OKAY. WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING
TO ORDER OF ASSEMBLY. WATER,
PARKS AND WILDLIFE. GOOD MORNING
EVERYONE, TO ENSURE MEMBERS OF
THE MEDIA AND PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS
TO OUR PROCEEDINGS TODAY. THIS
HEARING WILL BE STREAMLINED. AND
THE ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE AND
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN
PROVIDE TESTIMONY IN PERSON HERE
IN ROOM FOUR, FOUR, SEVEN. COME
ONE, COME ALL, AND I WANT TO
NOTE THAT THIS IS A CHANGE FROM
THE FOUR, FOUR, FOUR. I WANT TO
WELCOME ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO WHO?
I THINK WILL BE WITH US SHORTLY,
AND HE IS REPLACING ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MATHIS, WHO WILL BE
ABSENT FROM TODAY'S HEARING. I
ALSO WANT TO REPRESENT WELCOME
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GALLAGHER. ALSO
NOT HERE, BUT I'M SURE WE'LL BE
COMING WITH. BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. HE IS REPLACING
ASSEMBLY MEMBER DOLLY FOR
TODAY'S HEARING, DUE TO AN
APPROVED ABSENCE, WITNESSES FOR
EACH BILL WERE ALLOWING UP TO
TWO MAIN WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
2ND MAY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
FOLLOWING THE PRIMARY. WITNESSES
REMAINING WITNESSES ARE ASKED TO
LIMIT THEIR TESTIMONY TO THEIR
NAME. ORGANIZATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
ME, TO. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COOPERATION. WE'VE GOT TWO BILLS
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR, BUT WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE'LL BE
OPERATING AS A SUBCOMMITTEE
UNTIL ALL WE CAN GET ROLLING.
BUT WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I WANT
TO WELCOME ASSEMBLY MEMBER
HOOVER, WHO IS HERE ON BEHALF OF
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FONG, AND WE'LL
START WITH 2617. AND, WE CAN GO
ON TO TWO SEVEN, NINE NINE AFTER
THAT. 25 SEVEN. EXCUSE ME, 2517
SAYS 26 HERE, BUT THAT'S OKAY. I
KNOW MY PAPER WAS WRONG OR YOUR
A OKAY, ALL RIGHT. CAN EVERYONE
HEAR ME? YES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER VINCE FONG, THE
AUTHOR WOULD LIKE TO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS AND PASS
ALONG THEIR THANKS FOR, WORKING
WITH THEM DURING THE HISTORIC
STORMS AND PRECIPITATION LAST
YEAR, MANY WATERWAYS WERE
INUNDATED WITH AN UNPRECEDENTED
VOLUME OF WATER, WHICH LED TO
SEVERE FLOODING, SPECIFICALLY IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY, IRRIGATION
DISTRICTS PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE
IN CLEARING CHANNELS AND
WATERWAYS TO PREVENT OVERFLOWS
AND MORE FLOODING. THEY ENTER
INTO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER
RESOURCES FOR A TERME OF FIVE
YEARS OR LESS OR MORE THAN FIVE
YEARS, WHICH ARE CONSIDERED LONG
TERME AGREEMENTS, BUT WITHOUT
DEFINED TIMELINES FOR RESPONDING
AND IMPROVING LONG TERME
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS.
IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ARE LEFT
WITH LITTLE CERTAINTY AS TO HOW
THEY CAN MAINTAIN LOCAL
WATERWAYS. AB 2517 WOULD SIMPLY
EXPEDITE THE DEPARTMENT'S
RESPONSE TO DISTRICTS REQUESTS
FOR LONG TERME MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENTS. THEY CAN ACT SWIFTLY
TO CLEAR DEBRIS, FROM WATERWAYS
AND PROTECT RURAL COMMUNITIES
FROM EXCESS FLOODING, RESPECTFUL
REQUESTS AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
EXCELLENT. NO WITNESSES? I'M NOT
SURE IF THEY'RE HERE. OKAY ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS I THINK WE MAY HAVE A
QUORUM NOW. WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM. SO. GUESS WHAT? WE'LL
TAKE A VOTE A LITTLE BIT LATER
ONCE WE GET A QUORUM. BUT THANK
YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. LET'S
HAVE YOU MOVE ON, THEN. TO AB
2799, ITEM FOUR. ALL RIGHT,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, ALSO PRESENTING AB 2799
ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLY MEMBER
VINCE FONG, THE 2023 WATER YEAR
SAW A MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RAIN
AND SNOWFALL PUSHING
CALIFORNIA'S WATER
INFRASTRUCTURE TO ITS LIMITS. IN
SOME REGIONS, THE STATE RECEIVED
UPWARDS OF 322% OF NORMAL ANNUAL
PRECIPITATION. THE SOUTHERN
CENTRAL VALLEY WAS HIT,
ESPECIALLY HARD, WITH MASSIVE
FLOODING OVERWHELMING THE DAMS,
RIVERS AND CANALS THAT MANAGE
FLOWS THROUGHOUT THE REGION. TO
HELP OFFSET THIS STRESS ON OUR
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND AID
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE, MANY
FARMER FARMERS INTENTIONALLY
FLOODED THEIR FIELDS WHILE THIS
WAS DONE AS A SERVICE FOR THE
GOOD OF THE WHOLE INDUSTRY AND
THE GREATER CENTRAL VALLEY
COMMUNITY, THESE FARMERS
RECEIVED NO CREDITS TOWARD THEIR
WATER USE BILLS FOR THIS
VOLUNTARY GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT. AB 2799
SIMPLY DIRECTS GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCIES TO
CONSIDER EFFORTS BY SMALL FARMS
TO RECHARGE THEIR GROUNDWATER
BASINS THROUGH VOLUNTARY,
THROUGH VOLUNTARILY ALLOWING
PERCOLATION AND FLOODING OF
THEIR LAND DURING HIGH WATER
EVENTS. FARMS ACROSS CALIFORNIA
CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE EVERY DAY
WITH INCREASING WATER USE
REGULATIONS AND FEES. THIS BILL
WILL ENCOURAGE THEM THE FURTHER
VOLUNTARY GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
ADOPTION AND RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST FOR AN AYE VOTE.
EXCELLENT. GREAT ANY WITNESSES
IN FAVOR? ANY WITNESSES OPPOSED
WHO CAN BE OPPOSED TO VOLUNTARY
GROUNDWATER? GROUNDWATER
RECHARGING, LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS STILL NO QUORUM.
WONDERFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE
WILL TAKE IT UP AS SOON AS WE
GET ONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HOOVER. HAVE A
GREAT DAY.
SO. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. FRIEDMAN OR
GARCIA, IF YOU'RE LISTENING,
WE'RE WAITING.
OKAY, WE'VE GOT A QUORUM, SO
LET'S, CALL ROLL. PAPPIN PAPPIN
HERE TO ADDIS. HERE. ADDIS HERE.
ALANIZ. ALVAREZ. ALVAREZ HERE.
BENNETT BONTA. GALLAGHER.
DAVIES. DAVIES HERE. GARCIA.
HART. HART. HERE. THREE OF US.
HERE. RIVAS. HERE. SCHIAVO. VILA
PADUA. HERE. WEBER. WEBER. HERE
EXCELLENT. SO WE HAVE, LET'S
TAKE UP THE CONSENT CALENDAR, A
MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION FROM
DAVIES, WHO IS THE SECOND?
