps us clear it more efficiently. AB twenty fifty one does not weaken the coastal act, CEQUA, or any species protection. What it does is direct the secretary of natural resources in collaboration with Cal EPA to convene state permitting agencies and produce a road map for doing their work in coordination rather than in sequence and in silos. We already know this model delivers. We have an example from the Bay Area, the BRIT, our interagency permitting team for restoration projects that has hit its timeline targets, a 100% of the time, for the projects that have gone through its its permitting process.
Speaker 59
AB twenty fifty one asks what it would take to build that capacity statewide and use it to advance coastal resilience projects that advance multiple public benefits, including but not limited to restoration, water quality, flood risk reduction, access, and recreation. Finally, inaction has a cost we rarely count. Every month, a great project awaits its next step in permitting is a month of habitat loss, flood exposure, escalating construction costs, and a month of delay on investments our communities have funded and want. The bill's workforce provisions recognize something honest and overdue. We cannot streamline what we cannot staff.
Speaker 69
Ensuring agencies can recruit and retain qualified professionals in permitting isn't bureaucratic expansion. It is the basic infrastructure of delivery. AB twenty fifty one is practical, protective, and a step to building the institutional capacity California needs, and we respectfully urge your support.
Speaker 6
Hello, chair Pappin and distinguished assembly members. My name is Len Matterman, the CEO of the San Mateo County flood and sea level rise resiliency district, also known as One Shoreline. Our agency established in state legislation in January 2020 is tasked with turning a cal California county that is extremely vulnerable to coastal flooding into the most resilient one. We and related agencies around California are acutely aware of the urgent need for permitting regime that enables rather than hinders our ability to protect the people and places we cherish, those places including water, parks, and wildlife. Today, I'll provide one local example of the costs of uncoordinated permitting.
Speaker 1
Following widespread flooding in 2022 and 2023, when Shoreline began working to secure five year permits to reduce debris from four of our tidally influenced flood prone creeks. We have since secured three of these permits, and one permit application is is close but still pending. This project would reduce a demonstrated flood risk in six cities and would permanently impact less than 1,100 square feet of Tidal creek channel. So the size of a very small single family home, 1,100 square feet would be permanent impacts. Permitting has taken three years, but as concerning as project delays is the fact that this permitting has cost $525,000 in taxpayer money and counting.
Speaker 6
We expect the permitting price tag to total about one half of the cost of construction of this project. This project focused on coastal flooding today, not future coastal flooding, which will be much worse relative to what we need to do to build coastal resilience. It was a small project. So, clearly, we need to do more to align our permitting processes to meet this moment. AB twenty fifty one is an important step in the right direction.
The current well intentioned but outdated and uncoordinated permitting regime is the greatest source of climate resilience project uncertainty. We urge your support for this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 13
Good evening. Marky Cedro on behalf of the county of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support. Jack Worson from Nossiman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.
Speaker 1
Do we have witnesses in opposition? Oh, look at that. Okay. We'll bring it back to the dais. Questions?
Oh, we have a motion? Second. Second? Okay. Well, I have some familiarity with this permitting nightmare.
And and just a full disclosure, I know mister Maderman from a past life where we created one shoreline. And, because we were San Mateo County was the most vulnerable county in the state to sea level rise with an extraordinary amount of very valuable assets that run along the bay. In any event, three years is incredible. And what I think gets me the most is every dollar every minute that passes, the projects gets more expensive, and we spend so much time on permitting and and expense on permitting with outside consultants or, you know, whatever it takes. So I welcome the bill, and I wish at godspeed.
Mister Solz, would you like to close for assembly member Wickes?
Speaker 68
Respectfully ask your I vote, and I think the bill's in great hands with her. So she'll carry it as far as it can go.
Speaker 33
Okay. Item number 11, a b two zero five one. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alaniz? Alvarez? Yes. Alvarez, aye.
Avila Farias? Baines? Yes. Baines, aye. Bennett?
Aye.
Speaker 33
Bennett, aye. Burner? Coloza? Aye. Coloza, I.
Gallagher, part, part, Marisucci? Rogers? I. Rogers, I.
Speaker 68
I have mister Bennett's request duly noted, so we'll get that off to assembly member Wicks. So I am now here to present a b twenty two seventy seven. And, madam chair and members, I'd like to begin by thanking the committee and your very talented hardworking staff. I do hereby accept all of the committee's proposed amendments. A b two twenty two seventy seven would provide guidance to the Department of Parks and Recreation in protecting state park lands faced with the threat of climate change.
Speaker 20
California State Park System includes 280 units spanning a wide array of natural, historic, cultural, and recreational sites and encompassing numerous environmental significant habitats, ecosystems, wildlife, and plant species. However, California state parks face growing climate driven threats, including extreme heat, wildfires, and biodiversity loss, but often lack the necessary resources to proactively steward both existing and future park lands. Current state law does not explicitly recognize the critical role of state park lands in addressing climate change or provide direction for how the department should proactively manage these lands under current and projected climate conditions. AB twenty two seventy seven addresses this by, one, directing the Department of Parks and Recreation to implement science based and climate informed stewardship practices that enhance ecosystem health, reduce reduce wildfire risk, and protect biodiversity. And second, establishes the wildfire safety and climate stewardship fund to ensure clear accounting and targeted activities in state park units.
Speaker 68
With shifts in federal environmental policy, there is great need for strong state leadership to safeguard our public lands so that future generations of Californians can continue to have access to them, and that quite simply is why this bill is so darn important. With me today are Rachel Norton, executive director at the California State Parks Foundation, and Rachel Dan, director of government relations at Semper Vierens Fund. I probably missed I think I got that right. Okay. Thank you.
Testifying in support and respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 53
Thank you, assembly member. Thank you, madam chair and members. I'm Rachel Norton, executive director of California State Parks Foundation. We're very proud to cosponsor AB twenty two seventy seven, which provides critical climate policy direction for California state parks. For more than fifty years, the State Parks Foundation and our hundreds of thousands of supporters across the state have worked to protect and preserve the California state park system for the benefit of all.
And California is a home to a vast state park system encompassing most
Speaker 30
Most of the state's ecologically significant regions. The system covers more than 1,600,000 acres of land protecting over a 150,000 acres of coastal redwoods, about a quarter of California's coastline, and hundreds of miles of lake and river frontage. The department plays a crucial role in preserving, managing, and stewarding these lands, ensuring that they remain accessible and resilient to the impacts of current and future climate change, which poses an escalating threat to all California. That threat is already visible, and I wanna take sea level rise as an example. The Department of Parks and Recreation deserves huge credit for developing a sea level rise action plan, which in 2021 received $11,500,000, less than 1% of the billion provided for climate resilience overall in that budget.
