PERIOD OF FIFTY YEARS FROM THE
AQUIFER UNDER THAT MOJAVE DESERT.
AND SELL IT TO VARIOUS WATER
DISTRICTS IN OTHER PARTS OF OF
THE STATE FOR PURPOSES OF
GUARANTEEING WATER TO ABOUT A
HUNDRED THOUSAND NEW HOMES AND
SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND
RESIDENTS.
THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE
SCIENCES IN CONFLICT AS TO WHAT
AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE
LEVEL OF PUMPING ACTUALLY IS.
AND IF COULD EASE -- AND ITS
SCIENTISTS HAPPEN TO BE WRONG
[inaudible]
THE PUMPING COULD POTENTIALLY
DESTROY THE MOJAVE DESERT AND
CERTAINLY IMPAIR THE WATER
SUPPLY TO THOSE -- NEW HOMES.
KNOW WHAT THIS BILL DOES AND IT
IT ONLY DOES THIS.
IS THAT SEEKS TO HIT THE PAUSE
BUTTON ON THIS PROJECT.
IN THIS VERY VOTE OF VERY
FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM.
AND HIT THE PAUSE BUTTON TO
ENSURE THAT E GET THE SCIENCE
RIGHT [inaudible]
NOW THE PROJECT HAS BEEN STALLED.
FOR MANY YEARS FRANKLY BECAUSE
THE MASS SIMPLY DOESN'T ADD UP.
COULD IS WANTS TO PULL AS I
INDICATED FIFTY THOUSAND ACRE
FEET OF WATER PER YEAR OUT OF
THE AQUIFER.
BUT ADMITS THAT THE AQUIFER ONLY
RECHARGES AT THE RATE OF ABOUT
THIRTY TWO THOUSAND ACRE FEET
PER YEAR.
THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF EIGHTEEN
THOUSAND ACRE FEET AND ALMOST
SIX BILLION GALLONS OF WATER.
NOW -- SCIENTISTS WORKING FOR
THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.
INSTEAD SAY THE REFILL RAIDER
RECHARGE RATE IS MORE LIKE
200-021-0000 ACRE FEET PER YEAR
[inaudible]
SEOUL.
IN SHORT IF THE US GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY AND THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE SCIENTISTS ARE CORRECT
THAT'S AT LEAST FORTY THOUSAND
ACRE FEET OR ABOUT FOURTEEN
BILLION GALLONS.
LESS THAN THE KIDDIES PLAN --
CLEARLY THERE IS IN MY VIEW AND
THE VIEW OF SOME OTHERS IS A
SERIOUS CONFLICT IN THE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
SURROUNDING THIS PROJECT AND WE
THINK THAT CONFLICT SHOULD BE
RESOLVED BEFORE THE PUMPING
STARTS.
THAT'S IN ESSENCE AND IN SHORT
WHAT THIS BILL DOES.
SO AT THE APPROPRIATE POINT I
REQUEST WILL RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST OF YOUR IPHONE.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
YOU HAVE WITNESSES HERE IN
SUPPORT I DO THIS NEAR THE SITE
AND CAM DELFINO.
GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS KIM
DELFINO AND I'M THE CALIFORNIA
PROGRAM DIRECTOR WITH DEFENDERS
OF WILDLIFE AND WE REPRESENT
MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY
THOUSAND MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS
IN CALIFORNIA.
DEFENDERS OF THE LONG HISTORY OF
WORKING IN THE CALIFORNIA DESERT
IN FACT WE WERE THE ORGANIZATION
THAT BACK IN NINETEEN NINETY
SUCCESSFULLY.
WERE ABLE TO LIST THE DESERT
TORTOISE AS ENDANGERED UNDER THE
FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.
THE KEYS VALLEY IS A VERY
SPECIAL PLACE IT'S LOCATED IN
THE EASTERN MOJAVE DESERT SOUTH
OF THE MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE
AN HISTORIC ROUTE.
SIXTY SIX AND EAST OF THE TWENTY
NINE PALMS MARINE CORPS BASE.
ACCORDING TO INDEPENDENT
SCIENTISTS AND THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE THE AQUIFER THAT THE
KIDDIES CORPORATION PROPOSES TO
MINE.
EXTENDS INTO THE MOJAVE NATIONAL
PRESERVE AND THE NEWLY CREATED
MY HOBBY TRAILS NATIONAL
MONUMENT.
THIS AQUIFER SUSTAINS DESERT
SPRINGS IN PLANTS THAT ARE
CRITICAL TO ICONIC DESERT
WILDLIFE SPECIES INCLUDING
DESERT TORTOISE BIGHORN SHEEP MY
HOBBY FRINGE TOED LIZARD AND GET
BOXES -- AS SENATOR AUTHORITY
DETAILED -- THERE IS A
SUBSTANTIAL DISAGREEMENT OVER
HOW MUCH OF THIS A PROJECT WILL
DRIVE THE AQUIFER INTO OVERDRAFT --
IT PROPOSES UPON FIFTY THOUSAND
ACRE FEET OF WATER OVER FIFTY
YEARS THAT HE SAID THAT. SIXTEEN
BILLION GALLONS OR FIVE HUNDRED
AND TWENTY THREE GALLONS PER
SECOND OF WATER BEING PUMPED OUT
THE AQUIFER.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCIENCE WILL
SHOW THAT THIS IS UNSUSTAINABLE --
AND THAT THE RESULT OF
UNSUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MINING
WILL DROP THE WATER TABLE IN
THIS AREA.
AND DRAIN IMPORTANT SPRINGS AND
IMPACT PLANTS AND THE DESERT OF
RESOURCES.
AND IN FACT WE ARE VERY
CONCERNED BECAUSE THE IMPACTS
ARE VERY SEVERE IN THIS DRY
LANDSCAPE THIS AREA GETS
APPROXIMATELY TWO ONLY.
JUST OVER TWO AND A HALF INCHES
OF RAINFALL EVERY YEAR AND WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THE MODELING THE
CLIMATE MODELING -- FROM THE I
PC.
THIS AREA WILL ONLY BECOME DRIER
AND HOTTER -- SO THE LEGISLATURE
HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THIS
ERA OF DRIVING CALIFORNIA'S
AWKWARD THAT THE ERROR OF
DRIVING OUR AQUIFER'S INTO
OVERDRAFT IS OVER WE'VE PASSED
LEGISLATION TO THAT EFFECT.
AND THAT WE MUST START MANAGING
OUR AQUIFER'S SUSTAINABLY AND SB
THREE OH SEVEN IS COMPLETELY
CONSISTENT WITH THAT POLICY IT
WOULD PROTECT OUR DESERT'S AND
OUR PUBLIC LANDS BY CREATING A
DEFINITIVE PROCESS FOR THE STATE.
TO ASSESS PROPOSALS TO EXPORT
DESERT GROUND WATER TO OTHERS
THE STATE AND INSURE THAT THESE
OFFERS ARE BEING MANAGED
APPROPRIATELY -- SB THREE OH
SEVEN A PARTICULAR IS NECESSARY
BECAUSE WE HAD IT'S EXPECTED THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT TO
REVIEW THE SCIENCE SURROUNDING
THIS GROUNDWATER MINING PROJECT
AS PART OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT REVIEW.
FOR RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATIONS
BUT UNFORTUNATELY WHEN THE
CURRENT ADMINISTRATION TOOK
OFFICE UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF
PIECES FORMER LAWYER.
THAT REQUIREMENT OF REVIEW WAS
SHELVED.
SB WITH YOUR SEVEN AS NECESSARY
TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROJECT IS
EVALUATED BY STATE AGENCIES TO
ENSURE THAT OUR RARE AQUIFER'S
ARE NOT MINDED OVERDRAFT HARMING
IMPORTANT NATURAL RESOURCES AND
FOR THESE REASONS WE OR DRIVE
OUT.
THANK YOU WE'RE GOING TO PAUSE
FOR A MOMENT TO TAKE ROLL CALL
SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
MEMBERS FRIEDMAN HERE FRIEDMAN
HERE FLORA FLOOR HERE CHAU CHOW
HERE EGGMAN.
GARCIA.
GARCIA HERE LOW MOAN.
MATHIS MATHIS HERE MCCARTY.
MCCARTY HERE MELINDA'S WROTE TO
G. STONE.
STONE HERE.
THANK YOU WE'VE ESTABLISHED A
QUORUM AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER
WITNESS.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR -- OUR
PRACTICE HERE IS TO ALLOW
WITNESSES THREE MINUTES -- TO
TESTIFY.
CHAIR FRIEDMAN MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE NEIL THE SITE FOR THE
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION WE STRONGLY SUPPORT.
SB THREE ZERO SEVEN A BILL TO
PROTECT OUR CALIFORNIA DESERT A
PLACE THAT CALIFORNIANS HOLD AND
LOVE DEARLY -- I LIKE THE FIRST
RECOGNIZED THE CHAIR FOR HER
TIRELESS EFFORTS TO PROTECT OUR
NATIONAL PARKS AND MONUMENTS AND
FOR GIVING THE MOJAVE DESERT.
A VOICE HERE IN SACRAMENTO WE
ARE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR WORK.
WE SEE THE CALIFORNIA DESERT AS
AN ASSET WORTHY OF CONTINUED
INVESTMENT.
WE HAVE WORKED WITH GENERATIONS
OF CALIFORNIANS TO PROTECT
ICONIC PLACES THAT SOME OF YOU
MAY BE A VISIT VISITED BEFORE
LIKE JOSHUA TREE AND DEATH
VALLEY AND THE HOBBY.
AND THIS IS PAYING OFF LITERALLY
IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN ALONE THESE
PROTECTED THAT'S OUR PARKS
GENERATED FOUR HUNDRED AND
THIRTY SIX MILLION DOLLARS IN
ECONOMIC OUTPUT IN LOCAL
COMMUNITIES.
CREATED OVER FORTY ONE HUNDRED
SUSTAINABLE JOBS AND GENERATED
OVER ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY ONE
MILLION DOLLARS IN LABOR INCOME
THIS ECONOMY CONTINUES TO GROW
EVERY YEAR.
BUT THE CURRENT FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION SEEKS TO PILLAGE
WHAT WE HAVE BUILT UP OVER
GENERATIONS BITES RECENT ACTION
ELIMINATING FEDERAL NEED FOR
REVIEW AND PERMITTING
REQUIREMENTS.
APPLYING TO THE PROPOSED KIDDIES
GROUNDWATER MINING PROJECT.
THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION HAS
RECKLESSLY HUNG THESE BUSINESSES
AND FAMILIES OUT TO DRY IN ORDER
TO HELP THE KIDDIES CORPORATION
THAT IT HAS CLOSE TIES WITH.
THERE MUST BE BOUNDARIES TO THIS
POLITICAL EXPEDIENCE.
AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGLIGENCE SB
THREE OH SEVEN EFFECTIVELY
RESTORES SCIENCE BASED DECISION
MAKING.
THAT WE HAVE USED THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS USED FOR DECADES
TO SUCCESSFULLY MANAGE OUR
PUBLIC LANDS PRIOR TO THE
CURRENT FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.
SO IN THE FACE OF THESE
UNPRECEDENTED FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ROLLBACKS
TARGETING CALIFORNIA DESERT.