ALVAREZ? ALVAREZ OKAY, THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, ITEM NUMBER
ONE, AB 2409 PAPPIN Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. ITEM NUMBER
FIVE, AB 3007. HOOVER Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. PAPPIN A PAPPIN
I TO ADDIS. ADDIS I ALANIZ.
ALVAREZ I ALVAREZ I BENNETT.
BONTA. GALLAGHER DAVIES. DAVIES
I. GARCIA HART. HART I THREE OF
US I THREE OF US I. SCHIAVO.
VILA. PADUA VILA. I. WEBER.
WEBER. I AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
BENNETT FOR CONSENT. CONSENT.
CALENDAR. BENNETT I. SO WE'VE
ALREADY HEARD TWO BILLS. THEY
WERE BOTH, ASSEMBLYMEMBER FONG
BILLS AS PRESENTED BY HOOVER.
AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A
VOTE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR
THE. OKAY. SO THAT WAS A MOTION
AB 2517 WITH A SECOND FROM
MOTION FROM DAVIES, SECOND FROM
VÌ. ITEM NUMBER TWO 2517. MOTION
IS Dð. PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AS PAPPIN A
PAPPIN I TO ADDIS. ADDIS I
ALANIS ALVAREZ. ALVAREZ I
BENNETT. BENNETT I BONTA.
GALLAGHER, DAVE LIZ DAVIES I
GARCIA. HART HART I THREE OF US
THREE OF US I SCHIAVO. VILLA
PADUA. VILLA I WEBER, WEBER I.
EXCELLENT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND
LEAVE THE ROLL OPEN. BUT THE
BILL IS OUT AND LET'S GET A
MOTION IF WE CAN IN A SECOND. ON
THE SECOND, VINCE FONG, BILL,
WHICH IS AB 2799, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM DAVIES, SECOND FROM
ADDIS. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL
THE ROLL. OKAY, ITEM NUMBER
FOUR, AB 2799. MOTION IS Dð PASS
TO AGRICULTURE. PAPPIN A PAPPIN
I TO ADDIS I ADDIS I ALANIS I
ALANIS I ALVAREZ. I ALVAREZ I
BENNETT BENNETT I BONTA
GALLAGHER. DAVIES. DAVIES I
GARCIA HART HART I THREE OF US
RIVAS I SCHIAVO. VILA I WEBER.
WEBER I. OKAY, LET'S SEE IF WE
CAN GET MR. ALANIZ VOTE IN ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSENT
CALENDAR, TO ALANIS. ALANIS. I.
WHILE WE'RE WAITING, MAYBE WE
CAN GET MR. GALLAGHER UP TO
SPEED ON HIS VOTES ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. AND THE TWO
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FONG BILLS.
CONSENT CALENDAR TO BONTA.
GALLAGHER. GALLAGHER. AYE.
GARCIA SCHIAVO. OKAY. AND THEN,
ITEM NUMBER TWO, AB 2517. MOTION
IS Dð PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS TO
ALANIS, ALANIS I BONTA.
GALLAGHER. GALLAGHER I GARCIA.
SCHIAVO. OKAY. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER
FOUR AB 2799. MOTION DO PASS TO
AGRICULTURE TO BONTA. GALLAGHER
GALLAGHER I GARCIA. SCHIAVO OKAY
.
SO WE'LL KEEP THE ROLL OPEN FOR
ANYBODY ELSE THAT MIGHT COME IN,
BUT IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH OF THOSE
ARE OUT.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. WHILE WE WAIT,
WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU UP TO
SPEED ON SOME OF THE VOTES WE'VE
TAKEN. CONSENT CALENDAR AND TWO,
SOME MEMBER FONG BILLS CONSENT
CALENDAR TO BONTA, GARCIA.
SCHIAVO SCHIAVO I ITEM NUMBER
TWO, AB 2517. MOTION IS DO PASS,
AS AMENDED, TO APPROPRIATIONS TO
BONTA, GARCIA. SCHIAVO. SCHIAVO.
I. ITEM NUMBER FOUR, AB 2799.
MOTION IS Dð PASS TO AGRICULTURE
TO BONTA. GARCIA. SCHIAVO
SCHIAVO I OKAY.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. FRIEDMAN.
WELCOME THANK YOU, WHY DON'T WE
HAVE YOU TAKE IT AWAY ON AB
2552? ITEM NUMBER THREE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I WANT TO
THANK YOU AND YOUR COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK
ON THIS BILL. AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE SUGGESTED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AS LAID OUT
IN THE ANALYSIS. DESPITE THE
PASSING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
BILLS SUCH AS AB 1788 AND AB
1322, RECENT EVIDENCE FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,
WHICH IS CDF, SUGGESTS THERE IS
STILL WIDESPREAD EXPOSURE AND
DEATH TO WILDLIFE FROM ESCHARS
AND OTHER ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDES. EXPOSURE TO
ANTICOAGULANT CGRTS CAN RESULT
IN BOTH LETHAL AND SUBLETHAL
EFFECTS ON NON-TARGET WILDLIFE,
INCLUDING SEVERE SKIN DISEASE,
AND DECREASED IMMUNE SYSTEM
RESPONSE. IF YOU'VE SEEN THE
PICTURES OF P-22 LOOKING LIKE
HE'S SUFFERING FROM MANGE,
THAT'S ACTUALLY A ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDE POISONING. IT MEANS
THAT THAT ANIMAL IS HEMORRHAGING
FROM WITHIN. AND IT'S WHAT WE
WHAT A LOT OF IF YOU SEE A DEAD
OWL IN THE STREET, IF YOU SEE A,
OTHER KINDS OF RAPTORS THAT ARE
DEAD LYING ON THE GROUND, IT'S
USUALLY ANTICOAGULANT,
RODENTICIDE. WE KNOW THAT FROM
NECROPSIES ON THESE ANIMALS, AND
WHAT'S ALSO REALLY IRONIC ABOUT
THIS IS THAT THESE APEX
PREDATORS ARE THE ARE ACTUALLY
THE NATURAL RODENT CONTROL, THE
LAST THING THAT A RAT WILL EVER
SEE IN THE WILDLIFE IS OFTEN THE
FACE OF AN OWL OR A HAWK. AND IF
WE KILL ALL THOSE ANIMALS,
THAT'S WHEN WE REALLY GET NATURE
OUT OF BALANCE. AND WE GET LARGE
RODENT INFESTATIONS. AB 50 2552
ADDS THE TWO REMAINING FIRST
GENERATION ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDES, CALLED FCRS
CHLOROACETOPHENONE AND PARAFFIN
TO THE EXISTING RODENTICIDE.