Speaker 53
And what happened? In 2024, the Department of Finance clawed back more than half of that money. For us, this raised real concerns about the state's long term commitment to climate stewardship in state parks from administration to administration even as we face the loss of significant portions of state beaches and parklands by the end of this century. This bill would address the gap in state law to provide clear long term direction for how the department should manage parklands to address climate impacts and ensuring that parks are managed with climate resilience in mind is closely tied with safeguarding the state's broader environment. For these reasons, we respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 60
Thank you. Thank you, chair and members of the committee. My name is Rachel Dan. I'm the director of government relations for Semper Virens Fund, and we are proud cosponsors of a b twenty February. Semper Virens Fund is California's first land trust established by a group of community members who bought six square miles in the Santa Cruz Mountains that, two years later became Big Basin State Park, which was California's first state park.
And we are proud partners with state parks, to this day. This bill would establish a dedicated account to support science based stewardship in the state park system, strengthening the department's capacity to protect these lands and advance long term resilience. The need for this action is underscored by recent events. When the CZU Lightning Complex fires burned through Big Basin Redwood State Park, it demonstrated how quickly climate driven impacts can overwhelm our parks and why we need to invest in climate resilience now. The threat is just as clear along our coast.
Speaker 54
At Capitola State Beach, Sea level rise and coastal erosion are already putting infrastructure, access, and natural resources at risk, Strengthening the department's capacity to assess, plan, and implement climate adaptation projects supports California's broader climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality and building resilience across the state's natural and working lands By prioritizing climate informed, low cost, nature based solutions to enhance ecosystem health, state parks can increase carbon sequestration, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create resilient landscapes that protect neighboring communities from catastrophic climate induced natural disasters. Importantly, climate resilience and stewardship efforts are already occurring across the state on neighboring lands adjacent to parks. However, similar activities within the state park system often lack clear statutory authority or direction. State parks should serve as to benefit to these regions and must be able to keep pace with climate stewardship efforts occurring on neighboring lands. We respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 25
Good evening. Jake Schultz on behalf of, the Center for Environmental Health and cleanearthforkids.org in support. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good evening, chair and members. Reid Addis on behalf of Save the Redwoods League in support. I was also asked by the Climate Center to register their support as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Any witnesses in opposition? There's none on file, so I just thought I'd give it a once over. We'll bring it back to the committee. We got a motion.
Any questions, comments? Assemblymember Kaloza.
Speaker 50
I just wanted to go into my 10 questions I have for you, assembly member Schultz. No. Just kidding.
Speaker 50
I know. I actually just wanted to thank you for this bill. Thank you to your sponsors for, waiting, but just one, would love to be added as a coauthor and appreciate you doing this. And thanks to, all of your, me too's for staying in the audience. We appreciate you guys.
Speaker 33
Item number Resilience. Sorry. Item number 15, a b 2277. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Happen?
Aye. Happen? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Holleniz?
Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Baines?
Aye. Baines I. Bennett? Bennett I. Burner?
Coloza? Coloza I. Gallagher? Heart? Heart I.
Marucci? Rogers? Aye. Rogers I.
Speaker 1
That's out. We'll leave the roll open. Thank you so much, assembly member Schultz. I'm gonna call on you, assembly member Hart, if assembly member Soria is not walking in, which she isn't.
Speaker 67
Thank you, madam chair and members. I'm pleased to present a b twenty six twenty seven, a bill that invests $90,000,000 from proposition four in protecting California's rangelands through the wildlife conservation board. For decades, California has been losing farmland and grazing land to urban development with over 1,600,000 acres lost between 1984 and 2018. These lands are essential to our state's climate, resilience, economy, and natural ecosystems. Rangelands provide significant public benefits, including capturing carbon, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, and wildfire fuel reduction.
Speaker 45
At the same time, they support food production and rural economies across the state. Research conducted by the University of California Berkeley found that rangelands protected through California Rangeland Trust conservation easements generate $1,440,000,000 annually in ecosystem services for Californians. Voluntary conservation easements are one of the most cost effective tools we have to protect these lands as they keep property in private ownership and on local tax rules while preventing future development. AB twenty six twenty seven ensures that these funds approved by voters are used effectively to accomplish the goals of the proposition and the governor's 30 by 30 plan. Speaking in support of the bill is Alyssa Roland, communications director for the California Rangelands Trust.
Speaker 70
Thank you. Good evening, chair Pavin and members of the committee. My name is Alyssa Roland. I'm the communications director at the California Rangeland Trust. The California Rangeland Trust is dedicated to conserving the state's working landscapes, safeguarding open space, and sustaining the ecological and economic benefits that rangelands provide.
Through voluntary conservation easements, we partner with ranching families to ensure that these lands remain productive, resilient, and protected for future generations. We've partnered with a 105 ranching families to conserve more than 430,000 acres. However, we still have more than 70 ranches accounting for over 275,000 acres on our waiting list awaiting conservation. Meanwhile, California is continuing to lose its working lands with approximately 47,000 acres of ranch and farmland converted every year. Conservation easements are one of the most effective and cost efficient tools available to help meet our state's conservation targets.
They often cost about a third of fee acquisitions. They keep lands on the tax rolls, and they ensure it remains in private stewardship, thereby minimizing public stewardship burdens. Private rangelands provide key environmental benefits, including water supply protection, wildfire fuel reduction, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, food production, and open space. Specifically, managed grazing reduces vegetation that can fuel catastrophic wildfires and helps create more fire resilient landscapes, removing nearly 12,000,000,000 pounds of dry matter each year. Healthy rangelands also filter and store water, protecting our drinking supply and our agricultural water systems.
Speaker 38
They also store significant amounts of carbon in soil and in vegetation. AB twenty six twenty seven would invest voter approved funding in our statewide land conservation goals by supporting an existing and proven program at the Wildlife Conservation Board, which will fund voluntary conservation easements to permanently protect working rangelands. With approximately 4,000,000 more acres of conserved lands still needed to meet our state's 30 by 30 goals, there is a need now to move forward a b twenty six twenty seven and the projects that it will support. For these reasons, we support the bill and respectfully urge an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the audience in support? K. Seeing none. Thank
Speaker 1
I don't know of any opposition on file. Any in the audience? Nope? Okay. Great.
We'll bring it back. We have a motion. Do we have
Speaker 33
Item number 22, a b twenty six twenty seven, motion is due passed to appropriations. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alaniz?
Aye. Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Baines? Aye.
Baines I. Bennett? Aye. Bennett I. Burner?
Coloza? Aye. Coloza I. Gallagher? Aye.
Hart I. Marucci? Rogers? Aye. Rogers I.
Okay.
Speaker 1
That bill is out. I don't see assembly member Soria, so I will start with my data center bills. Okay.
Speaker 8
Madam chair, AB 2469. You wanna start with that one? Whenever you're ready.
Speaker 1
Thank you, vice chair. Alrighty. How's it going? Thanks for staying. So first, I need to acknowledge that mister Massonet has rearranged all his plans to stay because we went so late in the day.
So I really appreciate you being here and making an effort to stay. Your your testimony will be quite illuminating, I'm sure. Okay. So thank you, vice chair and members. This is the, this is what I'll call the get the data before we break ground bill.
And I'm gonna present this bill and another bill relating to data centers, and both bills I'm presenting today are built around a simple idea. Good decisions start with good data. And nowhere is that more important than when we're deciding where to locate large facilities that depend on one of California's most limited resources, water. AB twenty four sixty nine focuses on the pre entitlement process before a project is cited, before permits are issued, and before new demand is locked into the system. The bill does three things.