THE STATE IS THE REGULATOR OF
LAST RESORT.
AND AS LONG BEACH POET AND
SONGWRITER WARREN G. STATED.
IT'S TIME FOR THE REGULATORS TO
MOUNT UP.
THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO TESTIFY AND WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD THEIR
SUPPORT. FOR THE LEGISLATION.
JUST NAME ORGANIZATION PLEASE
AND WHETHER YOU SUPPORT IT.
RIGHT ABOUT SOME ZERO
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
THE SILENCE AS WITH THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY AND SUPPORT.
THE DESK COMMANDED AN RTC IN
STRONG SUPPORT. ONE OF THE MEAT
ON IT WITHOUT ONE CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANTS CITING
SUPPORT.
JENNIFER FEARING HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY IN
STRONG SUPPORT.
MELISSA ROMERO WITH THE
CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF
CONSERVATION VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
MADAM CHAIR MARK FENSTER MAKER
FOR MOJAVE DESERT LAND TRUST AND
SUPPORT.
FAIR AFRICA PLANNING
CONSERVATION LAKE IN STRONG
SUPPORT.
KATE WAIT LET KNOWN SWEPT THAT
WEIGHS FOUNDATION IS STRONG
SUPPORT.
JIM WOOD BURKE ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
TO CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
BUT NOTHING GONZALEZ ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS
FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT.
TELL TRYING NUMBER HAVE NEXT GEN
CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT.
BRENDA WIKI CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN SUPPORT
THANK YOU.
NOW I'M GOING TO INVITE THE
OPPONENTS OF THE BILL FOR UP TO
THREE REPRESENTATIVES TO COME UP
AND GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY.
AND THREE MINUTES APIECE
GENTLEMAN.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS -- MY NAME
IS JOE LG AND I'M HERE
REPRESENTING KIDDIES TODAY WITH
ME IS MISTER SCOTT SLATER'S CO
KIDDIES TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS MAY HAVE ABOUT PROJECT
ITSELF.
WE'RE HERE TO EXPRESS OUR
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL UNLESS
AMENDED.
WE FURNISHED AMENDMENTS TO THE
AUTHOR THAT WOULD REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION AND I HAVE COPIES OF
THEM HERE FOR MEMBERS IF THEY
WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW THEM.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS
THREE THINGS REAL QUICKLY FIRST
OF ALL?
THE PRESIDENT THAT THIS BILL
SETS FOR ALL OF YOU HERE ON THIS
COMMITTEE LISTENING AND AND
DELIBERATING THIS BILL.
THINK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT THIS
BILL SETS.
IT SAYS THAT ANY PROJECT AS YOU
TALK ABOUT WATER HOUSING IS
BEING TWO OF THE PARTY ISSUES
OUR STATE FACES.
CAN SIMPLY BE APPROVED UNDER THE
SEQUEL PROCESS WHICH WE ALL KNOW
IS NOT SIMPLE.
AND AFTER THAT.
ODJICK THAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS
SUPPORT THAT YOUR DISTRICTS
SUPPORTS.
CAN BE TAKEN TO THE LEGISLATURE
TO SAY LET'S ADD ONE MORE LAYER
OF REVIEW LET'S TRY TO SLOW DOWN
OR STOP A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN
TO SEE QUOTE.
AND THEN SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED
NO LESS THAN SIX TIMES.
THAT IN ITSELF IS A DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY WHAT THIS
BILL DOES IN TERMS OF PRECEDENT.
IS FIRST OF ALL IT REQUIRES THE
LANDS COMMISSION TO MAKE IT
AFFIRMATIVE FINDING.
THAT THE PROJECT HAS ABSOLUTELY
NO ADVERSE IMPACT WHATSOEVER.
THERE ISN'T ONE PROJECT IN THE
STATE.
MUCH LESS IN THIS COUNTRY.
THAT COULD BE APPROVED IT THE
STANDARD WAS THAT THERE WAS
ABSOLUTELY NO ADVERSE IMPACT
PROJECTS HAVE BEEN TAX THAT'S
WHAT MITIGATION IS ABOUT THAT'S
THE WAY SEEK WAS SET UP.
THERE'S NO PROJECT IN THE STATE
THE COULD MEET THE STANDARD
CONTAINED IN THIS BILL.
SECONDLY THE BILL HAS NO ABILITY
FOR THE LANDS COMMISSION TO IN
FACT SAY.
NOR DOES IT REQUIRE THE LANDS
COMMISSION TO SAY WHAT THE BASIS
OF THEIR FINDING IS IF THEY IN
FACT FIND THAT THERE ARE ADVERSE
IMPACTS THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT
UNDER THE BILL NO PROCESS SET UP
UNDER THIS BILL.
THAT WILL REQUIRE TRANSPARENCY
FOR THEM TO IN FACT SAY WHAT WAS
THE BASIS OF THOSE FINDINGS.
THAT IS IN FACT WHAT IT
DETERMINATION IS WHICH IS WHAT
WE HAVE REQUESTED AS AMENDMENTS
IN THE BILL THAT.
THAT THE AGENCY BE REQUIRED TO
MAKE A DETERMINATION SO THAT ITS
FINDINGS CAN BE.
HELD IN PUBLIC HEARINGS IN
TRANSPARENCY THE SO THAT THE
PUBLIC CAN IN FACT KNOW THE
BASIS OF THOSE FINDINGS.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO REQUIRE AN
ADDITIONAL REVIEW WHICH BY THE
WAY COULD EASE IS NOT OPPOSED TO
AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF THE
SCIENCE WE BELIEVE STRONGLY IN
THE SCIENCE THAT IS BEHIND THIS
PROJECT.
AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO A
REVIEW OF THAT SCIENCE.
OUR CONCERNS ARE WITH THAT
REVIEW A THERE IS NO PROCESS
ESTABLISHED IN THIS BILL.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT FOR TRANSPARENCY AND
AGAIN AS I SAID BEFORE THERE'S
NO REQUIREMENT.
THAT THE LANDS COMMISSION SAY IN
FACT WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THEIR
SCIENTIFIC REVIEW AND FINDINGS
THAT LED THEM TO MAKE THEIR FIND.
THAT SEEMS TO ME.
THE BASIS OF WHAT A PUBLIC
REVIEW SHOULD BE AS WITH PUBLIC
HEARINGS TRANSPARENCY.
AND THE DECISION SHOULD IN FACT
SAY THE BASIS FOR THOSE FINDINGS
AND IF YOU CAN FINISH UP THAT
ACTUALLY ALMOST FOUR MINUTES
STANDARD SECONDLY AS I TALK
ABOUT THE STANDARD.
YOU COULDN'T COMPLY WITH THERE'S
NO PROJECT THAT CAN MEET THAT
STANDARD OF NO ADVERSE IMPACT
FINALLY I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT
YOUR COMMITTEE ANALYSIS SAYS
THAT.
IN FACT POINTS OUT.
THE THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY
UNDER SIGMA ARE THE STANDARDS
THAT IT SHOULD APPLY HERE.
THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS SAYS THAT
WE COULD RE APPLY IF FOR TURN
DOWN INITIALLY BY THE STATE
LANDS COMMISSION MY QUESTION IS
AGAIN.
THE BILL DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THAT
OR SPEAK TO THAT.
WE WE CAN'T RE APPLY TO FIX IT
IF THE COMMISSION'S NOT REQUIRED
TO TELL US WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS.
AND SO IT AT A MINIMUM YOU WOULD
THINK IN BASIC FAIRNESS THEY
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO TELL US
WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
AND THEN IF WE DO WE APPLY DOES
IT START TO TWENTY FOUR MONTH
CLOCK AGAIN.
BECAUSE IF IT DOES AND THEN WE
REPLY AND THEN THEY SAY WELL WE
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR REPLY
NOW WE'RE INTO A CONSTANT TWENTY
FOUR HOUR I'M SORRY TWENTY FOUR
MONTH.
REPLY PERIOD IT'S A HAMSTER
WHEEL THAT WE WOULD NEVER GET
OFF OF FOR THAT REASONS WERE
OPEN. TO A REVIEW OF THE SCIENCE
WE WANT TO ASSIST WITH THAT BUT
THE WAY THE BILL SET UP RIGHT
NOW IT'S UNPRECEDENTED IN
STACKING THE DECK.
THANK YOU THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS SCOTT WHICH
SHOULD BE HALF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE PATRIOTS COUNCIL.
AS MANY OF YOU MEMBERS KNOW --
THE STATUS OF THE CALPERS THE
PATRIOTS COUNCIL HAS.
THOUSANDS OF JOBS.
POTENTIALLY THIS PROJECT GOES
FORWARD AS TO THE REST OF THE
BUILDING TRADES.
AND WHILE WE HAVE GREAT RESPECT
FOR THE AUTHOR.
IN I DON'T.
QUESTION HIS INTENT IN THE BILL.
THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
THIS BILL IS INTENDED TO KILL
THE KIDDIES PROJECT SO LET'S BE
HONEST WITH THAT.
THE RECORD'S CLEAR THE LANCE
COMMISSION.
HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THAT'S
THEIR INTENT THEIR STAFF HAS
MADE THIS CLEAR [inaudible]
SO.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS RE
CHECKED.
IN TO PUT IN PLACE PROTECTIONS
TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT AN
OVER DRAFTING THAT GOES ON THEN
THERE'S A CLEAR PATH TO DO THAT.
AMEND THE BILL SENATE TO REVIEW
TO A STATE AGENCY THAT DOESN'T
HASN'T ALREADY.
SPOILED THE WELL HASN'T ALREADY
LAID OUT THEIR INTENT.
BUT DON'T VOTE FOR THE BILL WAS
CURRENT FORM AND SAY THAT YOU
DIDN'T INTEND TO KILL THE JOBS
ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
BUT YOU JUST WANTED TO ENSURE
THAT THE THAT THE THAT SCIENCE
WAS CHECKED AND THAT WE DIDN'T
OVER DRAFT BECAUSE YOU CAN
ACCOMPLISH THAT.
WITHOUT SENDING IT TO AN AGENCY
THAT'S ME IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S
INTENT WHICH IS TO KILL THE BILL
AFFECT THE SYSTEM IN THE BILL TO
KILL THE BILL.
LET'S JUST AMEND THE BILL TO
KILL THE PROJECT.
THAT WOULD BE THE HONEST AND
FORTHRIGHT THING TO DO AND SO WE
WOULD URGE A NO VOTE OR A YES
VOTE AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED
THANK YOU [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
COULD YOU HAVE ONE MORE WITNESS
NUMBER OKAY.
OKAY THANK YOU ANYBODY ELSE WHO
WANTS TO VOICE THEIR OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL PLEASE COME TO THE
MICROPHONE [inaudible]
YEAH.
THAT IS NOT BE HAPPY ASSOCIATION
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES
OPPOSED TO THE BILL BECAUSE OF
THE PRESIDENT THAT IS BEING SET.
OUR MEMBERS ARE VERY CONCERNED
WITH GROUND WATER SUSTAINABILITY
WE WANT TO PROTECT BASINS.