RODENTICIDE MORATORIUM TO BETTER
PROTECT WILDLIFE FROM
UNINTENTIONAL RODENTICIDE
POISONING WHILE MAINTAINING
EXCEPTIONS FOR ITS USE TO
PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH, WATER
SUPPLIES AND AGRICULTURE. SO
THERE'S VERY LARGE ALLOWANCES IN
THIS BILL FOR BEING ABLE TO USE
THESE SUBSTANCES OFTEN, MORE
THAN ONE ANTICOAGULANT IS USED
AT A TIME, LEADING TO CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS. THE STATE'S MORATORIUM
NEEDS TO CONSIDER CUMULATIVE
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FROM THESE
POISONS USED ALTOGETHER. THE
BILL ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION ENACT STRONGER
PERMANENT RESTRICTIONS TO AFCARS
TO LIMIT UNINTENDED WILDLIFE
POISONINGS, WHILE MAKING
CHLOROPHENOL AND GRIFFIN A
RESTRICTED MATERIAL SO THAT YOUR
AVERAGE JOE ISN'T BUYING THIS
REALLY DEADLY PRODUCT AT HOME
DEPOT. ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDES CONTINUED TO RESULT
IN UNREASONABLE NUMBER OF PUBLIC
HEALTH INCIDENTS, WITH OVER 3000
HUMAN POISONINGS IN 2021 ALONE
AND AT LEAST 2300 OF THESE
INVOLVING CHILDREN UNDER SIX
YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF POISON CONTROL
CENTERS. BUT I'D LIKE TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO HIGHLIGHT THE CONCERNS
THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OPPOSITION
ABOUT THE BILL. AS WITH EXISTING
MORATORIUMS ON ANTICOAGULANT
CGRTS, THE BILL HAS EXEMPTIONS
FOR PUBLIC HEALTH,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGRICULTURE.
EVEN WITH THE PASSAGE OF THIS
BILL, THERE WOULD BE DOZENS OF
OTHER RODENTICIDE PRODUCTS
AVAILABLE FOR USE IN ALL
AGRICULTURAL SETTINGS. FOR
EXAMPLE, ZINC PHOSPHIDE IS THE
MOST COMMONLY USED RODENTICIDE
IN AGRICULTURE, AND THIS BILL
DOES NOT LIMIT ITS USE BECAUSE
IT ISN'T FREQUENTLY DETECTED IN
WILDLIFE. THE US EPA IS
UNDERGOING ITS PERIODIC REVIEW
OF RODENTICIDES AND HAS
CIRCULATED A PROPOSED INTERIM
DECISION FOR 11 RODENTICIDES,
INCLUDING ANTICOAGULANTS.
UNFORTUNATELY MANY OF EPA'S
PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS HAVE
ALREADY PROVEN INEFFECTIVE FOR
LIMITING WILDLIFE POISONINGS IN
CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE WE STILL SEE
WIDE SPREAD POISONINGS OF
MATERIALS BANNED BY THE EPA.
THEIR PROCESS IS ALSO SLOW, IT'S
WAY BEHIND SCHEDULE, AND EVEN
MEAGER STEPS AND RESTRICTIONS
ARE BEING OPPOSED BY HOUSE
REPUBLICANS. SO IT MAY NOT GET
THROUGH TO CONTROL GROUND
SQUIRRELS AND GOPHERS. MOST
FARMERS USE OTHER PRODUCTS LIKE
ZINC PHOSPHIDE AND GOPHER TRAPS.
OWL BOXES AND RAPTOR PERCHES
HAVE PROVEN VERY HELPFUL TO KEEP
RODENT NUMBERS DOWN ON FARMS AS
IT RELATES TO OTHER
ALTERNATIVES. A PILOT STUDY
USING RODENT FERTILITY CONTROL
WAS PERFORMED AT AN ANIMAL
PRODUCTION FACILITY IN
CALIFORNIA, IN WHICH RAT
PRESENCE WAS SUCCESSFULLY
REDUCED BY 94. PREDATION ON
CHICKENS AND GRAIN LOSS FROM RAT
CONSUMPTION WAS SIGNIFICANTLY
REDUCED, WHILE USING FERTILITY
CONTROL. TO BE CLEAR, THE VAST
MAJORITY OF AGRICULTURE REMAINS
COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM THIS
BILL. IT ONLY AFFECTS
AGRICULTURAL AREAS WITHIN 2500FT
OF A WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA. AND
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS I'VE
ACCEPTED COMPLETELY TAKE OUT
ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE LANDS. SO
WHEN IT COMES TO THE
ALTERNATIVES LIKE FERTILITY
PRODUCTS, THEY ARE READILY
AVAILABLE IN CALIFORNIA AND ARE
CATEGORIZED AS MINIMUM RISK
PESTICIDES THAT POSE LITTLE OR
NO RISK TO PEOPLE, PETS AND
PREDATORS. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING
FOR OTHER POISONS. I ALSO WANT
TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT WE ADDED
THE PRIVATE RIGHT TO ACTION JUST
THIS YEAR BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY,
THE LIMITED RESOURCE BANS COUNTY
AG COMMISSIONERS AND DPR FROM
EFFECTIVELY PREVENTING
UNINTENDED POISONING FOR BOTH
HUMANS AND WILDLIFE. SO THIS
ONLY INTENDS TO APPLY TO
INSTANCES IN WHICH STATE AND
LOCAL OFFICIALS LAST CAPACITY TO
ENFORCE. HOWEVER, WE ARE WILLING
TO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON THAT PROVISION, AND
WE ARE WILLING TO MAKE A
COMPROMISE WITH OPPONENTS ON THE
PDA PART OF THE BILL, I ALSO
WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT A PERSON
CANNOT EVEN BRING ACTION UNDER
THE CITIZEN SUIT, AS WE HAVE IT
IN THE BILL, UNLESS THEY FIRST
NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF PEST
REGULATIONS OF, OF, OF
UNOFFICIAL USE. AND AFTER SIX
AND AFTER 60 DAYS, NEITHER THE
DEPARTMENT NOR ANY LOCAL
OFFICIALS HAVE STARTED
ADDRESSING THE VIOLATION. SO
AGAIN, WE ARE WILLING TO FOREGO
THE CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT OF ANY
CIVIL PENALTIES TO REDUCE
POTENTIAL COSTS TO THE INDUSTRY.
SO WE'RE PUTTING THAT ON THE
TABLE TO THE OPPONENTS AS
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE WILLING TO
NEGOTIATE OVER. WE'RE ALSO
WILLING TO ELIMINATE THE ABILITY
TO SUE FOR CIVIL DAMAGES BEYOND
WHAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY ACTUAL
HARM TO A PERSON'S LIVESTOCK.
WHILE A AFFIRMING THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE CITY
ATTORNEY CAN ENFORCE THE LAW.
BUT WE NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION IN
THE NEXT COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THE
PRIVATE RIGHT TO ACTION WAS NOT
GERMANE IN THE JURISDICTION OF
THIS COMMITTEE. SO IT'S NOT
SOMETHING YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE
UP. SO WE HAVE TO BE TALKING
ABOUT IT IN A DIFFERENT
COMMITTEE, TESTIFYING AND
SUPPORT THIS AFTERNOON IS DOCTOR
REBECCA GULLEY, A SMITH FELLOW
AND POSTDOC AT UC DAVIS. AND
JONATHAN EVANS, ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH LEGAL DIRECTOR AND SENIOR
ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. AND WITH
THAT, I DO WANT TO PASS THESE
AROUND. AND SO YOU CAN SEE,
THESE ARE ALL ANIMALS WHO WERE
TESTED AND SHOWED, RODENTICIDE
POISONING, INCLUDING OUR BELOVED
P-22. I MEAN, LÀ WAS HEARTBROKEN
WHEN THEY SAW THIS. AND MY
NEIGHBORS SAY, WHY DO I SEE ALL
THESE DEAD OWLS? WHY DO I SEE
ALL THESE DEAD RAPTORS? WHY DO I
HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MOUNTAIN
LIONS IN MY COMMUNITY AND P-22
LOOKING LIKE THIS? WELL, THEY
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO LOOK LIKE
THAT. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SEE
THIS BECAUSE THESE CHEMICALS ARE
ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY AND
SHOULDN'T BE USED IN AREAS WHERE
THEY'RE POISONING WILDLIFE. I'M
GOING TO HAND THIS OUT TO PASS
AROUND FOR THE COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. AND WITH THAT, I WILL
LEAVE IT TO MY WITNESSES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN, GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JONATHAN
EVANS. I'M THE ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH LEGAL DIRECTOR AT THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.