First, it requires a water supply assessment before approval. Currently our current law already requires water supply assessments for many large developments, but only in specific scenarios. This bill closes that gap, giving local governments and water suppliers the information they need before making irreversible siting decisions. When communities understand demand in advance, they can plan responsibly and protect existing customers. I wanna note that, the way that the process works is an applicant will supply its information about its, know, anticipated water use.
That'll go to the city, and then the city submits it to a supplier who does a supply assessment. That information then goes back to the city, and the city can use it and and maybe deny an an application or accept an application. They're not bound by the the results. It's just so they can make an informed decision. Okay.
Let me get to the second thing that the bill does. It protects critically overdrafted groundwater basins. In many parts of California, groundwater is being pumped faster than it can recover, as we all know and have addressed in this committee numerous times. If a basin is already in crisis, we shouldn't add a major new demand without careful review. Doing so jeopardize existing exist jeopardizes existing communities, their agriculture and long term water reliability.
And third, the bill ensures these large developments pay for the infrastructure they require. You know, these facilities can trigger major upgrades, conveyance, treatments, storage, distributions, and those investments can cost in the millions. AB 2,469 makes the responsibility clear: If a project requires new or enhanced infrastructure, the project pays for it. Members, this bill ensures that before we approve major new water demand, we understand the risks, We protect vulnerable supplies, and we plan responsibly. It's about protection for ratepayers, for groundwater, and for California's long term future.
With that, I'll turn it over to my witnesses. We have Sean Bothwell of the California Coastkeeper Alliance and mister Eric Massonet, who is a professor from the University of California, Santa Barbara, assembly member Hart. We'll start with did you
Speaker 14
Good evening. Vice chair and committee members, Sean Bothwell with California Coastkeeper Alliance. Right now, local governments approving data center projects have no site specific water use data and no peak demand information. So there are corporate sustainability reports out there, but those are global aggregates. They don't tell city council what will happen with their local municipal supply.
And many small water systems and overdrafted basins simply lack the capacity to absorb a large facility's demand. AB twenty four sixty nine fills this gap by requiring applicants to assess supply, plan for scarcity, and report actual use as conditions of the approval. Unlike a typical commercial office building, data centers are always on, twenty four hours a day, three hundred and sixty five days of the year. They consume water rather than return water to the system, and they're once through cooling, you know, roughly evaporates about 80% of the water that they're used to a single loop system. So their demand hits in the summer exactly when our water supplies are most strained.
Speaker 47
That is fundamentally a different risk profile than any existing CIA classification that's captured. And so a b twenty four sixty nine recognizes this and creates a category to match. And by requiring data center data centers applicants to assume responsibility for the cost of the water infrastructure required to serve their needs, AB twenty four sixty nine, ensures that ratepayers do not end up bearing the cost of infrastructure that they do not create the demand for. And this fits well within the California constitution's provision of proportional cost of service. The bill also appropriately allocates risk to project applicants, ensuring that if a facility closes prematurely, water suppliers and ratepayers will not end up footing the bill for stranded assets.
Speaker 52
Good evening. Vice chair Gonzalez, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Eric Massonet, and I am a professor at UC Santa Barbara where I study the sustainability of data centers. In its most recent national data center study, Berkeley Lab estimated that by 2028, the direct water use of US data centers may double or even quadruple, compared to levels in 2023, driven in large part by the AI boom. California is home to one of the nation's largest data center fleets, but such rapid growth in water use need not happen here.
Through through proactive management, the state can achieve its economic and digital leadership goals while simultaneously protecting the state's water resources. But as the old adage goes, you can't manage what you don't measure. And our current ability to assess the potential water demands of California's data centers is undeniably poor. I say this because my lab has been tracking data center water reporting for nearly two decades, and our research has found several things. First, the vast majority of companies do not disclose water requirements of specific data center locations, including those in California.
Second, the few companies that do report don't reveal whether their water sources are stressed or overdrafted. Third, no companies report their peak water demand, which can pose substantial stress, especially in years of water scarcity. Fourth and finally, companies rarely disclose the cooling technologies used at specific data center sites, but these cooling technologies can lock in their water efficiency options for years to come. All planned data centers currently have this information in hand. It just needs to be unlocked.
Basic water assessments are not only doable, but they would also substantially improve the state's ability to understand, plan for, and incentivize efficiencies in the water requirements of one of our most critical economic sectors. In my view, such assessments seem like common sense given the importance of water to the state's future, and they are also in the best interest of the public. Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, any witnesses in, primary opposition?
Speaker 64
Good afternoon, every evening, rather. My name is Kara Bunder, and I serve as a state policy director at the Data Center Coalition. DCC is a national voice of the data center industry, and our members are comprised of leading state leading data center owners, operators, and companies that lease large amounts of data center capacity. We are here today, unfortunately, in respectful opposition to a b twenty four sixty nine. While we support responsible water use and take use of this vital resource seriously, this bill imposes burdensome and disparate requirements on data centers.
Data centers are the invisible backbone of our modern economy, and they power the essential services we rely on daily from telehealth and digital classrooms to the smart grid technologies that help California manage its energy and water more efficiently. By singling out data centers for water use assessments despite evidence that we are not outliers in water consumption, this creates a burdensome framework. A twenty twenty twenty twenty four report out of Virginia, the largest data center market, shows that the vast majority, 83% of the data centers in Virginia use the same amount of water or less than a typical large office building. Our primary concern with this bill lies in the granularity of the required reporting, mandating disclosure of daily demand fluctuations and specific excuse me. Specific cooling configurations create significant security liabilities.
These facilities have sensitive financial data and for hospitals and government agencies and for ourselves. Detailed operational data is a road map for cyber threats and industrial espionage. California's position as a global tech leader depends on this infrastructure. We encourage the committee to advance an equitable technology neutral approach that protects security while also protecting this vital resource. To that end, we plan to offer amendments and continue to work with the author's office that seek to strike the balance of allowing for adequate understanding of data center water needs without discouraging industry investment in the state.
Appreciate your consideration.
Speaker 43
Chair and members, Dan Costenbauter on behalf of the Silicon Valley leadership group representing the region's most innovative employers. We are in respectful opposition to a b twenty four sixty nine. We share the author's interest in responsible water management. California's water resources do require careful stewardship, and our member companies agree. Our concern is that a b twenty four sixty nine goes well beyond transparency.
It creates a permitting barrier that is unprecedented in scope, unworkable in practice, and uniquely punitive to a single industry. This bill would prohibit cities and counties from approving any permit for the construction or expansion of a data center unless a lengthy series of conditions are satisfied. That is not a reporting requirement. It is effectively a permitting prohibition. No other commercial or industrial user in California faces a comparable barrier to building or expanding a facility.