BUT IF THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH
THE EXISTING SEE WHAT OUR
NEIGHBOR PROCESS WE WOULD ASK
THAT WE WORK ON THAT -- AND IN
GENERAL JUST NAME AN
ORGANIZATION AND THANK YOU FOR
OPPOSE THANKS.
GOOD AFTERNOON MADAM CHAIR
PRESIDENTE CARADJA ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA GRANDMOTHER
COALITION THE GROUND WATER
RESOURCES ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA AND TIDEWATER
DISTRICT ALL IN OPPOSITION THANK
YOU.
MICHAEL ARNOLD ON BEHALF OF THE
THREE DOLLARS MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT.
AUDREY RETIRED CHECK ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING
INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION.
HELLO INNER FOR THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN
OPPOSITION.
KRIS CONNOR PERCENT OF IT
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION A
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR TAUGHT
BLOOM STEIN FOR THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
MANY MONTHS AND ON BEHALF OF THE
AND ONE EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY
ALIGN YOUR COMMENTS WITH THOSE
OF AQUA IN OPPOSITION.
EMILY PAPPAS ON BEHALF THE
CINEMA READ OF WATER DISTRICT
OPPOSITION.
WHERE TOP ON BEHALF ORANGE
COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL IN
OPPOSITION?
GREG CAMPBELL ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL LABORS
IN OPPOSITION.
RENDON OF US WITH THE CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION
OPPOSITION.
SEARCH DIVERSITY MISCIBLE WATER
DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
ORANGE COUNTY IN OPPOSITION.
KRISTIN OLSON ON BEHALF OF THE
WATER IN JOBS COALITION IN
OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU I'LL NOW MOVES TO THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO SEE IF
THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR
OBSERVATIONS [inaudible]
THE SECOND.
THANK YOU THANK YOU SENATOR FOR
BEING HERE TODAY AND BRING THIS
FORWARD -- OR ARE YOU INTENDING
TO TAKE THE AMENDMENT STE TODAY
[inaudible]
AMENDMENT OR I RECEIVED
AMENDMENTS ON FRIDAY.
LAST FRIDAY OKAY AS YOU KNOW I'M
SORT OF BUSY WITH THE CONFERENCE
COMMITTEE IN THE STUFF THAT.
WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND
WE'RE HERE TODAY ON MONDAY I'VE
CONSIDERED AMENDMENTS I'VE
AMENDED THE BILL -- IF I MAY IF
I MAY MADAM CHAIR.
WAS IT KIDDIES ASK FOR PROCESS
AS DID COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE
WE PUT A PROCESS IN.
TERMS OF APPLICATION.
WE REST PUT A TIME LINE AND WE
PUT A TIME LINE AND WE WERE
ASKED TO ADD THE DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES WE HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.
AS TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT I
RECEIVED ON FRIDAY -- THE
TIMELINE IS FAIRLY RESTRICTIVE
SIX MONTHS PLUS A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION.
FRANKLY SINCE NONE OF US REALLY
KNOW HOW LONG.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO RECONCILE
THE SCIENCE WE HOPE IT'S QUICK.
I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO AGREE
TO THAT NOW OF THE BILL
CURRENTLY HAS FIFTEEN MONTHS
PLUS A NINE MONTH EXTENSION FOR
A TOTAL OF TWENTY FOUR IS
COMPROMISE POSSIBLE BETWEEN
TWELVE AND TWENTY FOUR CERTAINLY.
BUT MY QUESTION SINCE I HAVE THE
PLAYERS SITTING HERE TO MY RIGHT.
IS IF I TAKE THESE AMENDMENTS
ARE ANY SET OF AMENDMENTS WELL
THAT BECAUSE ALL OF THE
OPPOSITION. TO MOVE TO A SUPPORT
POSITION [inaudible]
MANAGER.
AND I DON'T MEAN COULD THESE I
MEAN ALL OF THE OPPOSITION
BECAUSE YOU'VE SEEN THE
OPPOSITION LISTED ON YOUR
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS.
AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO THEN
MICHAEL MY RESPONSES I THINK THE
BILL'S PRETTY GOOD RIGHT NOW IF
I THOUGHT IT NEEDS TO BE
IMPROVED I WOULD HAVE IMPROVED
IT.
WE TAKE AMENDMENTS TO RESOLVE
CONFLICT AND COMPROMISE SO IF WE
TOOK THESE AMENDMENTS OR ANY
VERSION OF THEM WITH IT BECAUSE
THE OPPOSITION. TO GO TO A FULL
SUPPORT POSITION WITH A LETTER
IN SUPPORT.
ALL OF THE OPPOSITION IS LISTED
IN THE ANALYSIS.
MELCHER AYE AYE I'M ASSUMING
THAT YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHICH
AMENDMENTS YOUR BECAUSE I KNOW
THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL THAT HAVE
BEEN SUGGESTED BUT I'M I'M IF
YOU WANT THEM TO ANSWER IT IT'S
FINE WITH ME OKAY MESSER MANAGER
AYE THE THE SET OF AMENDMENTS
THAT I HAVE FOR THE ONES.
THAT I RECEIVED ON FRIDAY AND
BASICALLY I CAN OUTLINE THEM.
THE REQUESTED A WORD CHANGE FROM
FINDINGS OUR FINDINGS TO
DETERMINATION.
OF THE REDUCE THE TIME LINE FOR
THIS STUDY FROM FIFTEEN MONTHS
PLUS A NINE MONTH EXTENSION TO
SIX MONTHS PLUS THE SUCH SIX
MONTHS EXTENSION.
AND THERE'S ONE SENTENCE ADDED
THAT.
REQUIRES THE THE AGENCY WELL IF
I MAY JUST SAY -- YOU KNOW THE I
DON'T KNOW IF THE AMENDMENTS
HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
COMMITTEE AND WE'RE HERE TODAY
TO VOTE ON A BILL SO.
YOU KNOW FOR US TO AMENDED WHILE
WE'RE SITTING HERE WITHOUT
EVERYBODY OF HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
OF READING IT AND ANALYZING AND
HAVING THE OPPONENTS.
OF THE SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL BE
ABLE TO WAY AND WE'VE JUST HEARD
TESTIMONY FROM SUPPORTERS OF THE
BILL WHO HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO
WIN SO CERTAINLY.
I DON'T MIND THEM ANSWERING AS
AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE BUT I DON'T
KNOW THAT WE'RE REALLY IN A
POSITION OF AMENDING THE BILL NO
NO AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE NOT I
THINK THE THE AUTHOR JUST ASKED
IF.
THE OPPOSITION WAS PREPARED.
THERE WAS -- IF IF THAT'S WHAT
THEY'RE ASKING FOR IF THAT IF
THAT IF THE SENATOR WAS TO AGREE
TO THAT.
AND WHEN YOU GO TO SUPPORT IS A
SHOULD ASSEMBLY WILL NOT EGGMAN
THROUGH THE CHAIR OF THE SENATE
ROTH -- YES WITH THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WE PROPOSED WHICH IS HE
OUTLINED WAS CHANGING THE WORD
FINDING TO DETERMINATION.
ADDING FOR A MORE CONDENSED
REVIEW PERIOD AND THE ONE
ADDITIONAL SENTENCE WE WOULD BE
IN SUPPORT.
WE WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR AS
YOU SAW MANY OF THE STATEWIDE
AID -- GROUPS.
BUT THAT WE WOULD BE IN SUPPORT
AS A MEMBER EGGMAN -- I COULD
TELL YOU THAT MY BILLING TRADE
UNIONS AND I HAD CAN SAY WITH A
VERY HIGH LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE
THE ENTIRE BUILDING TRADES.
WOULD SUPPORT THE SENATORS BILL
WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS.
OKAY THANK YOU -- SO THANK YOU
CENTER FOR I MEAN IT SOUNDS LIKE
IT I MEAN I I KNOW YOU TO BE A
MAN WHO WORKS AND COMPROMISES
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE
WILLING TO TAKE SOME COMMITMENT.
MY ISSUES ALWAYS AROUND WATER
SOMEBODY WHO REPRESENTED DELTA
THAT WE NEED TO REGIONAL SELF
SUFFICIENCY.
AND LESS RELIANCE ON THE DELTA
THAT WE CAN HAVE.
THE BETTER IT IS AND MY
QUESTIONS WERE SOME OF THE SAME
OF IF IF HE WAS NOT ENOUGH AND
THEN SHOULD NOT JUST FOR THIS
PROJECT BUT FOR EVERY PROJECT WE
PROPOSE.
SOMETHING DIFFERENT IF IT'S IN A
BASIN THAT HASN'T BEEN --
SUBJECT TO SIGNAL YET -- AND YOU
HAVE TO ANSWER THAT'S QUESTION
DI I HAD BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE
YOU'RE.
HE MET MADAM CHAIRMAN HAVE.
MAY I RESPOND MENTION YES PLEASE
[inaudible]
THE SOME OF THIS I WAS GONNA
RESPOND IN THE CLOTHES BUT LET
ME RESPOND TO THAT PARTICULAR
QUESTION ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL.
ISSUE -- WELL THIS IS NOT EVERY.
THIS IS NOT EVERY REGION OF THE
STATE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
MOJAVE DESERT HERE AND IN FACT I
WOULD SAY THAT IT'S PRESIDENTIAL
NOT TO DO THAT WOULD BE
PRESIDENTIAL NOT TO DO THIS.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE TOP TO THE
TAHOE AREA OF COURSE IS YOU KNOW
SEEK WAS NOT THE FINAL --
DECIDER THERE'S A TOP THE TAHOE
REGIONAL PLANNING.
GROUP WHEN IT COMES TO THE COAST.
OF THE FACT THAT A LEAD AGENCY
APPROVES OF FINALLY -- ARE ON
THE COAST FOR A FORTY FIVE
THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT SOMETHING
SITTING ON THE SAND IS NOT THE
FINAL.
DECISION AT THAT POINT IT GOES
TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION SO AS
A LEGISLATURE AS A STATE WE HAVE
SET UP -- ENTITIES TO PROVIDE
FURTHER REVIEW AND SENSITIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS -- WE JUST
HAVEN'T DONE SUCH AN AGENCY IN
THE MOJAVE KING AND AND MAYBE WE
SHOULD BUT IT'S IT'S VERY MUCH
THE SAME AS THE COAST IT'S VERY
MUCH THE SAME AS THE TAHOE.
AREA IT'S A FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM --
THAT -- NAY A STATE TREASURER
NATIONAL MONUMENT TO DESERVES
PROTECTION.
HEY THE ONLY NUMBER MCCARTY.
YEAH I I WANTED TO JUST.
MAYBE TALK ABOUT THIS ONE WORD
CHANGE AND IT SEEMS THAT FOR YOU
ALL TO SAY THAT YOU WOULD
SUPPORT THE BILL NOW FOR THE ONE
WORD CHANGED.
ME THAT WE SHOULD TAKE INTO A
LITTLE BIT WHAT THAT MEANS OF
SELF. FOR THOSE COMING FROM
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHEN YOU
APPROVE.
PROJECTS THERE'S FINDINGS AND
DECLARATION SO I UNDERSTAND THAT
SO IN YOUR VERSION THE BILL
SENATOR ROTH YOU HAVE THE STATE
LANDS COMMISSION.