ONE OF THE BILL CO-SPONSORS
ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES,
INCLUDING THOSE COVERED BY THE
POISON FREE WILDLIFE ACT, ARE
SOME OF THE MOST SCIENTIFICALLY
STUDIED AND WIDESPREAD WILDLIFE
POISONS. THIS BILL PLACES
RESTRICTIONS ON THE REMAINING
ANTICOAGULANTS, PROVIDING BETTER
PROTECTIONS FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT
AREAS AND ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT
WHILE REDUCING COSTS ON
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. IT ALSO, AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER FRIEDMAN
MENTIONED, HAS PUBLIC HEALTH
EXEMPTIONS, HAS EXEMPTIONS FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE, HAS EXEMPTIONS
FOR AGRICULTURE. THE
ANTICOAGULANTS HAVE A UNIQUE
MODE OF TOXICITY THAT MAKES THEM
PARTICULARLY LETHAL TO OTHER
ANIMALS IN THE FOOD WEB, BECAUSE
THEY BIOACCUMULATE AND CREATE A
CUMULATIVE BODY BURDEN IN
WILDLIFE HIGHER IN THE FOOD
CHAIN. THIS POISONING IS
WIDESPREAD. THE MOST RECENT
REPORT BY THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
IN 2023, COVERING DATA FROM
2022, FOUND THAT ANTICOAGULANTS
WERE IN 88% OF BIRDS OF PREY
THAT THEY WERE TESTED, INCLUDING
HAWKS AND OWLS, 80% OF LARGE
GAME MAMMALS, 86% OF BOBCATS,
AND, ALONG WITH THE MAJORITY OF
MOUNTAIN LIONS AND OVER 90% OF
GRAY FOXES. THE POISON FREE
WILDLIFE ACT ADDS THE REMAINING
ANTICOAGULANTS TO THE ENTIRE
CATEGORY OF THESE. OF THESE
WILDLIFE POISONS, TO THE
EXISTING MORATORIUMS OF AB 1788
AND AB 1322 TO REDUCE THE
CUMULATIVE THREATS TO NON-TARGET
WILDLIFE. IMPORTANTLY, WE DON'T
NEED THESE DANGEROUS
RODENTICIDES, SAFER, COST
EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES ARE
READILY AVAILABLE, NECESSARY AND
FREQUENTLY USED FOR PEST
CONTROL, SEALING BUILDINGS AND
ELIMINATING FOOD AND WATER
SOURCES ARE A NECESSARY FIRST
STEP. FERTILITY CONTROL HAS
PROVEN HIGHLY EFFECTIVE AND ALSO
IS IN USE BY MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENTS IN THE STATE. LETHAL
RODENT CONTROL STRATEGIES LIKE
SNAP TRAPS AND ELECTRIC TRAPS
ARE FREQUENTLY IMPLEMENTED, AND
EVEN WITH THIS BILL PASSES,
THERE WILL BE OVER 100 DIFFERENT
TYPES OF RODENTICIDES THAT
AREN'T AFFECTED BY THIS BILL
THAT WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE IN
USE FOR ALL USERS, INCLUDING
AGRICULTURE AND PEST CONTROL
OPERATORS. I REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR PAPAN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
DOCTOR REBECCA GULLEY. I'M A
CONSERVATION SCIENTIST. THANK
YOU. HI, MY NAME IS DOCTOR
REBECCA GULLEY. I'M A
CONSERVATION SCIENTIST
INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF
RODENTICIDE IN WILDLIFE AT UC
DAVIS. OVER 50% OF MOUNTAIN
LIONS THAT WERE SCREENED BY CDFW
IN 2021 TESTED POSITIVE FOR
CLOFAZIMINE OR WARFARIN. AND
WHEN THESE POISONS DON'T
DIRECTLY KILL INDIVIDUALS, THEY
CAN MAKE THEM SICK AND WEAK.
SUBLETHAL DOSES OF CHLOROPHYL
AND WARFARIN HAVE BEEN FOUND TO
CAUSE DYSREGULATED
THERMOREGULATION. INCREASED
PARASITE AND PATHOGEN LOAD,
REDUCE EGG HATCHING, AND LOWERED
FLEDGING SUCCESS. WILDLIFE HAVE
INTRINSIC VALUE. THEY FORM
SOCIAL BONDS, CAN EXPERIENCE
PLEASURE AND PAIN, AND THEY HAVE
A RIGHT TO NOT BE POISONED.
PROVIDING PROTECTED BUFFER ZONES
AROUND NATURAL HABITAT IS A
WELL-ESTABLISHED AND
SCIENTIFICALLY BACKED MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE, AND ONE THAT IN THIS
CASE ALLOWS CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE
HABITAT AND HOME RANGES THAT ARE
FREE FROM POISON. IMPROVED
SANITATION AND EXCLUSION
PRACTICES REMAIN THE MOST
EFFECTIVE LONG TERME SOLUTION
FOR RODENT MANAGEMENT. WHILE
CONCERN HAS BEEN RAISED THAT THE
REMAINING RODENTICIDES HAVE NO
ANTIDOTE, WE'D LIKE TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT NO RODENTICIDE SHOULD
BE USED AROUND CHILDREN OR PETS,
AND THAT FOR WILDLIFE POISONED
WITH ANTICOAGULANTS, IT'S OFTEN
DIFFICULT TO SAVE THEM, EVEN
WITH AN ANTIDOTE, ANTICOAGULANTS
ALSO POSE A PUBLIC HEALTH
CONCERN. IN A 2021 STUDY BY
MURRAY AND SANCHEZ, IT WAS FOUND
THAT POISONED RATS HAD
SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER LOADS OF
LEPTOSPIRA VRE THAN NON POISONED
RATS. FERTILITY CONTROLS
SUCCESSFULLY REDUCES RODENT
POPULATIONS, BUT IT DOES NOT
DISRUPT THE IMMUNE SYSTEM LIKE
POISONS DO. FURTHER ALTERNATIVES
INCLUDE HAWKS AND OWLS. A TWO
YEAR LONG STUDY IN VENTURA
COUNTY FOUND THAT PUTTING OUT
RAPTOR PERCHES AND OWL BOXES WAS
ACTUALLY MORE SUCCESSFUL AND
LESS EXPENSIVE AT MANAGING
GROUND SQUIRRELS THAN POISONS
WERE. WHILE SOME PROPOSED
ALTERNATIVES MAY TAKE A MORE
UPFRONT INVESTMENT, THEY OFFER
MORE COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS
OVER TIME. WITH THIS BILL,
CALIFORNIA WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE
A MORE BIODIVERSE AND
COMPASSIONATE FUTURE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO WE HAVE.