The bill requires an excessively detailed water use assessment demanding the maximum daily I'm sorry. Maximum and average daily demands, maximum average monthly demands, detailed breakdowns of every direct water use, a cooling alternatives analysis, estimate of indirect water use disaggregated by energy generation type, and a cost of service study funded by the applicant if it doesn't already exist. No other water customer in California is required to produce anything remotely comparable. The bill also requires workforce disclosures as a condition of permit approval, including job classifications, wage wage ranges, and etcetera. And all of this is being imposed on a sector whose water use does not justify this treatment.
Our member member companies are leaders in recycled water adoption and clean energy procurement. For example, 65% of the data centers in the city of Santa Clara already use recycled water. And in 2024, data center companies accounted for half of all corporate clean energy procurement in The US. AB twenty four sixty nine sends an unmistakable signal that California intends to regulate this one industry differently from every other sector, and it comes at a time when our state is already losing data center investment to other markets. We respectfully urge a no vote.
Speaker 2
Good evening. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties. Oppose unless amended, but we do look forward to working with the author's office, to address concerns that we've cited around local preemption and potential cost to counties. Thanks.
Speaker 25
Good evening, Eric Will. On behalf of rural county representatives of California, we are in alignment with, CSAC, oppose unless amended. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, also oppose unless amended and align our comments on behalf of municipalities with that of the counties. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good evening. Chris Anderson on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 8
K. We'll take it back to the committee. We got a motion to move the bill, and we have a second from mister Hart and to mister Alvarez.
Speaker 30
Thank you. Thank you to all. I wanted to first start off by asking what will likely be a very simple question that, I should know the the answer to, but I don't. Given that my role as city council member over eight years, we've never had a data center come before us for approval. I'm not familiar with the some of the analysis that is done.
Does does an EIR not cover some of the, aspects of this bill in terms of water utilization and mitigation for water use? Is that not something that an environmental document like an EIR would produce for a project, like a data center?
Speaker 14
I know that for large projects, water supply assessments are are are necessary, and that's been an issue. You know, there's actually legislation this year. I I don't completely know the
Speaker 1
I I'm not sure every project has an EIR that goes with it, but it doesn't rise to the level of an EIR per se.
Speaker 30
Yeah. I guess that's that's what I'm trying to understand because a community plan in the case of a city like San Diego that's large and has a lot of communities, and I'm assuming in cities that are smaller, general plans often come with environmental documents that approves the land use that for whichever project comes forward, commercial, residential, any type of project. So I'm just curious where I I don't know the answer. What what a data center falls as a commercial utilization use institution? Or what what what what use is a data center typically considered in in in land use terms?
Speaker 14
I do believe it's classified under CII, but as specifically commercial.
Speaker 30
Commercial. Okay. So, typically, to allow for that commercial use, there's an environmental report that is, adopted. And if there isn't one, then one is required for a specific project. So I'm just curious what what is analyzed today, under the current law and, the difference with what this is seeking.
I do want to acknowledge, the fact that the language in the bill does does state that it does state that section just wanna make sure I'm quoting the right section here. Two two to no. Under f f b, excuse me. Notwithstanding any other law, city, county, or city and county shall not approve a discretionary administrative permit, or other entitlement that would result in the construction or expansion that increases the maximum peak water use and of a data center unless the following criteria is met. So I think in addition to having the information, it sounds like the intent is to if this isn't met, then a jurisdiction would not be allowed to issue a permit for construction of a data center.
Is that is that the case?
Speaker 1
Do wanna I think what we're let let me get back to the EIR question just a by requiring a water supply, what you heard vernacular was water use. That's not what we're asking. We're asking for a water supply assessment, and that may not always be wrapped up in an EIR. So what this bill seeks to do is to go to the supplier themselves so you get an estimate of the amount of water that may be used. And and oftentimes, while there might be recycled water, it only recycles for a certain number of times, and it is ultimately consumed and gone from the system.
So but everyone every data center might have a different way that it uses water. But there is a concern that it is an ultimately consumptive use, and that's why we're so concerned about it. So what we get is we get, let's say, an applicant that's a data center, and they're gonna estimate how much water they think they're gonna use. And as I mentioned, that will be provided to the city that then turns it over to a water supplier, and that water supplier gives you an assessment of whether or not they will be able to meet the supply. Now as I mentioned, a city is not gonna be bound by that.
We just want them to make an informed decision. And so they give the water supply assessment to the city, the local supplier, you know, with many, many water suppliers in the state, something like 3,500. And so then the city can then make an informed decision about what it thinks it can tolerate, if you will, by the construction of a data center in its, in its midst, if you will.
Speaker 30
Thank you, chair Pappan. I think what you're saying is that the provision that talks about that the city, county, or city count city and county shall not offer a discretionary permit unless that work is done. And if that work is done, they can issue it or not issue it. That's their decision at that point.
Speaker 30
I I I I appreciate, I think, the work that's being done. I I I don't I think there was a statement made that while potentially factually true, I'm not gonna challenge it that an office building and a data center use the same amount of water. We're talking about potentially a facility that's employing hundreds of people maybe at a commercial office building, whereas a data center is probably a lot less. I will also acknowledge I'm I'm not the most well versed in terms of what a data center operation looks like. So I'm interested in learning more about that because it is not my I think we have to be responsive, and I think that's what you're trying to do to make sure that that resources are utilized appropriately and that if there are costs to the infrastructure of a water delivery system, which high water users do create an an additional cost to delivery of water, that that's appropriately assessed and paid for by those who are creating that strain, if you will, or that on the on the actual entire water system.
So I'm interested in that. I I am concerned about not wanting to stymie the opportunity for this type of development because I think there is something to be said for opportunities that California needs to not create so many hurdles and barriers that people start looking away from California, and data centers are still gonna get built because this is the future. So I would just say to the opposition and also to you, it sounds like you're definitely much more well informed and versed in this. I'm I'm looking to learn more about how to strike that balance, and I think that's what you're trying to get at. Supportive of this moving forward, but certainly open to to learning more about this.
And thank you for for answering the questions. Appreciate it.
Speaker 35
Thank you. Madam chair, first of all, thank you for continuing to champion this, a very important issue. You know, I I I have a high school daughter that I like to, give her a hard time calling her, a a radical woke, but, you know, she's always giving me and, my wife a hard time every time we run an AI search, because she's talking about, you know, the amount of water that is consumed. And, you know, maybe I I I I I that's my general understanding. I don't know how accurate that is, but but I I think that's evidence that this issue has has become you know, is is penetrating social media and and, and and getting the attention of a lot of people in terms of the sustainability of the development of of of of AI and and and specifically of of data centers.
So I I just wanna clarify. I mean, as as as you stated, this is just basically a transparency measure. It's it's not it's not going to prohibit cities or or counties from approving data centers. And and so I I'd like to ask the the opposition, you know, if this is just a transparency measure, you know, what is the problem with that?