DOING THIS SECONDARY VALUATION
HAVING THIS FINDING UNDER THEIR
PROPOSAL THEY WANT TO CHANGE
THAT TO A DETERMINATION.
AND WHAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS
FAR AS WHAT THE PRACTICAL IMPACT
OF THAT WOULD BE IN GRANTED WE
DON'T HAVE THE STATE LANDS
COMMISSION FOLKS HERE RIGHT NOW
BUT WANTED TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE.
TO WIN MONEY -- MIGHT.
THANK YOU THANK YOU SIR MY
UNDERSTANDING IS COULD THESE
BELIEVES THE CHAIN FROM FINDING
TO DETERMINATION WILL GIVE COULD
THESE THE OPPORTUNITY.
TO FILE A LAWSUIT IF THE
ULTIMATE.
RESOLUTION IS NOT TO COULD DISS
LIKING -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IN THE
PERSPECTIVE OF ATTORNEYS THAT I
HAVE CONSULTED.
IT IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A
DIFFERENCE SO OF COURSE.
FINDING DETERMINATION MAKES NO
DIFFERENCE TO ME.
MADAM CHAIR LIKE TO MAKE A
MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS FOR A
WEEK SO WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE
TIME TO ANALYZE THESE AMENDMENTS
WE CAN ALL COME BACK BETTER
EDUCATED.
MEMBERS FIND A SECOND AND ALSO.
OKAY JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT.
MOTION TO TABLE FOR A WEEK SO.
SO INCOME BACK.
AFTER YOU FURTHER ANALYZE THESE
NO AMENDMENTS SOME TOLD THE
MOTION IS DEBATABLE -- WOULD
ANYBODY LIKE.
TO DEBATE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND.
I WOULD PREFER THAT WE CONTINUE
THIS DISCUSSION THIS BILL IS NOW
BASICALLY TO YOUR BILL WE'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE KIDDIES
PROJECT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.
SAID MULTIPLE HEARINGS AND I
THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE
THE HEARING -- WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND WHY DON'T WE TAKE A
ROLL CALL VOTE -- WELL FOR FOR
PURPOSES OF DEBATE MADAM SHARE.
AGAIN MEMBERS IT IT SEEMS IN AND
AS IT GOES BACK AND FORTH AND
BASED ON THE OPPOSITION.
AND AND FROM WHAT WE'VE HEARD
AND THAT IF WE DO TAKE THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE THE SENATOR.
WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THESE
AMENDMENTS THE OPPOSITION GETS
REMOVED.
I THINK INSTEAD OF GOING BACK
AND FORTH ARE PUSHING A BILL
FORWARD.
LET'S JUST TAKE THE TIME TO
ACTUALLY BETTER ANALYZE AND SEE
WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
SO WE CAN ALL COME BACK AND HAVE
A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE
VOTING ON OR NOT VOTING ON ANY
OTHER.
COMMENTS OR SPONSORS I HAVE.
YES SIR A CURVING QUESTION SO --
JUST TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE
MOTION THAT'S ON ON THE TABLE --
THERE'S ALSO A WORLD WHERE
AMENDMENTS COULD HAPPEN IN THE
NEXT PHASE BUT I'M SORRY WHAT IS
THE NEXT DAY IS WHAT IT IS WHAT
IS THIS BILL GO.
TO THIS WILL SHOW THIS BILL WILL
GO TO APPROPRIATIONS SO THERE
WOULD BE ANOTHER CHANCE TO ON
THE HILL THERE WAS A DESIRE.
CORRECT THIS IS NOT THE TABLING
IN A WEEK IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE
CORRECT OKAY THANK YOU.
MR FLORA OKAY I JUST -- I MEAN
I'M A STRONG SUPPORTER OF JUST
HOLD OFF ON LITTLE BECAUSE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL
ESPECIALLY COMING FROM THE
CENTRAL VALLEY.
THERE IS SO MUCH THAT HAPPENED
WE ARE THE NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE I UNDERSTAND WE GET
ANOTHER WHACK AT IT IN
APPROPRIATIONS AND THINGS GET
AMENDED THERE.
BUT IT'S OUR COMMITTEE TO MAKE
SURE THE BILLS THAT COME OUT OF
HERE.
ARE GOOD AND IN ORDER AND EVERY
DROP OF WATER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
THESE PROJECTS AND WE MINIMIZE
THE EFFECT OF THE PROJECT IN THE
SOUTHERN PART OF STATE ALL THAT
WATER COMES FROM US.
THE NORTHERN PART OF THE STATE.
SO FOR MY CONSTITUENTS FOR ME TO
VOTE ON A BILL LIKE THIS WHERE
WE'RE KILLING ESSENTIALLY
PROJECT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
THAT THOSE FOLKS WHO GET BE
RELIABLE ON CAN BE RELIED ON AND
THE JOBS THERE IF WE HAVE
AMENDMENTS TO TAKE AWAY THE
OPPOSITION AND MOVE THIS THING
FORWARD IN A PROPER WAY.
I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THAT
THANK YOU.
MR OFF MANAGER I'M I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT.
THAT THE COMMITTEE AND I KNOW
YOU DID HEARD CLEARLY WHAT.
WAS SAID HERE AND WHAT WAS SAID
IS THAT.
IF I TOOK THE AMENDMENTS THAT
ARE IN FRONT OF ME WHICH I
CANNOT DO BECAUSE THE TIME LINE
IS NOT ONE THAT I AGREE WITH
THIS.
WE WOULD HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THAT.
THAT IT WOULD REMOVE COULD DISS
OPPOSITION AND PERHAPS THE
ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED BY
MISTER LATCH BUT AS YOU'LL NOTE
FROM YOUR ANALYSIS THERE MUST BE
FORTY OTHER.
ENTITIES ON THAT SHEET SO THAT
THE AMENDMENTS.
THERE'S BEEN NO INDICATION THAT
THE AMENDMENTS IF TAKEN WOULD
REMOVE.
ALL OF THE OPPOSITION AND
CONVERT IT TO SUPPORT.
MOVING BACK TO THE SENATE FOR
CONCURRENCE [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER WE HAVE A
MOTION HERE BUT I STILL HAVE MY
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
OKAY WHY DON'T WE DEAL WITH THIS
ISSUE AGAIN -- AMENDMENTS CAN BE
TAKEN AS THE BILL MOVES TOWARDS
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
WHAT WE ARE TALKING -- ABOUT IN
ONE CASE A CHANGE OF A WORD
WHICH THE AUTHOR DOES NOT
BELIEVE.
CHANGES THE BILL AND ANOTHER
CASE AND A MEMBER THAT'S BEEN
SUGGEST REGARD TO TIMELINE WHICH
THE AUTHOR IS NOT -- HEARING TO
BE INTERESTED IN ACCEPTING SO I
BELIEVE THAT IT'S PROPER FOR US
TO CONTINUE THAT WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL NOW IT'S
IT'S COME FROM ITS HOUSE OF
ORIGIN -- AND I THINK THAT TO
STOP THE BILL AT THIS POINT -- I
THINK THAT WE YOU KNOW SHOULD DO
OUR JOB AND DEVOTE DISCUSSING
THE BILL THAT'S IN FRONT OF US
AND NOT TRYING TO AMENDED KIND
OF ON THE FLY IN COMMITTEE OR OR
PUSHING FOR A WEEK WHEN THIS
BILL HAS BEEN.
UNDER DISCUSSION FOR YEAR AND A
HALF.
SO WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A
VOTE ON THE MOTION. TO TABLE THE
BILL.
MY RECOMMENDATION IS A NO.
I'LL BE VOTING NO.
ON THE MOTION TO TABLE THE BILL
MEMBERS FRIEDMAN NO FRIEDMAN NOW
FLORA.
FLORA AYE CHAU.
CHAU NO EGGMAN.
EGGMAN NO GARCIA.
GARCIA NO LIMON.
LIMON NO MATHIS.
MATHIS I MCCARTY.
MCCARTY NO MELINDA'S.
MURATSUCHI.
RIGHT TO CHANNEL STONE.
STONE NO.
HATE THE MOTION FAILS NOT GO
BACK TO MR MCCARTY FOR HIS
FOLLOW UP QUESTION YEAH I THINK
IT AT AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU
SAID I'M SURE WE DON'T HAVE THE
AMENDMENTS.
BEFORE US THEY HAVE BEEN HANDED
OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND SO FORTH
BUT WE ARE HERE TODAY DEBATING
THIS ISSUE SO -- IN A IN THE
PAST TODAY THESE THIS THIS
PRINCIPLE COULD BE OUT THERE SO
I THINK WE DID JUST.
TAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SO
CENTER YOU YOU SAID TWO THINGS
ONE IS THE TIMELINE IS
PROBLEMATIC INTO.
THE WORD DEFINITION YOU CALLED A
DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE
SO ON THE WORD.
CHANGED IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE
ITS ANY SIGNIFICANT NOT
COMMITMENTS TO YOU -- TO THAT WE
DON'T HAVE AN EARLIER AND HAS
THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION
WEIGHED IN ON WHETHER OR NOT
THAT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT ON THEIR EVALUATION HAVE
THEIR KNOWLEDGE HAVE AN ASK.
ANY OF THE AGENCIES THAT ARE
LISTED IN THE BILL.
OKAY AND THEN TO THE UP TO THE
PROPONENTS THE PROJECTS IN THE
POLICY THE BILL.
WHAT WHY ARE YOU PROPOSING THIS
THIS WORK CHANGE AND WHAT VALUE
DO YOU THINK IT WOULD HAVE IN
THE?
IN THE EVALUATION AND YOU CONCUR
THAT THE REASON YOU REALLY WANT
IT IS THAT IF THERE IS A
NEGATIVE.
FINDING IN YOUR EYES FROM THE
STATE LANDS COMMISSION OF THE
CHANCE. TO TO APPEAL THAT -- SO
IF I CAN HE HIT EACH ONE OF THE
THE THREE ITEMS AND ALL START
WITH THE YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE
SUBSTITUTION WERE DETERMINATION.
FOR FINDING AND I'LL START
WITHOUT -- ONE I THINK IT'S
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD -- ANY
STUDENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW --
UNDERSTANDS THAT IN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY.
AXE NOT BY FINDING THE ACT BY
DETERMINATION -- A DETERMINATION
MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FINDINGS
WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS.
AND THIS IS THE THE TYPICAL
STANDARD THAT SUPPLIED IN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT WE'RE NOT
ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT FAVORS
KIDDIES WERE ASKING FOR
SOMETHING SYMMETRICAL -- I KNOW
IT'S HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE TO
BELIEVE BUT WEARE A BELIEVER IN
SCIENCE WE ARE WE DO EMBRACE
REVIEW.
WE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO A FIFTY
YEAR ONGOING REVIEW ANNUAL
REVIEW BY SAM MEDINA COUNTY.
SO WE'RE NOT AFRAID OF THE
INTROSPECTION OR THE REVIEW WE
JUST WANT THERE TO BE CLOSER TO
A PROCESS AND WE DON'T WANT
WHETHER EITHER SIDE IS AGGRIEVED.
OUGHT TO BE.
PREVENTED FROM KNOWING THE BASIS
FOR THE DECISION WHICH MUST BE
PROVIDED AND THEN THE
DETERMINATION WOULD SUGGEST IT'S
FINAL.