ME TOO. IN FAVOR IN THE
AUDIENCE. COME ON DOWN. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. SALAS
AND MADINET VEGGIES HERE ON
BEHALF OF ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE
FUND, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE
BILL AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, LIZZIE KUTSUNA
HERE. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL AND THE HUMANE SOCIETY
OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
NAVDEEP. GEORGE, A CONCERNED
RESIDENT OF SACRAMENTO IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. CARLA CABRAL, 16
YEAR RESEARCH SCIENTIST AND
EMERGENCY ROOM VETERINARY
TECHNICIAN, IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. GEMMA RUEDI FROM
HAMILTON RAPTOR CENTER IN PENN
VALLEY. I SUPPORT. HELLO, I'M
TIM RUDY AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF
AB 2552. I LOVE BIRDS AND ALL
ANIMALS, SO PLEASE. HI NICHOLAS.
SECOND, ON BEHALF OF SOCIAL
COMPASSION IN LEGISLATION IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, ABIGAIL
SCHMIDT, ON BEHALF OF THE
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT IN SUPPORT CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, PAT MORAN WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SOPHIA
MURKOWSKI WITH DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE AND SUPPORT. KIM
DELFINO WITH AUDUBON CALIFORNIA
MOJAVE DESERT LAND TRUST AND SAN
DIEGO HUMANE SOCIETY, AND
SUPPORT. HELLO, ARIEL RYAN, A
CONCERNED CITIZEN OF SACRAMENTO
IN STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
HI, I'M DORA VANDERKAMP AND I'M
A CITIZEN OF CALIFORNIA. I'M
EXPECTING AND I WANT MY CHILDREN
TO EXPERIENCE THE BEAUTIFUL
WILDLIFE THAT CALIFORNIA HAS TO
OFFER. THANK YOU. HI MAGGIE
ZURAWSKI, AN EDUCATOR IN
SUPPORT. PLEASE THANK YOU. OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO WE HAVE
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION?
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. TAYLOR, OCEAN, ON
BEHALF OF A COALITION OF
AGRICULTURAL GROUPS AND BUSINESS
ASSOCIATIONS. IN OPPOSITION,
WE'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
AND THEIR STAFF FOR THE
AMENDMENTS. THEY DO IMPROVE SOME
OF THE OF THE BILL, BUT THE BILL
STILL SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS
CHALLENGES. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE
, WHEN THE PROHIBITION ON SECOND
GENERATION RODENTICIDES WERE
NEGOTIATED, THE LEGISLATURE
ACKNOWLEDGED THE CRITICAL NEED
TO MANAGE RODENTS ON OUR FARMS,
OUR RANCHES, PACKING HOUSES AND
FOOD PROCESSING FACILITIES. THEY
ARE ESSENTIAL FOR MANAGING FOOD
SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH. RATS
CARRY COMMUNICABLE DISEASES THAT
THREATEN OURSELVES, OUR
EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DROPPINGS
POISON OUR FOOD SOURCES, CAUSING
SERIOUS FOOD SAFETY PROBLEMS
LIKE AFLATOXIN AND IN ALMONDS,
AND THREATEN GLOBAL TRADE.
BECAUSE OF THIS, THE SECOND
GENERATION BAN AND 1322 FROM
LAST YEAR MAINTAINED THIS
AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION. 2552
DOES REMOVE THE EXEMPTION FOR
ANY FARM COLD STORAGE FOOD
PROCESSING FACILITY WITHIN A
HALF A MILE OF A BUFFER ZONE.
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
GEOGRAPHICALLY, ESPECIALLY AS
FARMS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PURSUE
MORE WILDLIFE FRIENDLY AMENITIES
LIKE FORAGE AND HABITAT
ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR FARMS AND
RANCHES. WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF
THE ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES THAT
THE SPONSORS HAD MENTIONED, LIKE
REMOVING TRASH THAT'S ALREADY
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE AT
MANY OF OUR FARMS AND RANCHES
AND PROCESSING FACILITIES. AND
TO BE FRANK, RAT FERTILITY IS
NOT A REALISTIC SOLUTION IN AN
AGRICULTURAL SETTING, AND THE
RISK OF DOING NOTHING IS
INSURMOUNTABLE, WE'D ALSO LIKE
TO PRESENT THAT RATS POSE A
SERIOUS RISK TO NATIVE WILDLIFE
AS WELL, THEY PREDATE SPECIES,
DESTROY HABITAT, AND OUTCOMPETE
FOR FOOD SOURCES WITH NATIVE
SPECIES. WE'D ALSO LIKE TO
OBJECT THE BILL. OBJECT TO THE
BILL ON PROCESS BANNING PRODUCTS
WITHOUT STATE SUPPORTED SCIENCE
TO SUBSTANTIATE IT. PRIOR TO
2018, THERE WERE SEVEN
RODENTICIDES LARGELY USED BY
STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL AND
AGRICULTURE. 1788 REMOVED FOUR
OF THOSE SEVEN, BUT WE WERE TOLD
YOU HAVE THREE MORE, IN THE IN
THE PHRASE OF FIRST GENERATIONS.
LAST YEAR AB 1322 REMOVED
DIAZINON ONE OF THOSE REMAINING
THREE PRODUCTS, AND NOW WE WERE
TOLD AT THAT TIME YOU HAVE TWO
REMAINING PRODUCTS, AND NOW WE
ARE REMOVING THE REMAINING TWO,
FIRST GENERATION RODENTICIDES
THAT DO HAVE ANTIDOTES, AND WITH
RESPECT TO ZINC PHOSPHIDE, THIS
PRODUCT IS HIGHLY TOXIC TO
HUMANS, HIGHLY TOXIC TO ANIMALS
AS WELL, WITH NO KNOWN ANTIDOTES
, THIS IS THE COMPLEXITY THAT
NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE AT OUR
SCIENCE AGENCIES. WE ARE
REMOVING OUR HEALTH SAFEGUARDS
ONE AT A TIME, AND WE IMPLORE
THE LEGISLATURE TO STOP BUYING
IN TO A WHACK A MOLE APPROACH.