Speaker 64
Thank you for the question. I'm happy to to start in answering that. You know, I
Speaker 64
see this as going far beyond just transparent transparency in and of itself. And as I mentioned during my testimony, I am going to be working with our membership to also look at some, potential amendments that could strike a balance of, you know, getting at that goal of having transparency while addressing some of the other issues that we see with the bill. You know, I think, ideally, one of the things we'd like to see is have this applied to other large commercial and industrial users because, you know, understanding that water is such a vital resource, also seeing the full picture of what water use looks like, not across only data centers but elsewhere, but also putting into context what that water usage looks like. You know, going back to that that data point I used in my testimony that the data centers in Virginia, 83% of those use the same amount of water or less as a large commercial office building. If you're getting data just for what data center water usage is, but you're not looking at, you know, food and beverage industries, semiconductors, what's lost to utility leakage, you're not really getting a full picture of what's going on there.
And then on the other side of that, looking at metrics that target actual water use usage rather than withdrawals to provide a, you know, picture and framed in that sense. But then I also spoke about the concerns about operational, data and what types of, issues that could provide from, one, a trade sec trade secret side of things. There these are this is a highly competitive space. Not all data centers are created the same. There's different types of cooling technologies being deployed in there that and then revealing what type of cooling technology is in there in and of itself could be a a competitive secret being shared.
But on the other side, understanding, one, the energy footprint or the water footprint that's associated with what's going on at a data center can also lead to some backwards math that can have indications of the types of products or services that are hosted there. Or if we're talking about an AI data center, the types of specific models or training that are undergoing there. And then being able to deduce that at the site specific level raises those concerns surrounding securities and vulnerabilities. So that's the the other side of this, wanting to see some greater protections to prevent that information from being misused.
Speaker 35
But but if I mean, I I get your point. I mean, basically, I I'm hearing you're saying that that an unfair scrutiny of data centers, you know, relative to other potential water uses is your concern. It I
Speaker 64
don't think necessarily unfair. Just I think it could be mischaracterizing what the water usage is as compared to other things that we use on a daily basis.
Speaker 35
But then, I mean, I I I would assume that that if if I mean, given that this is a transparency measure that that, you know, industry would come up with, you know, engage in public education activities to to show that perhaps it's not as, you know, unsustainable as as, you know, people like my daughter are are are are are
Speaker 64
I think you're getting at the crux of, you know, part of what my my role is within our organization at the data center coalition is to also provide greater education and context surrounding surrounding this industry. I think there's a lot of focus on the industry right now because there's, of course, a lot of focus on the AI and more broadly how these data centers are popping up. But I it's it's not necessarily a new industry. It's a newer industry. But being able to describe not only the types of operations that are being deployed through these data centers, but also the products and services that are being supported by them that go far beyond AI.
And then, again, trying to provide more context and education surrounding their energy and water usage, that's absolutely incumbent upon us as an industry.
Speaker 56
You know, I I appreciate the education activities because, you know, like my colleague from San Diego, you know, talked about I mean, I I also would love to learn more more about data centers. But, you know, what I do see and hear are these news stories from across the country of of communities, you know, losing their their local water supply because of the building of of of data centers. And and so that, you know, lends in in in in my mind that there there is a a particularly urgent challenge and and and and problem potential problem with with data centers. And and so that's why, you know, I I'm inclined to, you know, to support measures like this so that, you know, we we're not saying don't build data centers in California, but we're saying at least give us the the full picture so that, you know, local and and and county officials can can responsibly do their jobs to to make sure that that we're not only, you know, continuing to stay competitive in in in this in industry, but but also to to make sure that we're taking care of our our residents and and making sure that we're we're protecting and keeping our water supply sustainable.
Speaker 35
So I I I guess that that's more of a comment than a question. So thank you.
Speaker 27
Yeah. I'm I'm gonna support the bill. I just wanna want to ask the author. Some issues have come up from local government about they feel like they're losing control, and I just hope you'll continue to work with them and continue to work with all the opponents about this. But the idea of transparency is one that I think as as often as possible, we should try to embrace.
So appreciate the bill.
Speaker 1
Sure. So thank you for the discussion. I do appreciate it. And, I actually consider this an, an opportunity for local government rather than a burden. And, to follow on on some of Amir Tsuchi's comments, this is about proceeding in an informed way.
And, don't wanna squelch the the industry, but, because water is a finite resource. You know, people talk about the electricity that data centers might use, but let us we not forget. We could always generate more electricity. We cannot generate more water. And when it's an ultimate user, meaning it's completely consumed, a brewery is gonna be a different thing than than completely consuming water.
I just want us to be prepared. Go into with eyes wide open, and let's figure out where we can cite them. And and I think we'll be tremendously successful. I I want to say sometimes, let Texas run out of water. We don't need to.
So let's just plan, and this is a way that we can do that and welcome the industry as well. So it's for quick question. I vote.
Speaker 33
K. Item number 17, AB2469. Yes. We did. We did.
Yeah. We did. Yes. A b twenty four sixty nine, motion is due passed to local government. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? No. Jeff Gonzalez, no. Alanis?
No. Alanis, no. Alvarez?
Speaker 33
Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Baines? Baines not voting. Bennett?
Bennett, I. Burner? Aye. Burner, I. Coloza?
Coloza, I. Gallagher, heart? Yes. Heart, I. Murucci?
Aye. Murucci, I. Rogers?
Speaker 1
You can hear my presentation much more closely. Alright. So this, I will call my keeping track of what happens after we build bill. So as you just heard, a b twenty four sixty nine focuses on the decisions we make before a project is built. A b twenty six nineteen picks up where that bill leaves off.
As California continues to see growth in data centers, consistent and reliable information about their ongoing water demand is increasingly important. AB twenty six nineteen has one simple but essential goal, ensuring that communities and water suppliers have the data they need about the actual continuing continuing water use of large facilities. A water supply assessment required under twenty four sixty nine occurs only once, and that's at the start of the project. That makes it difficult to answer basic questions afterwards, like how much water is the facility actually using year after year? Has demand increased as technology or operations have evolved?
And how does usage compare across facilities or regions? AB twenty sixteen twenty six nineteen establishes a straightforward reporting requirement. It requires data centers to provide estimates of both expected and actual water use when they apply for their business license in the first place, and then it requires agencies to incorporate data centers into their urban water management plans and their annual water supply and demand assessments. Finally, the bill depicts wait a minute. Require hold on.
I think I left something out. Actual water use. So every year then when you renew your business license, you will report on the actual water use. You estimate going in, and then you when you renew, you give your actual. And then it requires water agencies to incorporate data centers into their urban water management plans and their annual water supply and demand assessments.
Finally, the bill directs the DWR to develop best management practices for data centers and to create guidance that cities and counties, can use when assessing projected water use, efficiency measures, and the cumulative water resource impacts of proposed facilities, all within the context of local and regional water management. Members, these two bills work together. A b twenty four sixty nine ensures we make smart decisions before projects are approved, NAB twenty six nineteen ensures we stay informed after they're operating. Planning and accountability, front end decisions, and long term oversight. Because when it comes to water, as I mentioned, water is extremely important to California, and we can't manage what we don't measure, as we heard earlier.
So it's all about California's future. I have the same witnesses I did on the previous bill. Sean Bothwell with California Coastkeeper Alliance and Eric Massonet, a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara.