AS OPPOSED TO BEING A DO LOOP
WHICH NEVER ENDS WELL IT'S A
IT'S A FINDING IT'S NOT A
DETERMINATION SO NO.
ONE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
AND AND SO ANOTHER WORDS FOR
THOSE THAT WERE LAWYERS IT'S NOT
JUSTICIABLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT
OVER YET IT'S JUST CONTINUING SO.
VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE WORD
DETERMINATION SUBSTITUTED FOR
FINDING I WOULD ALSO SAY IT IS
THE SAME TERM.
THAT IS USED IN THE BALANCE OF
THE CHAPTER THAT THIS BILL IS
BEING ADDED INTO THIS BECOMES
EIGHTEEN FIFTEEN IF YOU REVIEW
EIGHTEEN TEN ELEVEN TWELVE
THIRTEEN AND FOURTEEN THEY ALL
USE THE WORD DETERMINATION.
NO WORD OF THESE FINDINGS.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST -- ONE THE
SECOND ONE HAS TO PERTAIN TO THE
TIMING.
NOW THE WAY THE AUTHORS DRAFTED
THE BILL.
IT PUTS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
ON KIDDIES AND SANTA MARGARITA
AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO'S PROPOSING
TO TRANSFER.
A SHORTENED TIME PERIOD DOES NOT
FAVOR US.
IT WORKS AGAINST US. TO WHICH WE
MUST BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN
BEFORE WE SUBMIT BECAUSE BY THE
MERE PASSAGE OF TIME IF THEY ARE
UNABLE TO REACH THE FINDING.
THE PREJUDICE RESULTS TO US AND
A REJECTION.
CONVERSELY BY PUTTING A TWO YEAR.
WINDOW TO REVIEW THE EFFORT HERE
IS REALLY TO BE HONEST TO CREATE
A WAY. TO S. -- MAKE THE
EXISTING E. I. R. STALE.
THE PROJECT ITSELF WAS ALREADY
GONE THROUGH A A ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IT WENT THROUGH A COUNTY
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS WHICH
IS RARELY MENTIONED.
BOTH PURSUED WE WENT THROUGH
TRIAL AND ON APPEAL.
SO HERE WE ARE WITH THOSE
APPROVALS IN TWENTY TWELVE NOW
WE'RE IN.
TWENTY NINETEEN WE CAN EVEN
APPLY TO JANUARY OF TWENTY
TWENTY AND THEN IT COULD BE TWO
YEARS AND THE VERY SAME PEOPLE.
WHO ARE OPPOSING THE PROJECT NOW
WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO START
OVER AGAIN?
AND FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS A WATER
PROJECT ANYWHERE IN THE STATE OR
ANY OTHER KIND OF PROJECT THEY
SHOULD BE TERRIFIED WITH THAT
OUTCOME BECAUSE ALL YOU NEED TO
DO IS RUN OUT THE CLOCK.
AND THE THIRD ITEM IS TO MAKE
EXPRESS WHICH SHOULD BE IMPLIED
BUT WE'D LIKE IT TO BE EXPRESS.
AND THAT IS THAT IN MAKING A
DECISION JUST LIKE THE STATE
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DOES.
JUST LIKE YOUR SUSTAINABLE
GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT ACT
PROCESS.
WE WOULD LIKE THE STATE LANDS
COMMISSION TO HAVE AN OBLIGATION
TO SAY IF THERE COULD BE
MITIGATION.
HERE IT IS DO IT AND THEN
THERE'S A CONSEQUENCE ACOSTA
CONSEQUENCE EMBRACE ME WHETHER
WE GO FOR WITH THE PROJECT OR
NOT.
BUT AT LEAST WE WOULD NOW
WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A CURABLE
DEFECT AND COULD INVESTIGATE THE
COST SO.
WE'RE NOT AGAINST TRANSPARENCY
WE'RE NOT AGAINST ASSUMING THE
BURDEN OF PROOF.
AND WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT TRYING
TO IMPOSE A STANDARD WHICH IS A
SYMMETRICAL ANDONLY WORKS FOR
KIDDIES AS BENEFIT THE PUBLIC
SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT.
WHETHER ARTS OPPONENTS OR US. TO
BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT THERE IS AN
INTO THIS PROCESS [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THE CONVENTION THANK YOU MR CHOW.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH I'LL LET ME
BEGIN BY THANKING THE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES
FOR VISITING MY OFFICE SAID
EARLIER.
OUR FINAL AYE A WE DEALT WITH
THE SOME OF THE BILL -- BEFORE
ARE BUT IT WAS -- VERY HELPFUL
AND EDUCATIONAL SECOND TIME
AROUND BECAUSE I GOT TO LEARN.
A FEW THINGS I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT
SO I'M I'M GRATEFUL -- NOW THE
OPPOSITION I THINK EARLIER
RAISED THE DHEA ASSERTION THAT
THIS IS KIND OF ON PRESIDENT IT --
I THINK OF ONE OF THE REASONS
FOR THIS PROPOSAL IS SAYS SAID
THAT.
THE PROJECT WILL WILL UNDERGO AN
INDEPENDENT UNDERSCORING
INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
AND ARE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
ALSO THAT -- WHEN THE ORIGINAL
YARO IS FOR SHE CONDUCTED?
OF THE SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
WAS ESPECIALLY PROVIDED BY COULD
DIS ARM AND SO -- SANTA
MARGARITA ESSENTIALLY DID SOME
CERTIFICATION BASED ON THE
SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO THEM.
AND WHEN THE KIDS WAS LITIGATED
IN COURT ARE THE CORD WAS ALSO.
BASICALLY DOWN BY THE
INFORMATION SCIENTIFIC
INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO
IT.
WITHOUT GOING BEYOND WHAT'S --
WHAT'S OUT THERE.
SO I THINK WHAT DE A PROPOSAL
INTENDS TO DO IS TO I'LL GET A
MORE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE
PROCESS.
I'M.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M
COMING FROM I I THINK IN THE
PAST I SUPPORTED ASSEMBLY BILL
AS I MENTIONED.
AND AS TO THE DEFINITION -- DE
THE PROPOSED CHANGED FROM
FINDINGS TO DETERMINATION I IT'S
MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ARE THE
CODE SECTION CC PECOS ACTION
DOES CONTAIN BOTH.
OF THE TERM FINDING AS WELL AS
DETERMINATION AND AND BOTH
TERMINOLOGIES WOULD ENTITLE OF
FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS TO BE MADE
THAT IS THE RATE OF MEN DAMOS
RIGHT REALLY MANDATE.
SO AS FAR AS THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT IS CONCERNED I I DON'T
THINK IT MAKES A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN DETERMINATION ARE.
AND FINING SO SO BOB YOU KNOW
IT'S A SO I TEND TO AGREE WITH
THE AUTHOR IN THAT YOU KNOW IT'S
IT'S THE IT'S YOU KNOW IT'S THE
SAME AS FAR AS PRACTICALITIES
CONCERN.
SO I'M I'M INCLINED TO SUPPORT
THE BUILD UP BASED ON NOT A
THINK.
UP.
AND THE OTHER OF MEN MEN THAT
WAS SO BEING PROPOSED I I DON'T
THINK THE AUTHOR IS IN AGREEMENT
WITH THAT THERE'S A TIME FRAME
WHICH HE THEN SEEM TO AGREE WITH.
SO -- YOU KNOW.
IT M. ICE BASICALLY ARE
OPERATING ON THE CORRECT
INFORMATION AND WHAT I WHAT I
STATED EARLIER -- I ACTUALLY I
JUST WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY --
THAT THE PROJECT OPPONENTS OFTEN
SITE TO THE ABSENCE OF
INDEPENDENCE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AND I WOULD LIKE THE
COMMITTEE TO KNOW.
THAT THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT IN TWO THOUSAND AND
TWO THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
WITH THE FULL VALUE OF THE U. S.
G. S. OPINION.
IN TWO THOUSAND TWO APPROVED ANY
I. S. AND FOUND THAT THE PROJECT
COULD BE CONDUCTED.
WITH THREE TIMES THE PUMPING
RATE WITH NO ADVERSE IMPACT.
SO THAT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS
PUBLISHED IN TWO THOUSAND AND
TWO WE REDUCE THE SIZE BY THREE
TIMES.
AND THEN SANTA MARGARITA
REVIEWED IT.
AND THEN THE COUNTY.
REVIEWED IT TO THE COUNTY WAS
NOT BOUND BY.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
IT CAUSED ITS OWN SET OF
HEARINGS.
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE TESTIFIED IN
A BIG IMPOSED A STOPPER ON
GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS THE
EVENT THAT THERE WERE ADVERSE
IMPACTS SO THOSE.
THOSE THREE REVIEWS -- ALL
OCCURRED IN NONETHELESS WE'RE
NOT OPPOSED. TO A NEW LEVEL
REVIEW AS LONG AS IT GETS
DAYLIGHT.
I IN HIS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.
YEAH I GONNA GIVE DHEA PROPONE
AND THE OPPORTUNITY -- TO
RESPOND ALSO IF US SO DESIRE.
WELL.
YOU KNOW A CERTAIN THE THE
PROBLEM IS THE SCIENCE IS IN
CONFLICT IN THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY IN THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE AND AND THE REST OF
THOSE SCIENTISTS.
THAT ORIGINALLY OPINED ON THIS
PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT THE
PUMPING RATE WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE
COUNTRY.
TO COULD DISSPOSITION BY THE WE
COULD USE AS A RATHER NOVEL --
THEORY OF PUMPING HAVING TO DO
WITH EVAPORATION AND IT AND
COULD EASE MAYBE RIGHT.
BUT WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS
WHETHER COULD EASE IS RIGHT OR
NOT AND IF COULD EASE IS WRONG.
WE COULD DO A REPUTABLE HARM TO
THE MOJAVE DESERT SO THAT'S WHY
I GOT INVOLVED IN THIS IS YOU
KNOW I'M NOT KNOWN.
I DON'T COMMENDED THIS COMMITTEE
VERY OFTEN I DON'T GENERALLY
CARRY WATER BILLS I'M NOT KNOWN
AS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST BUT IT
SEEMED.
ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE TO ME THAT
YOU COULD HAVE THESE RATHER
SIGNIFICANT CONFLICTS IN SCIENCE.
IN ITS SCIENCE.
NOW MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT
OF WIGGLE ROOM WAS SCIENCE BUT
WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHAT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BERMAN ONLY
SUSTAINABLE PUMPING RATE IS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT TOGETHER
THE BILL IT IS SIMPLY ACE
SCIENTIFIC REVIEW AND
RECONCILIATION IT IS FINDINGS.
OF FACT ON THAT POINT NOT
DISCRETION DISK.
THE DISK DISCRETIONARY DECISION
MAKING -- IT IS A IT IS A
FINDING AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO HERE -- HOWEVER
QUICKLY WE CAN POSSIBLY DO IT
THANK YOU [inaudible]
BACK [inaudible]
HEY.
THE MISTER MATHIS.
SENATOR IT'S IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT -- THIS
PROJECT STILL ON HAS THE
COMPLETE A PERMIT APPROVAL AND
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT.