CALIFORNIA HAS SCIENTIFIC
AGENCIES FULL OF TECHNICAL
SPECIALISTS, WILDLIFE
BIOLOGISTS, ENTOMOLOGISTS,
TOXICOLOGISTS WHO ARE WELL
SUITED TO REVIEW SCIENCE AND
MAKE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT THE
ONGOING USE OF PRODUCTS OR
DISUSE OF PRODUCTS. AND THERE'S
AN OPEN PROCEDURE FOR ANY POINT
IN TIME, INCLUDING THE SPONSORS,
TO PROVIDE THAT DATA TO THE
DEPARTMENTS. IF THE DATA
SUBSTANTIATES ACTION, THOSE
AGENCIES ARE DUTY BOUND TO SET
ADDITIONAL USE RESTRICTIONS OR
MITIGATIONS, OR CANCEL PRODUCTS
OUTRIGHT WITH WHICH THEY HAVE
DONE, AND THEY HAVE THE
OBLIGATION TO DO SO. ONCE AGAIN,
WE BELIEVE THAT OUR SCIENTIFIC
AGENCIES ARE BETTER APPOINTED TO
MAKE SCIENTIFIC, SPECIFIC
DECISIONS, AND WE HAVE
PROCEDURES IN PLACE THAT SHOULD
BE FOLLOWED FOR THESE REASONS,
WE RESPECT A NO VOTE. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
BRENDA BASS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
WE ARE UNFORTUNATELY OPPOSED TO
AB 2552. AS MY COLLEAGUE
OUTLINED, WE REALLY NEED TO
PROPERLY BALANCE RISKS TO
WILDLIFE AGAINST THE REAL NEED
TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND
FOOD SAFETY. THIS BILL,
UNFORTUNATELY, DOES NOT STRIKE
THAT RIGHT BALANCE. AS A
WILDLIFE AND BIRD ENTHUSIAST
MYSELF, THIS BALANCE IS REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE GET IT RIGHT.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS WE
HAVE WITH THIS BILL IS THE
EXPANSIVE AND UNPRECEDENTED
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. IN NO
OTHER CONTEXT IN CALIFORNIA OR
IN THE UNITED STATES DOES THE
LAW ALLOW REPRESENTATIVE
STANDING FOR WILDLIFE. SO THIS
IS A BRAND, A WHOLE NEW ERA THAT
THIS BILL WOULD USHER IN, IN
ADDITION, THE LUCRATIVE DAMAGES
AND ATTORNEY'S FEES PROVISIONS
PLUS THE CONCEPTUAL AND
REPRESENTATIVE INJURY
REQUIREMENTS ALLOWED UNDER THIS
BILL, REALLY INCENTIVIZE ABUSIVE
LITIGATION TACTICS, WHICH IS
HIGHLY CONCERNING TO US PROPERLY
RESOURCED. FORCED STATE
ENFORCEMENT IS BOTH EFFECTIVE
AND PROTECTS PROPERTY OWNERS AND
SMALL BUSINESSES FROM
UNSCRUPULOUS WOULD BE
PLAINTIFFS. WHILE THIS SECTION
OF THE BILL MAY NOT BE FULLY
WITHIN THIS COMMITTEE'S PURVIEW
TODAY, IT REMAINS PART OF THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BILL UPON WHICH
YOU'RE VOTING TODAY, AND SO FOR
THESE AND THE REASONS OUTLINED
BY MY COLLEAGUE, WE,
UNFORTUNATELY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO
WE HAVE OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? NONE. GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, MATTHEW ON WESTERN
GROWERS ALSO OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, ANNA LEE
AUGUSTINE, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA GRAIN AND FEED
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA SEED
ASSOCIATION AND A VARIETY OF
OTHER AGRICULTURAL ENTITIES
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHRIS REARDON. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FARM
BUREAU, WE'RE OPPOSED. GOOD
MORNING. ERIN ON BEHALF OF THE
ALMOND ALLIANCE, ALSO OPPOSED.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, MATTHEW
SEIBERLING, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL
COMMISSIONERS AND SEALORDS
ASSOCIATION, ALSO OPPOSED. THANK
YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS. MAX PERRY,
ON BEHALF OF THE PEST CONTROL
OPERATORS OF CALIFORNIA, ALSO
OPPOSED. CHAIR MEMBERS TRICIA
GERINGER WITH AGRICULTURAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA.
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. KATIE
LITTLE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
LEAGUE OF FOOD PRODUCERS IN
OPPOSITION. OKAY. SEEING NO
OTHER OPPOSITION, WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
QUESTIONS? ASSEMBLYMEMBER
GALLAGHER? YEAH, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR, SO WE'VE HAD THESE
SIMILAR TYPE OF BILLS HERE
BEFORE AND, IN THE PAST WE HAVE
HAD EXEMPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURE.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ME IN MY
DISTRICT, AND YOU CAN COME TO MY
DISTRICT IN MANY, MANY MEMBERS
HAVE, WE HAVE A PLETHORA OF
WILDLIFE. WE HAVE AN AMAZING
AMOUNT OF WATERFOWL THAT COME
THROUGH, THE PACIFIC FLYWAY
THAT, YOU KNOW, COME INTO OUR
RICE FIELDS IN NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE SKUNKS AND
BEAVERS AND EGRETS AND, YOU
KNOW, BALD EAGLES, WE HAVE, YOU
KNOW, A PLETHORA OF WILDLIFE
THROUGHOUT OUR THROUGHOUT OUR
AREAS. WE HAVE, WILDLIFE
PRESERVES, YOU KNOW, GRAYS GRAY
LODGE IS IN MY DISTRICT, YOU
KNOW, OUTSIDE OF GRIDLEY,
CALIFORNIA. BUT IN ALL OF THOSE
PLACES, IN THE NORTH WHERE WE
ARE, HAVE PROCESSING FACILITIES,
DRYERS IN THE SUCH, WE USE
RODENTICIDES, BECAUSE I'M PRETTY
SURE THAT PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM
DON'T WANT RAT INFESTATION IN
THEIR FOOD SUPPLY, OR RODENT
INFESTATION IN THEIR PROCESSING
FACILITIES THAT ULTIMATELY BRING
THEIR FOOD TO THEM, SO IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT FROM A SANITARY
CONDITIONS AND A HEALTH AND
HUMAN SAFETY STANDARD, THAT WE
HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE
RODENTICIDES. THAT'S BEEN
RECOGNIZED IN PREVIOUS
LEGISLATION AND IS EXEMPTED OUT
THE USE IN AGRICULTURE. THIS
SEEMS TO BE AN END AROUND OF
THAT BY SAYING, HEY, IF YOU'RE
WITHIN SO MANY FEET, YOU KNOW,
OF A WILDLIFE AREA. I GUESS
GRANTED, THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, I THINK DO A BETTER
JOB OF KIND OF DEFINING THAT, A
LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT IT'S
GOING TO IMPACT AREAS LIKE MINE
IN, WHERE WE'VE SAFELY USED,
THESE RESOURCES, AND THERE'S A
WHOLE LOT OF SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, THEIR
VENDORS THAT WE UTILIZE, AND
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT SAFELY
AND THERE'S BEEN NO, NO EVIDENCE
OF ANY IMPACT OF US USING THOSE
RINTAH DECIDES AND CAUSING
ISSUES WITH WILDLIFE. AND I. I'D
BEG YOU TO SHOW ME ONE, YOU KNOW
, THAT INVOLVES MY DISTRICT, AND
SO MY QUESTION IS, HEY, WE'VE
ALREADY PASSED LEGISLATION THAT
I THINK HAS HAS TRIED TO BALANCE
THIS. IT'S TRIED TO, YOU KNOW,
WE'VE AND NAVIGATE THAT TO
ENSURE SAFETY. BUT IT HAS
EXEMPTED AGRICULTURE. WHY ARE WE
NOT DOING THAT IN THIS CASE?