Speaker 14
Good evening again. Sean Bothwell with California Coastkeeper Alliance. I don't wanna belabor the point, but, you know, as as we've been talking about, our systems and our communities are already managing drought. We're dealing with over allocated rivers and strained municipal systems. And so, you know, we don't want to prevent data centers from doing business in California.
We just want communities to go in eyes wide open of the demand that this is gonna put on the system. And it somewhat reminds me of, when we legalized cannabis. You know, our systems were already pretty much built out. Water rights were already over allocated, and yet this new somewhat new type of a demand came in, and we didn't wanna say no to the cannabis industry. But we wanted to make sure, that because they're putting this large new demand on the system that they do it as efficiently as possible.
And so I think that's largely what we're trying to get at here is making sure that we're putting water to use as efficiently, as we can. This issue also isn't new. California has been dealing with cooling systems, for quite some time, consumptive cooling systems. Our power plants, when they take in water, are also comes consumptive, water use users, and we've required them to do far more stricter technology standards to be as efficient as possible. This bill is just getting at transparency and making sure that we know how much water is being used and ask for agencies to develop best practices to use water most efficiently.
And interestingly, those best practices are very similar to what we're already requiring for power plants, closed loop systems using non potable reuse, water. So it's not fair to say that other industries aren't put to these same standards. Cannabis, because they're a new user, Power plants have been put under this for quite some time. And, this bill is just getting at transparency and making sure we have best practices in place so that we are using as these new demands come on, we use water as efficiently as possible. That, I ask for your I vote.
Speaker 52
Thank you, vice chair Gonzales. Thank you to the committee to speak with you again. Again, I'm Eric Massonet, professor at UCSB, and I study the sustainability of data centers. The water use of any data center is affected by numerous factors, including its choice of cooling technologies, its operating temperatures, how local weather conditions will vary throughout the year, and how much of its capacity is utilized. Data centers can also trigger substantial indirect water use at the California power plants that provide them with electricity.
Speaker 53
So the future of data center water use in California will be governed by these factors. However, as I mentioned in my earlier testimony, none of these factors are consistently reported by California data centers. And these data gaps present enormous blind spots that hamper the state's ability to identify strategies that will achieve both digital leadership and water stewardship as conditions may change over time and to work with the industry to identify and promote sensible best practices. In my experience, there are at least three major benefits to going beyond a simple initial disclosure at the time of build to moving towards ongoing data collection. The first is that a data center's actual water demand could be higher or lower than its planned water demand at the time when it was built, for example, due to unexpected weather patterns or due to operational changes.
Speaker 52
Continuous monitoring will allow the state to adapt to changing conditions and for companies to get credit for continuous improvement. Second, in some data centers, saving water can mean using more electricity, which risks simply shifting water use from the data center to the power grid. Monitoring monitoring both direct and indirect water use will make this hidden trade off visible to both operators and policymakers leading to more holistic water management. And third, by collecting real data from California data centers, the state can design and promote specific best practices that work in California's unique water, energy, and climate context as opposed to relying on generic guidelines that might not be optimal for California data centers. Again, all operators will have the data readily available.
They just need to be unlocked, and many operators are already reporting similar data to governments abroad. Finally, the state already collects ongoing environmental data from many large users to support intelligent policy making. Data centers are too important to the state's water future for us to continue to ignore them. With that, I'll say thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 22
Jack Worson from Nossman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.
Speaker 64
Good evening again, madam chair, mister vice chair, and members of the committee. Again, my for the record, my name is Kara Bundert, and I'm the director of state policy for the Data Center Coalition. We are again here in respectful opposition to a b twenty six nineteen. While we share the committee's commitment to responsible water use, this bill imposes disparate standards that threaten the security competitiveness and innovation of the infrastructure supporting vital and everyday products and services. Data center cooling is not a one size fits all.
It requires a delicate balance. Systems that use less water often require significant significantly more energy and vice versa. Operators choose cooling methods based on the local humidity, climate, and the availability of purple pipe recycled water. By mandating specific technologies or setting standards for for best practices for specific systems such as closed loop, that could inadvertently hinder broader energy efficiency or water efficiency goals or set a standard that falls behind other emerging, more efficient, innovative solutions as this is a rapidly evolving, space. The industry deliberately considers its energy and water usage and often use less water, again, than a standard large office building.
To put it in perspective, based on an analysis by Bluefield Research, the food and beverage industry uses over 13 times more water than the data center sector. And as highlighted earlier, 65% of data centers, in Santa Clara already utilize recycled water, but recycled water is not always an available source for industrial or commercial use. We again urge the committee to favor a technology neutral approach that focuses on actual consumption and protects sensitive operational data. Again, to that end, we are planning to offer, amendments on this bill that are aligned with some of the, additional benchmarks that we outlined in our more detailed comment letter that we submitted. Again, thank you for your consideration and also plan to follow-up with all the folks who have indicated that they would like to have more engagement on this issue.
Speaker 43
Chair, vice chair, and members, Dan Costenbauter on behalf of the Silicon Valley leadership group. We represent most of the most innovative employers, and we're in respectful opposition, d b twenty twenty six nineteen. We share the author's commitment to responsible water stewardship, our water supply demands, thoughtful management, and our member companies do take that seriously. Our concern is this bill again singles out one industry for a reporting and regulatory framework that's disproportionate and prescriptive. AB twenty six nineteen imposes water use recorded reporting requirements on data centers that no other commercial or industrial user in California faces.
By the way, data centers are already covered under the states making conservation a California way of life regulation as commercial industrial institutional users. But this bill layers on top of that a separate facility level reporting regime on on top of the existing framework. And a data point we mentioned earlier, but I'll say I'll give you the citation. At December 2024, report by Virginia's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission found that 83% of data centers in Virginia, which is the world's largest data center market, use the same amount of water or less than the average large office building. So it's it's the data center sector that is not driving a water crisis.
Speaker 28
And the possibility of mandating specific technology and statute risks locking in solutions that may not be the most efficient or innovative option. And we're concerned about the requirement to report indirect water use, defined as water consumed in generating the electricity a facility uses. This metric is not within any individual operator's control or capacity to measure, and it is not required for any other electricity consumer. So combined with the detailed facility level disclosures this bill requires, the reporting framework raises real competitive and security concerns for operators who host critical infrastructure, including for government agencies, hospitals, financial institutions. Our member companies are not waiting for a mandate to act responsibly.
Speaker 43
Again, data centers are using recycled water in significant amounts, And Silicon Valley Leadership Group and our member companies are prepared to work with the author, the Department of Water Resources, and this committee on a water transparency framework that applies equitably across industries, protects confidential operational data, and reflects the technical realities of how data centers actually use water. We respectfully urge you to vote.
Speaker 39
Good evening. Chris Anderson, California chamber of commerce in opposition.
Speaker 14
Thank you so much, mister vice chair. So I don't wanna get into all the kind of questions that we just had on the last bill. Mine's more of a technical question, and I found it kind of interesting, if that's the right word. We saw a similar ish kind of bill in utilities and energy last week that caught similar opposed unless amended letters from Cal Broadband and some of the telecom folks, specifically about the definition of a data center and some concerns that we were rolling in some of their critical infrastructure into that definition. So sort of from a 50,000 foot view, I actually don't know this.