THE PERMIT PROCESS A C. D. F. W..
FOR STREAMBED ALTERATIONS AND IS
SUBJECT TO D. W. R. SIGMA
CRITERIA FOUR SO CONCERNED ABOUT
THE SCIENCE ARE YOU SAYING THAT
THOSE.
PROCESSES ARE GONNA DIG INTO THE
SCIENCE IN THE DETAILS.
THEN IN THAT.
I MEAN COULD BECAUSE THEY'RE
OBVIOUSLY GOING TO LOOK AT THE
SCIENCE OF THEIR AND SO I MEAN
NIGHT I THINK I WOULD PERSONALLY
RATHER STICK WITH WHAT'S BEEN
TESTED IN TRUE SPECIALLY WITH
THE NEW SIGMAR REGULATIONS --
AND THEN CREATE A WHOLE SEPARATE
PROCESS ON MAYNARD ARE YOU
SEEING THE PROCESS IS THERE ARE
ACCURATE.
AND THAT.
PART OF THE REASON WHY WE NEED
SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
WELL LET ME JUST TRY TO CLARIFY
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE.
DEALS WITH LAKE INSTREAM BUT
ALTERATION AGREEMENTS SO THE
DEPARTMENT THAT PARTICULAR
DEPARTMENT'S GOING TO LOOK AT
THE PROJECT AS IT PERTAINS.
TO STREAM BED AN IMPACT ON
STREAM BUT NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUSTAINABLE PUMPING RATES AND
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
DISTRICT IN THE USE OF THE THE
CONVEYANCE DEVICE -- WILL BE
TALKING ABOUT WHEELING
AGREEMENTS AND LOOKING AT
WHETHER THE WATER QUALITY THAT'S
BEING PUMPED INTO THE CONVEYANCE.
IS GOING TO CAUSE A
DETERIORATION IN THE WATER
QUALITY IN A WHOLE VARIETY OF
OTHER THINGS NOT WHETHER THE
PUMPING RATE OF THE MOJAVE
DESERT AND THE AQUIFER
UNDERNEATH IT.
IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE
SO THEY THEY'RE THERE ARE
FURTHER REVIEWS INCLUDING A BY
THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION IF
THIS PARTICULAR OF PROJECT IN
THE PIPE CROSSES STATE LANCER
NEEDS TO BE A A LEASE AGREEMENT
NEGOCIO SO DID OF YOU ARE SICK
MY PROCESS AND SYMBOL THAT
CRITERIA IS NOT.
GOOD ENOUGH THIS SIGNAL DOES NOT
REALLY AFFECT CAN COULD DISS OWN
I BELIEVE THE OWN THEIR OWN
APPELLATE DECISION.
THE THE PARTY NOTES THAT COULD
THAT SIGNAL IS NOT APPLICABLE TO
THIS PROJECT TO LOW PRIORITY
BASIN THERE ESSENTIALLY. THREE
LANDOWNERS THAT POTENTIALLY DRAW
FROM THE AQUIFER KIDDIES THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE STATE AS
YOU KNOW SIGNAL IS DESIGNED. FOR
EXAMPLE IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
WHERE YOU HAVE NUMEROUS
LANDOWNERS DRAWING FROM THE SAME.
AQUIFER A WITHOUT ADJUDICATION
TO TRY TO RESOLVE DEVELOP A
GROUND WATER SUSTAINABILITY
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THOSE AREAS.
ABSOLUTELY AND I WAS NEVER VERY
FAMILIAR SICKENING WHEN THEY
HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S A
STANDALONE THERE'S SEVERAL
PROJECTS THAT YOU KNOWSOME OF
THE CONCERNS HE STATED EARLIER
WERE THAT.
YOU KNOW THEY CAN PUMP.
MORE THAN WHAT IS KNOWN TO BE IN
THE BASIN BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL
PROJECTS IN EVEN INCLUDED
PROJECTS.
AND NEAR DISTRICT THAT PUMP MORE
THAN WHAT IS TYPICALLY
INNOVATION FROM THE RAINFALL SO
I MEAN THOSE.
THOSE NUMBERS IN THE SCIENCE ALL
OVER THE STATE OUR OUR OFFICE
THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BASIS OF
THIS DECISION. TO WANT TO HAVE A
NEW GROUNDS.
THROUGH -- THE LAND A THIRTY
WHICH YOUR BILL WOULD DEAL BUT I
MEAN IT'S WE WE'VE SEEN THIS.
ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROCESSES GO
FORWARD WE'VE SEEN A SIGNAL
PROCESS GO FORWARD WE'VE SEEN.
SEVERAL DIFFERENT PIECES
DIFFERENT COURT DECISIONS
EVERYTHING ELSE LITIGATION AND I
MEAN. TO TO SAY THAT.
ALL THE RIGOROUS PROCESSES IN
THE SCIENCE THROUGH EVERYTHING
ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
THAT WE NEED A NEW SCIENTIFIC
REVIEW. FOR THAT THAT HASN'T
BEEN DONE BEFORE I MEAN I'M I'M
JUST CURIOUS SENATOR IN AND I
KNOW YOU'RE.
A MAN OF THE LAWN A MAN WANTS TO
SEE FARE THINGS HAPPEN.
SO I MEAN I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO
WHY WE WOULD CREATE A NEW
PROCESS.
WHEN THIS PROJECT STILL AS OTHER
PROCESSES TO GO FORWARD TO IT'S
STILL GOING TO GET THROUGH D. W.
R. AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN THROUGH
SEQUEL?
WILL MAKE MAY I COMMENT ON THE
MAY I ADDRESS THE SEQUEL ISSUE.
ABSOLUTELY VENTURE.
YOU SEEK WAS A PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
STATUTES DESIGN AND NOTIFY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT
THERE'S A PROJECT. TO IDENTIFY --
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND TO
ADDRESS.
MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS
THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS --
IT IS NOT A PROCESS THAT IS
DESIGNED TO RECONCILE -- SCIENCE
IN FACT THE COURT SPECIFICALLY
ARE NOT PERMITTED TO WEIGH
EVIDENCE AND RECONCILE SCIENCE
IN THE SECRET PROCESS EITHER TO
TRIP TRIAL COURT OR THE
APPELLATE COURT IS THE SAME
STANDARD OF REVIEW.
OF THE COURT MERELY LOOKS AT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
IF THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE IN THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO
SUPPORT.
THE LEAD AGENCIES CONCLUSION FOR
EXAMPLE THAT A PROJECT MAY
PROCEED WITH THESE MITIGATION
MEASURES THE COURT MAY NOT
CONSIDER ANY OTHER EVIDENCE
THAT'S EMBEDDED IN THE I. R..
EVEN IF IT'S MORE COMPELLING.
THERE'S NO WEIGHING OF
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN FACT THAT
POINT WAS CITED IN MADE VERY
CLEAR IN THE COULD DISS OWN
PUBLISHED.
APPELLATE DECISION SO WHEN WE
SAY SEEK FURTHER BEEN FIVE
SEQUEL LAWSUITS AND SEEK WAS
FULLY RESOLVED IN AND RECONCILE
THESE ISSUES NOTHING COULD BE
FURTHER THAN THE TRUTH IN FACT
SEEK WITH DOES NOT PERMIT THAT
SORT OF RECONCILIATION.
AND NORMALLY.
PERHAPS NINETY NINE POINT 9% OF
THE TIME WHERE YOU HAVE A A LEAD
AGENCY THAT SUBJECTIVE THAT'S OF
A LOCAL CITY OR A COUNTY THAT
WHERE THE ELECTED TO RESPONSIBLE
TO CONSTITUENTS IN THE REGION
WERE THAT LEAD AGENCY DOES THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
AND ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THE
SCIENCE AND PICK THE BEST
SCIENCE IN ORDER TO BASE THAT.
ON WHICH TO BASE THE PROJECT YOU
DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM BUT WHERE
YOU HAVE A LEAD AGENCY THAT HAS
NO GROUND WATER.
SANTA MARGARITA WATER DISTRICT.
WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THE
PROJECT GETTING WATER?
AND USES THE SCIENCE THAT
SUPPORTS THAT AND I'M NOT
SUGGESTING ANY.
EVIL MOTIVE HERE.
BUT IT YOU HAVE YOU CAN HAVE ANY --
ARE THAT IS FLAWED WAS SCIENCE
THAT IS NOT RECONCILED AND IF
IT'S NOT RECONCILED IT COULD
CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE AND THAT'S
ESSENTIALLY THE CASE HERE.
OKAY IT MAY I YEAH AND I LIKE
THEIR FROM THE OPPOSITE BECAUSE
IT WAS IT COULD I JUST WANT TO
BE A LAWYER IN ON THIS THAT
THERE WERE FOUR SEQUEL LAWSUITS.
THERE WERE TWO LAWSUITS AGAINST
THE COUNTY.
UNDER ITS MANAGEMENT PLAN WE
KEEP TALKING ABOUT SEEK WERE.
IT WASN'T JUST SEQUEL.
THERE WAS A SEQUEL PROCESS IN
WHICH FINDINGS WERE MADE AND
THEN THE COUNTY INDEPENDENTLY
IMPOSED ITS OWN.
ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
WHICH HAD THE INTENDED PURPOSE
OF RECONCILING THE SAW THE THE
SCIENCE BY CREATING A STOPPER.
THEY PUT A FLOOR ON THE CHANGE
IN ELEVATION IN THE GROUNDWATER
TABLE SO REGARDLESS OF THE PUMP
AGE.
REGARDLESS OF THE RECHARGE.
THE WATER TABLE COULD NOT CHANGE
BY MORE THAN EIGHTY FEET.
NOW THAT WAS WHAT WAS OF
CHALLENGED IN COURT AND THAT WAS
ALSO SUSTAIN IN COURT THIS IS
NOT JUST TO SEE CORPORATE.
MR LIKE I I THINK IS SOME ABOUT
THIS I I THINK IT WHAT'S
IMPORTANT TO GET BACK TO THE
POINT.
WE SENT MANY HOURS WITH THE
AUTHOR OF THE SENATOR WHEN WE
DON'T DISAGREED WITH HIS DESIRE
TO HAVE A REVIEW OF THE SCIENCE.
ALL WE WANT TO KNOW IS THAT AT
THE END OF THE DAY.
WE'RE GONNA KNOW THAT THAT
REVIEW THE SCIENCE WAS
TRANSPARENT THAT RECONCILIATION
IS TRANSPARENT.
AND THAT INFANTS HE'S ME WE WE
HAVE A MEMBER ASKING QUESTIONS
SO WE'LL LET HIM FINISH ASKING
US QUESTIONS.
WELL I'D I'D LIKE THE MICHELIN'S
RESPONSE THAT GOOD ON AS FAR AS
THE SCIENCE GOES I'M SORRY MADAM
CHAIR I THOUGHT I WAS SPEAKING
THROUGH TO THE SUPPLEMENT.
I APOLOGIZE IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK
TO HIS QUESTION ABOUT THE SEQUEL
LAWSUIT THAT'S FINE.
BUT NOT TO GET BACK ON TO YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL I THINK WE
UNDERSTAND THAT OKAY.
MR MATHIS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I'D I'D LOVE TO HEAR. ONE MISTER.