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, SO A
FEW THINGS. FIRST OF ALL,
AGRICULTURE IS EXEMPTED, BUT WE
HAVE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE
AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES AND A
DESIGNATED WILDLIFE HABITAT ZONE
OF THE 2500FT². SO AS LONG AS
YOU'RE BEYOND THAT, EVERYTHING
IS EXEMPTED. THAT'S AN
AGRICULTURE. I WAS THE AUTHOR OF
THE OTHER BILLS. SO THIS IS THE
REASON THAT WE ARE INTRODUCING
ANOTHER BILL IS BECAUSE,
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S BEEN A
SWITCHING TO THIS OTHER
GENERATION AND OTHER MATERIALS
THAT ARE CAUSING A LOT OF THE
SAME EFFECTS. AND WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, A LOT SOME OF THE
WILDLIFE THAT YOU MENTIONED IS
NOT AFFECTED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
EAT RATS, THE ANIMALS THAT ARE
AFFECTED ARE THE APEX PREDATORS
THAT ARE THE MOST LIKELY ANIMALS
TO EAT A POISONED RAT, EGRETS
THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER
ANIMALS THAT ARE EATING FISH.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTED
BY THIS. BALD EAGLES, BALD
EAGLES MIGHT. I'LL LEAVE IT TO
THE SCIENTISTS HERE AND. YEAH.
YEAH, I'M I'M JUST WONDERING,
HAS A STUDY BEEN DONE IN YOUR
DISTRICT, LIKE SPECIFICALLY TO
INVESTIGATE WHAT I'M ASKING YOU?
WHAT'S YOUR DISTRICT? NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA. YEAH. I MEAN, I CAN
HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T OFTEN
THINK OF IT. YEAH. NO, I IT'S
PRETTY IMPORTANT TO WHERE YOU
GET YOUR FOOD. THE DATA. WE'RE
DEFINITELY TALKING ABOUT IS
COLLECTED FROM CALIFORNIA WIDE
RIGHT NOW. SO IT'S FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND WILDLIFE. THEY RECEIVE
NECROPSY OR INJURED BIRDS AND
WILDLIFE AND THEY PERFORM
NECROPSIES. THROUGHOUT THE YEARS
. AND THEY DO, GROUP IT BY
COUNTY. I JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, I
DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY PULL OUT THE
COUNTY OF INTEREST, BUT WE CAN
LOOK INTO THAT. AND SOMETIMES
WHEN THERE ISN'T A FORMAL STUDY
DONE IN LIKE A SPECIFIC COUNTY,
IT'S HARD FOR US TO KNOW IF IT'S
HAVING AN IMPACT OR NOT. BUT,
YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE KIND OF
DATA THAT WE'RE MISSING. WE NEED
THOSE SPECIFIC COUNTY SPECIFIC
STUDIES. WHEN OUR WHEN OUR
WITNESS WAS TESTIFYING, SHE DID
HAVE THE NUMBERS WHERE THEY
RANDOMLY TEST ANIMALS, NOT JUST
ANIMALS THAT HAVE DIED FROM THE
POISONING, BUT JUST AN ANIMAL
THAT WAS HIT BY A CAR, AN ANIMAL
THAT'S BEING STUDIED. AND
BETWEEN 50 AND 80% OF ALL
MOUNTAIN LIONS, FOR INSTANCE,
HAVE THE RODENTICIDE POISONING.
THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS THAT ARE
POISONED ARE VERY, VERY HIGH.
AND THIS HAS CAUSES THESE
ANIMALS OFTEN TO DIE, TO BECOME
VERY WEAK. YOU KNOW, AT A TIME
WHEN A LOT OF ANIMALS ARE
STRUGGLING BECAUSE OF OTHER
IMPACTS FROM FIRES, FROM
CLIMATE, FROM DROUGHT. THIS IS
PUTTING A HUGE STRAIN ON THE
ECOSYSTEM. SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE
NOT BANNING THE USE IN
AGRICULTURE. AGRICULTURE IS
STILL EXEMPTED, BUT WE'RE SAYING
WE'RE STILL SEEING AN
UNREASONABLY HIGH NUMBER OF
ANIMALS DEAD AND DYING FROM THE
RODENTICIDE. LET'S AT LEAST HAVE
A BUFFER BETWEEN DESIGNATED
WILDLIFE ZONES. SO I THINK IT'S
VERY REASONABLE. IT'S IT STILL
ALLOWS FOR ON YOUR RANCH, ON
YOUR FARM. IT'S JUST WITHIN THAT
2500FT² THAT WE WOULD WANT YOU
TO USE AN ALTERNATE. SO WE'RE
NOT WE ARE WE STILL ARE
EXEMPTING AGRICULTURE. AND THE
COMMITTEE HAS MADE THAT EVEN
CLEARER AND EXEMPTED EVEN MORE
AREAS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY IN
THE BILL. YOU KNOW, WE'LL
CONTINUE TO I'D LOVE TO TALK TO
YOU. I'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU MAYBE
LOOK AT SOME OF THE COUNTY BY
COUNTY DATA, BECAUSE I ALSO KNOW
THAT PEOPLE IN YOUR AREA AND
YOURSELF INCLUDED YOUR
OUTDOORSMEN. YOU LOVE THE
WILDLIFE. YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE
THE SAME THING THAT I SHOWED
SOME PHOTOS OF ANIMALS THAT ARE
BLEEDING FROM THEIR EYES, FROM
THEIR MOUTHS BECAUSE OF
RODENTICIDE POISONING. THAT'S
NOT YOUR INTENDED TARGET EITHER
WITH THIS. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING
TO CREATE THAT BUFFER ZONE AND
LIMIT THE USE SO THAT PEOPLE
AREN'T BUYING THE STUFF AT HOME
DEPOT IN URBAN AREAS AND ENDING
UP POISONING THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CATS, WHICH IS SOMETHING ELSE
THAT'S THAT'S HAPPENING QUITE A
BIT. RIGHT. WELL, I CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROBLEM IS
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
WILDLIFE PRESERVATION AREAS IN
MY AREA, WE HAVE PROCESSING
FACILITIES. NEXT TO THEM, WE
HAVE RICE DRYERS. YOU KNOW, WE
HAVE PRUNE DEHYDRATORS. WE HAVE
WALNUT HAULERS. YOU KNOW, ALL OF
THESE THINGS ARE PRETTY CRITICAL
TO BEING ABLE TO BRING FOOD TO
PEOPLE'S TABLE. AND SO, LIKE,
THERE ARE I MEAN, AND WE HAVE A
LOT OF WILDLIFE PRESERVE AREAS.
I MEAN, I MENTIONED GRAY'S
LODGE, BUT THAT'S JUST ONE OF
THEM. YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THEM
ARE DEDICATED TO WATERFOWL,
HABITAT. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT,
YOU KNOW, I THINK IS VERY
PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT COULD END
UP INCLUDING THEM, YOU KNOW, IN
THIS AND THERE AND THEN THEY'RE
PROHIBITED. BUT YOU MENTIONED, I
MEAN, LOOK, THAT WE, PEOPLE ARE
STARTING TO USE ALTERNATIVE TO
BE TO BE REAL, LIKE YOUR BILL'S
BEEN IN, IN, IN THE LAW FOR A
YEAR, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY
TIME TO REALLY SEE WHAT THE FULL
EFFECT OF THAT LEGISLATION AND
THAT STATUTE HAS BEEN. YOU
BROUGHT UP ALTERNATIVES, I THINK
THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION HERE IS,
YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE A PRODUCT
IS REGISTERED, RIGHT, DOESN'T
MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S EASILY
ACCESSIBLE OR THE SAFEST OPTION,
YOU KNOW, IN CALIFORNIA. THAT'S
WHY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE VENDORS
WHO HELP TRY AND IDENTIFY THE
PEST CONTROL OPERATORS, YOU
KNOW, IN THE STATE TO HELP TRY
TO IDENTIFY THOSE ALTERNATIVES.