Speaker 7
I've never worked on a data center bill before. Does the state actually have a definition of what a data center is that you were working off of, or is this in your bill working with legislative council what they produce? I just find it interesting that two separate bills caught sort of the same concern and I think have different definitions for what a data center is in them.
Speaker 1
Well yeah. And usually, they're measured by size. And so you could have just a, you know, a small room, and and you could have an enormous data center that has a lot of so they're they're they're usually they can all be data centers, but they are delineated by their size and their capacity. And that's usually how they're broken down. Yeah.
Does that make sense?
Speaker 7
I'm gonna support your bill like I did on the previous one. But if you could work with some of those telecom folks to see what specific type of infrastructure they think is covered in your definition that perhaps is not what some of us who are not experts would be envisioning when we say data center, I think that that would go a long way. And then sort of broadly speaking, given that we've now seen this happen on a couple of different things, it may be worth in one of these data center bills trying to establish a agreed upon definition of what a data center should be so so that we're all working off of the the same information.
Speaker 35
Thank you. I I wanted to ask the proponents, witnesses, if you would agree or disagree with the the comparison made to large commercial buildings if the water consumption of data centers are comparable to that of large commercial buildings.
Speaker 52
I would say that small data centers, sure, they we could have comparable water use. But with the, you know, the builds we're seeing now, which in which data centers are getting much larger, water use can be quite substantial, especially at a local level. So one challenge we have when communicating the water use of this sector is that it's a matter of perspective. So if you roll up to the level of the country, it's easy to say data centers use a tiny bit of water compared to agriculture or other key industries. And at that 50,000 foot level, it's true.
But down on the ground where data centers have to be built and intersect with local water resources, then it could be something that could be really significant depending on the size of the data center, the local water stress. So it really is a hyper local issue. And in my view, all stakeholders need the best available information in order to assess the severity of the issue. But I'm sure that we could find examples where you can find many data centers with less water use than a typical office building, and you can find many that have much more water use. But in the aggregate, sure, these statistics kind of mask the the reality that we see on the ground.
Speaker 35
And and so are are you saying that the the water usage intensity is generally higher for data centers than for commercial buildings?
Speaker 52
Typically, yes. And it depends on how one measures intensity. So if it's per square meter, that's usually we measure the intensity of a cooling of an office building in terms of, you know, water per per square meter or per square foot. Most definitely, it'll be higher in a data center context just because there's so much more heat that's being generated. I mean, this is a building now.
There's heat being generated by us, by the lights. But if you fill this room with a rack of servers, I guarantee you there'd be a lot more heat to be removed and, therefore, more water associated with evaporation.
Speaker 30
Thank you. I I have one issue that was raised by the opposition that I do think it's worth us just acknowledging, and love to hear feedback from either the the sponsors, or or the author. And that's the idea of, not opposed to the information, which is why I'm, you know, supportive of this, but I am concerned with the indirect water use and the utilization of that data in the future by other industries, by things like housing production, which requires some indirect water use. And and and I don't want it to be utilized against another thing to be utilized to be used, I should say, against, the types of things that we believe California should be investing in and building in. And so, to the sponsors, why the indirect water use in this case would you say that, is specifically important to identify for data centers?
Speaker 14
I'll say again that, again, data centers are consumptive. Right? And so when we're talking about an office building that uses so much water, that water actually gets put back into the system. Right? And we do so much water recycling these days that that water can be reused.
Data centers, because they're consumptive, it goes away. It does not go back into the system. And so I think they're a different class than, say, housing or anything like that.
Speaker 14
think there are technologies out there where they're not losing 80% of the water for cooling to evaporation, that it's not necessarily consumptive.
Speaker 30
And you don't believe that data centers are utilizing that technology or capable of using that technology?
Speaker 14
I think they're very capable of it, and that's why we support the bill. That's why the bill requires, the development of best practices, is to figure out what are those best practices. And it's not requiring that as a technology standard per se. It's having agencies look at different practices like closed cycle cooling, which I would say is not consumptive, or non potable reuse. Mhmm.
Sorry. The recycled water. Those are just two examples. And as opposition said, they are innovating all the time. And so I think it's a very good thing to be looking at what innovation we can do to allow data centers to exist in California but still have communities be able to meet all water demands, including including for housing.
Speaker 30
I I I wanna give an opportunity to the opposition to talk about that innovation that's happening to my point of, into this discussion that this exchange that just occurred in terms of and it's okay if you give me your back. Don't worry about it. The setup is weird. On innovation that's happening for ensuring that there is this least amount of water, the most amount of water reuse, if you will, and and, recapture in whatever ways that is possible with with the very expensive cooling systems that your centers must operate.
Speaker 64
Sure. And thank you for the question. And, again, apologies that my back is to you. So a couple of things that I can can offer there. So closed loop cooling systems are absolutely one of the solutions being deployed in data centers, and there has been a movement away from the evaporative cooling systems that, by the nature of the name, uses much more water than closed loop cooling systems.
I was speaking with one of our industry advisory council members several weeks ago, and he was talking about a cooling solution that's being that's currently deployed across the US Navy subs that uses almost zero water, is based off of magnetic technologies, and they've taken that and repurposed it to be used in data centers. So an example of almost zero water cooling solution that's being used across data centers. And just if I could comment on, you know, the the the comment about consumptive use, I would also be happy to follow-up with some examples of data centers that again, because this this is an industry that takes this very very seriously, and they've invested in other water restoration and replenishment activities. There are certain data centers that, you know, return take water from the system and return it back in a in a state that's cleaner than than it was when it entered the data center for cooling. So I'd be happy to to provide some of those examples as well as we continue this conversation.
Speaker 30
Well, it it it sounds to me, madam chair, that you are engaged in serious conversations on this. I think you've heard some of the commitments to continue that from the opposition. I think there's I I don't know if you have anything to add to the statements that they've made.
Speaker 1
No. I I appreciate the questioning. I I kinda look at the bills as, help us help you. Mhmm. Because if we do run out of water, data centers will not succeed.
Right. So I don't wanna see that happen either. So I look at both bills. You know, could they complement one another, and I I feel it's a way of just getting getting the job done as it were. So I appreciate the inquiries.
And there are there are many data centers that use different kinds of things. You mentioned Loudoun County, but Loudoun County, I mean, it's it's winter there half the time. It's not gonna be as hot as it is here, so they might use less water. You know, there's many variables. All we wanna do is just be prepared for what your needs are.
But, yes, we'll continue that. I I hadn't heard about proposed amendments, but, you know Yeah. We can certainly talk.
Speaker 30
Yeah. And and I know you you do all the time. You take the feedback, very, very seriously. I appreciate that and appreciate, the the witnesses answering some of the questions to better understand and the opposition as well and certainly look forward to, I think, continued conversations on this. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Appreciate your patience about this topic and and the two bills that that you have on this. Just to have one suggestion in terms of conceptually a way to move forward, and that is to the extent that the opposition and the industry is concerned about the hoops that that they see these these reporting requirements are, that there is a possibility that you may be able to come up with some amendments that create a recording requirement if you're above a certain kind of water use, but it incentivizes the industry to stay below that water use. And if they stay below that water use, you've incentivized them to be super efficient. They like it because they get out of the reporting requirements that you have. So I would just hope that you might be able to look at that kind of thing as this bill winds through the torturous trip that all these bills go through in terms of getting there.