LANG HAS TO TO ADD TO THE
CONVERSATION THROUGH THROUGH THE
CHAIR IF YOU.
WHAT ELECTION ARE YOU ASKING HIM
I?
ON ON THE REVIEW PART OF THE
SCIENCE AND MY QUESTIONS GOT
INTO YOU KNOW.
WE'RE THERE'S DIFFERENT AREAS.
THAT THIS PROJECT STUFF TO GO
THROUGH WHERE THEY'RE GONNA
DETERMINE DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC
PARTS.
ON ON SIGNETICS SPECIALLY THAT
THEY'RE GONNA GET INTO WHAT
THAT'S ACTUALLY GONNA LOOK LIKE
WILL BE OVER DRAFT.
THERE'S ALREADY DECISION THAT
SHOWS THAT WATER TABLE HAS TO BE
WITHIN THE EIGHTY FEET.
SO THAT'S ALREADY BUILT INTO
THAT THAT ARE GOING TO THAT
SIGMA DECISION.
AND IF MISTER LANG HAS ANYTHING
FOR PERTINENT AROUND THAT ARENA
HAVE I WILL I KNOW I WOULD LIKE
TO HEAR IT.
AND SINCE YOU KNOW WE'VE.
GOT DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS WE
CLEARLY THERE ONE INITIAL
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS HERE SO IF HE
HAS ANYTHING.
GERMANE TO THE SCIENTIFIC
PROCESS A AND THEY COULD BE GOOD
FOR THE COMMITTEE TO HEAR BUT
OBVIOUSLY MADAM CHAIR NO THAT'S
FINE I WASN'T SURE WHAT QUESTION
YOU WANT TO SPEAK.
SURE THEY WERE GETTING OFF TRACK
WE'RE LOOKING FOR NEW TESTIMONY
THIS IS A TIME FOR THE COMMITTEE
TO DELIBERATE.
ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAY HELP OR
NOT AND AND IF THAT'S A WAY OF
LEADING INTO ADDITIONAL
TESTIMONY THINK WERE.
LONG PAST THAT -- AND THERE IS A
MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR
OKAY IF YOU CAN BRIEFLY IF USE
IF YOU'VE ANY NEW INFORMATION TO
ADD ABOUT THE SITE THE THE THE
RECONCILING OF THE SCIENCE ALL
ALLOW THAT.
I THINK THAT INTERSECTION
EIGHTEEN TEN D. DOES REQUIRE A
REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF A PROJECT.
WHAT WERE SIMPLY IN THAT CASE
THE REVIEW ACTUALLY HAPPENS AT A
PUBLIC TRANSPARENT WAY AND THE?
THE THE DETERMINATION MADE IS
DONE IN A PUBLIC WAY THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE ASKING HERE IN THIS REVIEW
IS IF A REVIEW IS DONE THAT IT
BE.
PUBLIC AND THAT THE BASIS OF
THAT FINDING BE MADE PUBLIC AS
WELL.
OKAY THANK YOU MISS LIMóN.
THANK YOU AND I DON'T WANT TO BE
REPETITIVE SO THAT WHAT I'M
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT
THIS CONVERSATION HAS BEEN
HAPPENING FOR TWO YEARS AT LEAST --
AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT LED YOU ALL TO PROPOSE THE
AMENDMENT YOU HAD JUST BECAUSE I
HAVEN'T SEEN THOSE AMENDMENTS --
IN THE TO YOUR CONVERSATION SO
WHAT CONDITIONS CHANGE THAT YOU
ARE NOW -- BRINGING FORWARD
AMENDMENTS.
HE DOES ALARM THE A LITTLE BIT
THAT -- IN THE TO YOUR
CONVERSATION IT IS DIDN'T SEE
THESE -- COME FORWARD AND NOW
THEY'RE HERE.
YOU KNOW DAYS BEFORE THE VOTE IF
YOU COULD JUST HELP ME
UNDERSTAND THAT.
MANAGER OF JULY REPRESENTING
KIDDIES.
WE'VE HAD A VARIETY OF
DISCUSSIONS WE HAD A VERY
THOROUGH HEARING IN DISCUSSION
OF POTENTIAL MOMENTS BACK IN THE
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES
COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS YEAR
ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO -- WE
DISCUSSED MANY AMENDMENTS AT
THAT POINT WE HAVE SINCE HAD
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SENATOR.
THIS IS SORT OF BEEN A A LITTLE
BIT OF A MOVING TARGET AND A AND
A WORK IN PROGRESS QUITE FRANKLY
WITH THE SENATOR.
AS WE HAVE GONE A LONG WE HAVE
IT HAD TRIED TO NARROW THE
AMENDMENTS.
WE DON'T BELIEVE STATE LANDS
COMMISSION IS THE APPROPRIATE
AGENCY THEY DON'T HAVE THE
EXPERIENCE FOR EXAMPLE AND AND
THE ABILITY TO DO THIS BUT WITH
THE SENATORS.
STRONG FEELINGS THAT THAT IS THE
RIGHT AGENCY WE DECIDED OKAY
LET'S NARROW OR AMENDMENTS
DIRECTLY TO THE PROCESS SO THAT
WHATEVER AGENCY DOES IS REVIEW
THAT THERE ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS
THAT IT'S TRANSPARENT.
AND THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY
THAT.
THE FINDINGS THE BASIS OF THOSE
FINDINGS BE PUBLIC SO THAT WE
CAN KNOW THEM SO THAT THE
OPPONENTS CAN KNOW THEM.
THAT'S WHY WE LIKE THE WORD
DETERMINATION BECAUSE THAT MEANS
THAT IT IS A DETERMINATION BOUND
BY.
FINDINGS AND FACTS THAT ARE THE
BASIS OF THAT DETERMINATION SO
SO WE HAVE NARROWED I REQUEST
YES IT'S IT'S FOR PUBLIC TO SAY
A SUPPLEMENT ASSEMBLY WILL MOVE
OUT.
OF ME -- NOT OUT OF THE FACT
THAT WE FEEL STRONGER THAT THE
STATE LANDS COMMISSION IS THE
APPROPRIATE AGENCY BECAUSE WE
DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE
EXPERTISE BUT IN AN ATTEMPT TO
TRY AND REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE SENATOR AND THE PROPONENTS
OF THE BILL WE HAVE NARROWED I
REQUEST.
AND IS IT NOT THE CASE THAT
STATE LANDS REVIEW THE PUBLIC
LANDS.
WE ARE VERY WE HEARD WE HOPE YES
WE WE HOPE THAT THE IDEA WOULD
BE IS THAT THE THE BOXES UNLESS
THE APPLICANT.
PROVIDE CARRIES THE BURDEN OF
PROOF.
SO [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MISTER FLOOR.
THANK YOU A SENATOR HAVE
PROCEDURE TIME I KNOW THIS BILL
HAS NOT BEEN EASY FOR A LOT OF
PEOPLE AND IN MY MAJOR CONCERN
WITH THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION
IS QUITE FRANKLY THE PRECEDENT
THAT SETS.
WATER IS IS VITAL TO MY DISTRICT
AND IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
REVIEWS LIKE THIS CONSTANTLY
WHEN PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THE
OUTCOME -- I THINK THE PRESIDENT
IS TREMENDOUS SO I AM CURIOUS SO
YOU KNOW.
WHAT XPECTS REDUCES THE STATE
LANDS COMMISSION HAVE ON
GROUNDWATER ISSUES AND I THINK
WE CAN HEARD THAT MAYBE NOT A
LOT?
THEN WHY DID WE DECIDE THAT THEY
SHOULD LEAVE THE EFFORTS WHEN WE
HAVE A STATE WATER RESOURCE
BOARD OR D. W. ARE THOSE OF THE
PROFESSIONALS THAT RELATE TO
THIS ISSUE.
AS A WE START TALKING ABOUT
SIGMA WHICH IS GONNA HAVE A
DRASTIC EFFECT ON MY DISTRICT.
IF EVERYTHING THAT WE GO THROUGH
WITH THE D. W. R. AND THE WATER
BOARD.
MY CONSTITUENTS ARE NOW
POTENTIALLY GOING TO HAVE TO
HAVE A THIRD.
AGENCY LOOKING DOWN THEIR THROAT.
ON EVERY WATER PLAN THAT THEY
PROPOSE.
IT'S A HUGE CONCERN OF OURS
BECAUSE THIS BILL.
SEEMS TO HAVE GONE THROUGH.
ALL.
THE RED TAPE.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN HELD UP IN
COURT MULTIPLE TIMES.
WE SAID IN THIS COMMITTEE A LOT.
TALKING ABOUT.
REDUCING SEEK WHAT.
MAKING SURE WE FAST TRACK
PROJECTS.
NOT THIS BILL NOT THIS PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT HAS GONE THROUGH
ALL.
AND YET IT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH.
SO REALLY COMES DOWN TO ONE
THING FOR ME IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE
THE OPPONENTS OF THIS BILL.
SIMPLY DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME.
AND THEY'RE DOING WHATEVER THEY
CAN TO PUT A DEATH KNELL IN THIS
PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AND THAT IS A HUGE CONCERN OF
MINE.
BECAUSE IF THESE PROJECTS IN THE
SOUTHERN PART OF THE STATE DO
NOT MOVE FORWARD.
AND WE CANNOT FIND A STATE WIDE
WATER FIX.
ALL THINGS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED
IN THIS.
WE ARE GOING TO RUN OUT OF WATER
WE CAN'T BUILD RESERVOIRS.
WE CAN'T BUILD CONVEYANCE
SYSTEMS.
WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.
RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT LOCKED WITH
THIS ISSUE.
AND THIS IS JUST ONE MORE --
PROJECT THAT I'M SEEING THAT HAS
GONE THROUGH IT ALL.
THAT WE'RE GONNA KILL.
AS THEY WERE GOING TO KILL
BECAUSE THERE'S A SERIES OF
EMAILS THAT ARE OUT THERE.
BETWEEN THE STATE.
LANDS COMMISSION WITH THE
OPPONENTS OF THIS BILL.
THEY SHOW A CLEAR BIAS WHAT
THEIR INTENTIONS ARE WHEN THIS
BILL COMES.
AND I'VE GOT THE EMAILS AND WE'D
BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHARE
THOSE WITH YOU.
BUT THIS IS A HUGE CONCERN WHEN
YOU HAVE A GOVERNMENT
BUREAUCRACY.
ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN KILLING A
PRIVATE PROJECT THAT CAN ONLY
BENEFIT THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE
STATE AND IF IT DOES NOT GO
THROUGH.
IT FALLS BACK ON MY CONSTITUENTS.
FALLS BACK ON OUR AREA.
AND ARE CONVEYANCE DOWN THERE.
WE HAVE TO TAKE AN HONEST LOOK
AT WATER AND WE MUST.
HAVE AN ENTIRE STATEWIDE WATER
FIX AND I APOLOGIZE -- THIS BILL
IS IS ONE OF THOSE BILLS THAT I
KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR
A WHILE.
BUT IF WE DO NOT GET THIS BILL
RIGHT AND THIS IS THE PRESIDENT
THAT WE SET.
YOU KNOW IS COMMON ABOUT WARREN
G. REGULATORS MOUNT UP WE'RE
LEGISLATORS.
WE'RE NOT REGULATORS.
OKAY OUR JOB IS TO LEGISLATE AND
LET THOSE FOLKS DO THEIR JOB.
NOW IT'S GONE THROUGH IT.
AND NOW WE'RE COMING BACK
ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE AND I
THINK THAT PRESIDENT IS -- IS
DEVASTATING FOR A LOT OF
PROJECTS THAT ARE SO VERY
IMPORTANT EACH AND EVERYONE OF
US THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ALL OF YOU RESPOND
WELL FIRST LET ME.
THE SIGMA PHRASES BEEN BANDIED
ABOUT HERE LET ME JUST.
CLEAR THE AIR THIS HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH SIGMA.
THERE IS NO SIGNUP PROCESS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT TO
MY KNOWLEDGE AND IF SOMEONE'S
ANALYSIS REFLECTS THAT THEN I
GUESS WE NEED TO GET TOGETHER
AND FIGURE OUT.
THE BASIS FOR THE STATEMENTS IN
THE ANALYSIS BECAUSE SIGNET
SIMPLY DOES NOT APPLY AS COULD
DIS ITSELF.
ADMITTED IN ITS OWN A PELLET
PROCEDURE AND PUBLISHED
APPELLATE DECISION.
NUMBER ONE TWO WITH RESPECT TO
OTHER PROJECTS I SUPPOSE IF
THEY'RE IN THE MOJAVE.
YOU NEED TO BE CONCERNED.
IF SOME OF US WHO HAVE VIEWS
ABOUT THE MOJAVE -- ARE CORRECT.
AND IF THE BILL PASSES PROJECTS
IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECTS
IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROJECTS IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
ARE NOT IMPACTED BY THIS UNLESS
THEY HAPPEN TO BE ON THE COAST
IN WHICH CASE YOU HAVE THE
COASTAL COMMISSION TO DEAL WITH.
I'VE I'VE ATTEMPTED TO OUTLINE
THE THE THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE SECRET PROCESS IN THIS
CASE IN THE AND THE ISSUE SIMPLE
YOUR THE COURT CAN'T RESOLVE THE
SCIENCE AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO
BY LAW UNDER THE STANDARD TO
REVIEW.
NOW WE COULD ASK WHY COULD THESE
AND ALL OF THE YEARS THAT WE'VE
BEEN DOING THIS.
WHY KIDDIES HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO
RECONCILE THE SCIENCE ITSELF?
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THERE'S
BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIFTY
THOUSAND ACRE FEET PER YEAR AND
TWO TO TEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET
PER YEAR OR THIRTY TWO THOUSAND
ACRE.
FEET PER YEAR INTO THAT OR TO
PROTECT TEN THOUSAND ACRE FEET
PER YEAR.
ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS GET IT
RIGHT BECAUSE I THINK THE
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO GET A
RIGHT.
ARE NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE
CENTRAL VALLEY HAVE NOTHING TO
DO WITH SIGMA ARE NOT GOING TO
CHANGE SEEK WE EVEN FOR SOME OF
US WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE SEQUEL.
BUT ARE GOING TO PROTECT THE
MOJAVE AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT.
MR.
FOR AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT
THIS PRESIDENT.
IS IS THE PART THAT I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE PRESIDENT
THAT WE'RE SITTING HERE YEAH
THERE MAY NOT BE A PARTICULAR
PROJECT.
BUT IF WE DON'T LIKE A PROJECT
THAT GOES THROUGH ALL OF THE
DIFFERENT -- REVIEWS. FOR THAT
THE STATE HAS SET UP.
AND THEN IT GETS THE GREEN LIGHT
TO GO AND THEN WE TAKE ANOTHER
BITE AT THE APPLE THAT'S MY
CONCERN.
IS THAT THIS THINKING DOES GET
HELD UP IN BOTTLED UP TIME AND
TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO THE CLOCK
RESETS AND WE'RE STARTED ALL
OVER AGAIN.
AND GUESS WHAT STILL HAPPENING.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE WATER.
WE'RE STILL NOT CONVEYING WATER
WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO.
AND SO WHAT THIS IS TO ME IS
JUST A A BUNCH OF BUREAUCRATIC
RED TAPE DESIGNED TO SLOW
PROJECTS DOWN THE PARTICULAR
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS DO NOT
LIKE.
AND THIS IS TO ME JUST ANOTHER
CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THAT AND I
THINK YOU CENTER.
THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE.
SEE NOW MISTER ROTH WOULD YOU
LIKE TO GIVE US ANY.
CLOSING COMMENTS THAT YOU FEEL
THE NEED TO MAKE AT THIS POINT
MADAM CHAIR I THINK I'LL SPARE
YOU.
AND SIMPLY -- REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE [inaudible]
THANK YOU.
I WITH THAT -- I WILL BE VOTING
YES ON THIS BILL -- I AGREE WITH
THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL THAT.
WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE GIVEN
THE IMPACT ON PUBLIC LANDS LET'S
BE CLEAR NOT EVERY WATER PROJECT
IMPACTS PUBLIC LANDS MOST OF
THEM DON'T.
MOST WATER PROJECTS DON'T IMPACT
ON JUST PUBLIC AND STATE LANDS
BUT VERY FRAGILE LANDS I THINK
THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE GET IT RIGHT -- AND WITHOUT
I'LL BE VOTING YES THAT COME
WITH A ROLL CALL PLEASE.
ITEM ONE SB THREE OH SEVEN BY
SENATOR ROTH THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AND REFER TO APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE.
MEMBERS FRIEDMAN YES FRIEDMAN I
FLORA.
FLORA NO CHAU CHAU AYE EGGMAN
[inaudible]
GARCIA.
THE I. Là MON.
LIMON AYE MATHIS.
MATHIS NO MCCARTY.
MCCARTY AYE MELENDEZ MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI AYE STONE.
STONE I SEVEN TWO SEVEN TWO
THANK YOU.
THE MANAGER MEMBERS ROLE OPEN
FOR THE OFFICE NUMBER.
I SEE SENATOR HUESO HERE.
WITH SB [inaudible]
THREE SIXTY SEVEN THANK VENTURE.
THE WAY SO YOU HAVE A MOTION THE
SECOND YES.
I'LL TAKE IT.
BUT I DO HAVE BUT I'M SORRY.
YES AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
DID YOU ONCE ANY OTHER.
OKAY I JUST WANTED A RESPECT
LESS FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY
THANK YOU IN THE ANYBODY YOUR
WITNESS YES.
KILL AYE YELLOW ON BEHALF ALL OF
THE MARITIME MUSEUM OF SAN DIEGO --
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL
THREE SIXTY SEVEN AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE THANK YOU AND JUST TO
CLARIFY WE BE ACCEPTING THE AND
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS YES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH IS THERE
ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD WISH TO A
VOICE OR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL.
GOOD AFTERNOON MORGAN CANYON ON
A PATH OF MID PENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU FOR ANYBODY WISHING TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL.
SEEING NONE WE HAVE A MOTION AND
A SECOND WAIVER ROLL CALL PLEASE.
ITEM THREE SB THREE SIXTY SEVEN
BY SENATOR HUESO THE MOTION IS
TO PASS AS AMENDED AND REFER TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FRIEDMAN AYE FRIEDMAN AYE FLORA.
FLORA I'D CHAU CHOW I EGGMAN.
GARCIA.
GARCIA I LIMóN.
LIMON AYE MATHIS MATHIS I
MCCARTY.
MCCARTY AYE MELENDEZ.
MURATSUCHI.
MURATSUCHI AYE STONE AYE STONE
AYE. NINE ZERO NINE ZERO THE
BILL IS OUT THANKS VERY MUCH
YEAH.
WE ARE WITH A MOTION A SECOND
THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHICH
CONSISTS OF SB -- THREE FIFTY
ONE COME WE HAVE A ROLL CALL ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR PLEASE ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR MEMBERS
FRIEDMAN AYE FRIEDMAN AYE FLORA.
FLORA AYE CHAUCHAU AYE EGGMAN.
GARCIA AYE GARCIA AYE LIMóN.
LIMON AYE MATHIS.
MATHIS I MCCARTY.
MCCARTY AYE MELENDEZ.
MURATSUCHI.
RED TO GI STONE.
STONE AYE NINE ZERO NINE ZERO
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS ADOPTED
WE WILL HOLD THE ROLE OPEN FOR
FIVE MORE MINUTES FOR ANY ABSENT
MEMBERS
[inaudible]
OKAY [inaudible] TO YEAH THANKS.
IT IS A LOT.
ON THE WAY.
SHE SAYS BY.
WHICH IS HEADED BY THE RIVER
YEAH THE STAFF IN A LETTER
.
TO WE'RE GONNA OPEN THE ROLE FOR
ABSENT MEMBERS.
ITEM ONE SB THREE OH SEVEN BY
CENTER ROTH THE MOTION IS TO
PASS AND REFERRED APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CURRENT VOTE SEVENTY
TWO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING ICE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING NO ABSENT
MEMBERS EGGMAN.
MELINDA'S.
LENDERS NOT EARNING.
ITEM TO SB SEVEN OR THREE FIFTY
ONE BY HER TITLE DO PASSED
REFERRED APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE WITH CONSENT
RECOMMENDATION.
CURRENT VOTE NINE TO ZERO ABSENT
MEMBERS EGGMAN MELINDA'S
MOMENTOUS I ITEM THREE SB THREE
SIXTY SEVEN BY HUESO MOTION IS
TO PASS AS AMENDED TO REFER TO
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CURRENT
VOTE IS.
NINE TO ZERO WITH THE CHAIRMAN
THE VICE CHAIR VOTING I ABSENT
MEMBERS EGGMAN BELINDA'S.
MULLIN DOES NOT VOTING
[inaudible]
THANK YOU
[inaudible]
RIGHT [inaudible]
THE PROBLEM.
LET'S JUST TAKE A BREAK.
YEAH A LITTLE BIT.
SHE WAS PRESENT IN [inaudible]
TWO THOUSAND SEVEN YEAH.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR YEAH
[inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
THE BABY [inaudible]
SO BIG [inaudible]
AND
ONE YEAH
WE'RE GONNA OPEN
THE ROLE AGAIN FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS [inaudible]
YEAH [inaudible]
THAT'S ITEM ONE SB THREE OH
SEVEN BY SENATE ROTH TO PASS AND
REFERRED APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CURRENT BEAU IS SEVEN
JUST.
TO WITH THE CHAIR VOTING I IN
THE VICE CHAIR VOTING NO NUMBER.
ABSENT MEMBERS EGGMAN NOT VOTING.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
CURRENT GOAL IS NINE ZERO ABSENT
MEMBERS EGGMAN HI.
EGGMAN AYE [inaudible] ELEVEN
ZERO I DON'T THREE SB THREE
SIXTY SEVEN HUESO TO PASS AS
AMENDED REFERRED APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE CURRENT -- IS TEND TO
ZERO WITH THE CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR VOTING I REMEMBER EGGMAN
HI. ELEVEN ONE IS NOW IS RIGHT.
SO IT WAS NINE TO ZERO AND NOW
IT'S TEN ZERO OKAY THANK YOU
WITHOUT GRADING IS ADJOURNED