So appreciate that.
Speaker 1
Of course, you'd have to know how much water they're using. I'll try to figure that out. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I'm just I appreciate the time, Ruvi. I appreciate the robust discussion. Respectfully request an I vote. Move the bell. Second.
Speaker 33
Item number 21, a B twenty six nineteen. Motion is due passed to local government. Happen?
Speaker 33
Happen, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? No. Jeff Gonzalez, no. Alaniz?
Alanis, no. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, I. Avila Farias?
Banes? Aye. Banes, I. Bennett? Bennett, I.
Burner?
Speaker 8
We'll get on this. Assembly member Soria, begin when you are ready. Nice
Speaker 48
See you. Exactly. Wow. Thank you. If I can begin.
Yeah? Perfect. And thank you. Thank you, chair and members. AB twenty seven thirty nine establishes the water affordability and system stabilization fund to support investments in water infrastructure and low income water rate assistance that will make water more affordable for all Californians.
As you all know, rising water costs driven by aging infrastructure, climate resilient resilience investments, drought response, and rising regulatory compliance expenses are placing increasing strain on households across the state. These rising costs are especially pronounced in areas with high rates of rural poverty like the Central Valley, where the cost of providing safe and reliable water is extremely high. Unfortunately, local water agencies are limited in their ability to provide meaningful assistance. Proposition two eighteen prohibits most water providers from subsidizing any one customer's bill at the expense of another no matter how well intentioned the agency may be. A b twenty seven thirty nine addresses this challenge by establishing a trust based funding mechanism for investments in water infrastructure and low income water rate assistance with a long term sustainable funding framework.
Speaker 35
This funding structure does not include any new taxes or fees and contains safeguards and transparency measures to ensure funds are used for rate payer affordability and system improvements. It creates a predictable ongoing funding stream to address water affordability while maintaining legislative oversight and cost controls to ensure long term sustainability and accountability. AB twenty seven thirty nine is a bipartisan bill and proudly both support from local governments, business organizations, and pillars of the water community and environmental justice leaders. Here with me today to testify in support of AB twenty seven thirty nine are, we have both Christine Compton, deputy general counsel at Irvine Ranch Water District, and Kelsey Hinton, policy director for the Community Water Center. Thank you again, and thank you to our folks for waiting here patiently.
Speaker 17
Chair and members, I'm Christine Compton. I'm the deputy direct I'm the deputy general counsel for Irvine Ranch Water District and the director of strategic communications and advocacy. Thank you so much. I know you've had a long day. In in the interest of time, I will be brief.
Speaker 19
IRWD in Rancho California Water District, we're the sponsors of this bill. We've worked very hard with the environmental justice community and the water community to bring forth this content concept to, fund water affordability in the state. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have. But in the interest of time, we'll
Speaker 22
Good evening. Kelsey Hinton with Community Water Center in strong support of AB twenty seven thirty nine. CWC worked to secure the passage of the human rights water in 2012, which recognized the right to safe and affordable drinking water, and that's why we're here today. As mentioned, a b twenty seven thirty nine creates a trust that can eventually grow to a stable source of funding for water affordability in California, both through funding water system stabilization grants as included in a b twenty seven thirty nine and funding a low income water rate assistance program as is included in this year's SB eleven twenty five by senator Menjivar. Together, these efforts would provide immediate relief to high water bills and help keep costs from rising in the future in a way that's viable, durable, and sustainable.
Speaker 71
Thank you to the author and to sponsors for your work moving this bill forward. CWC is proud to support a b twenty seven thirty nine and urges an I vote.
Speaker 1
Do we have, anyone from the audience that would like to chime in? Apparently, we do.
Speaker 7
That's what we've all been waiting for. Madam chair and members, Anthony Molina, on behalf of Rancho California Water District, proud cosponsor and strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good evening. Kyle Jones on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program, Farm Bureau, and the city of Sacramento in support. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good evening. Kiera Ross on behalf of the city of Roseville in support.
Speaker 34
Good evening. Michael Claiborne with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support, also registering support Clean Water Action and Physicians for Social Responsibility LA. Thank you.
Speaker 51
Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies in enthusiastic support. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce in support. Also asked to register the support of Western Municipal Water District. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I don't know of any opposition. I don't know whether it possibly could be. Maybe. But, I don't see any. So, we'll bring it back to the dais.
Any comments, questions? I think we already had a motion to second, but that's alright.
Speaker 33
Item number 24, a b twenty seven thirty nine. Motion do pass to appropriations. Pappin?
Speaker 33
Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Baines? Aye. Baines, aye.
Bennett? Okay. Burner? Aye. Burner, Coloza?
Coloza, I. Gallagher, heart? Heart, I. Mersucci? Aye.
Mersucci, Rogers?
Speaker 25
Mister Gonzalez, we can open the room for two seventy seven first. Of course.
Speaker 1
Of course. Course. Okay. If I could just keep the noise level down so we can all, like, cast the votes we need to cast. We're gonna start with item 15.
So whoever didn't vote for that, let's listen up.
Speaker 33
Okay. Item number fifteen, a b two two seven seven. Jeff Gonzalez? No. Jeff Gonzalez?
Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Avila Farias? Burner?
Aye. Burner, aye. Gallagher? Murasuchi?
Speaker 1
Great. Okay. So we're gonna go back up to the the beginning of the agenda so folks can add on.
Speaker 33
Alvarez, aye. Baines? Aye. Baines, aye. Murasuchi?
Aye. Murasuchi, aye. That's it. So that's out.
Speaker 33
Alvarez, I. Vanes? Vanes not voting. Gallagher? Mersucci?
Aye. Mersucci, aye. That
Speaker 33
Baines I. Gallagher, Hart I know I wanted to Hart not voting. Murasucci?
Speaker 33
Burner, Gallagher? Marisucci? Aye. Marisucci, I. Rogers?
Aye. Rogers, I.
Speaker 33
Alanis, aye. Albila Farias? Burner? Aye. Burner, aye.
Gallagher? Marasucci? Aye. Marasucci, aye.
Speaker 33
132215. I. K. Alonese, I. Alvarez?
I. Alvarez, I. Burner? I. Burner, I.
Gallagher? Murasuchi? I. Murasuchi, I. Rogers?
Not voting. Rogers, not voting.
Speaker 33
see. Item number 24AB2739. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye.
Gallagher?
Speaker 33
Alanis. Aye. Burner. Aye. Burner.
I. Gallagher. Marasucci. Aye. Marasucci.
Aye. Rogers. Oh, did he take okay.
Speaker 1
okay. We'll go through one more time for Avila Farias. Thank you. Sorry. My pet oh, my pleasure.
Don't worry.
Speaker 33
then item number 14AB2254. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Item number 15AB2277.
Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.