THEY'RE COMING UP WITH DIFFERENT
ALTERNATIVES, BUT I MEAN, I'LL
JUST ASK, YOU KNOW, THE
PROPONENTS, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU
IDENTIFY PESTICIDES THAT ARE
EFFECTIVE OR AS EFFECTIVE AS
THESE, AND CAN YOU CONFIRM, LIKE
IF THERE'S AN ANTIDOTE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IF THERE IS AN
ACCIDENTAL POISONING THAT COMES
FROM THAT PRODUCT? OKAY. LET ME
JUST SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF
ALTERNATIVES. YOU KNOW, WE'RE
FOCUSED ON THE ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDES. THIS BILL IS
FOCUSED ON THE BLOOD THINNING
PRODUCTS THAT CAUSE ANIMALS TO
BLEED INTERNALLY OUT. THEY TEND
TO BE SLOW ACTING. THEY TEND TO
ACCUMULATE VERY, VERY HEAVILY.
SO THAT'S ONE CATEGORY. ALL OF
THE NON ANTICOAGULANTS ARE NOT
COVERED BY THIS BILL. STILL
READILY AVAILABLE. AND LAST TIME
WE LOOKED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
PESTICIDE REGULATIONS
REGISTRATIONS, THERE WERE
APPROXIMATELY 114 DIFFERENT
RODENTICIDE PRODUCTS THAT COULD
STILL BE USED WITHIN THAT BUFFER
ZONE. WITHIN AGRICULTURE THAT
WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BY THESE
ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDE
RESTRICTIONS. AND INTERESTINGLY,
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA ON
USAGE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SO DPR
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION AGGREGATES THE DATA
ON USAGE OF RESTRICTED USE,
PESTICIDES AND SALES OF ALL
PRODUCTS, THE AMOUNT OF
ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES,
SALES IS OVER IS UNDER 100
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
BECAUSE USUALLY THE ACTIVE
INGREDIENT IS JUST LIKE, YOU
KNOW, TWO 2% OF THE OVERALL FOOD
PELLET. SO THAT'S LESS THAN 100
POUNDS OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS FOR
ANTICOAGULANTS FOR ALL OF THE
ANTICOAGULANTS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT, ZINC PHOSPHIDE IS USED
17,000 POUNDS OF ACTIVE
INGREDIENT EACH YEAR, SO THAT
PRODUCT IS HEAVILY USED. WE'RE
NOT SEEING IT AFFECTED, IN TERMS
OF WILDLIFE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT
ADVOCATING FOR THAT AS USE
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME OTHER,
YOU KNOW, IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THAT. BUT THAT'S ALREADY
THAT'S ALREADY THE BAG THERE.
THAT'S THE MOST HEAVILY USED.
YOU JUST HIT ON IT. AND I WANT
TO I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THESE
PRODUCTS AREN'T POISONOUS, THAT
THESE OTHER ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS
, PRODUCTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT AREN'T POISONOUS OR DON'T
HAVE OTHER EFFECTS. SO THAT'S
ANOTHER QUESTION IS LIKE, HEY,
IF WE'RE GOING TO PUSH PEOPLE TO
MOVE AWAY FROM COAGULANTS, WHICH
HAVE BEEN AN EFFECTIVE
RODENTICIDE, I MEAN, WHETHER I
MEAN, I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD
PROBABLY AGREE WITH THAT. BUT,
YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
TO THESE OTHER ALTERNATIVES,
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF
THAT? YOU KNOW, ARE THOSE ARE
THERE GOING TO BE POISONINGS AND
OTHER THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
USE OF THOSE CHEMICALS THAT
MAYBE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH
EXPERIENCE USING? THAT IS A
CONCERN AND LEGITIMATE CONCERN.
AND I THINK YOU LOOK AT THE
REPORTED POISONINGS OF ZINC
PHOSPHIDE BECAUSE IT TURNS FROM
IT GOES FROM INTO A GAS IN THE
ANIMAL AND ENDS UP DISSIPATING
PRETTY QUICKLY. WE'RE NOT SEEING
THAT REPORTED IN WILDLIFE. WE'RE
NOT SEEING THAT SORT OF SAME
LEVEL OF POISONINGS,
PARTICULARLY AS ASSEMBLY MEMBER
FRIEDMAN MENTIONED. YOU KNOW,
WE'RE 2300 KIDS POISONED
NATIONALLY BY ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDES EACH YEAR. SO WE'RE
NOT SEEING THAT SAME LEVEL IN
ZINC PHOSPHIDE OR SOME OF THE
OTHER PRODUCTS. BUT BUT CLEARLY
ALL OF THESE PRODUCTS ARE
DESIGNED TO BE LETHAL TO
MAMMALS. RIGHT. SO THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE THE SAME MECHANISM OF
PROBLEMS FOR HUMANS. SO AS AS
DOCTOR GULLY MENTIONED, WE DON'T
WANT TO KEEP WE WANT TO KEEP
KIDS AND PETS FAR AWAY FROM
THESE. AND WE WANT TO KEEP THESE
RESTRICTED USE CHEMICALS SO THAT
THEY ARE LESS HARMFUL. OKAY,
THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MADAM CHAIR,
BUT IF I IF, WITH YOUR
PERMISSION, COULD I ALLOW THE
OPPOSITION TO RESPOND TO WHAT
WAS MAYBE JUST SAID THERE? YEAH.
SO, THANK YOU, MR. GALLAGHER.
AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, WHAT I'D
LIKE TO NOTE IS THAT
CONVERSATION WAS EXACTLY THE
COMPLEXITY THAT REALLY SHOULD BE
HAD AT SCIENTIFIC AGENCIES, WITH
TOXICOLOGISTS AND ENTOMOLOGISTS
AND WILDLIFE SPECIALISTS S
LOOKING AT IMPACTS, LOOKING AT
TRADE OFFS, LOOKING AT ACCESS,
AFFORDABILITY, COMPLEXITY,
ACCUMULATION, THÀNH ALL OF THESE
FACTORS ARE THE THINGS THAT,
WITH RESPECT, SCIENTISTS AT
THESE AGENCIES SHOULD BE
REVIEWING. AND IN LIEU OF AN OUT
AND OUT BAN WHICH IS PROPOSED IN
THIS BILL, THERE IS A PATHWAY
FORWARD TO DIRECT THOSE AGENCIES
TO LOOK AT THESE TYPES OF
PRODUCTS FOR SAFETY. AND IF DATA
SUBSTANTIATE FURTHER
RESTRICTIONS, ADDITIONAL
BUFFERS, WHICH MAY BE HALF A
MILE AS PROPOSED, MAY BE LESS.
THAT IS THE ROLE OF THOSE
AGENCIES TO DO THAT WORK. AND SO
WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS THERE IS AN
EXISTING PATHWAY FORWARD TO
PURSUE QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPACTS
TO NON-TARGET WILDLIFE SPECIES.
AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THE
LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HAS HAD TO DISCUSS
COMPLEXITIES AND TRADE OFFS IS
APPROPRIATE TO REALLY EVALUATE
THE IMPACT. IF I COULD JUST MAKE
A NOTE ON A NOMENCLATURE ISSUE,
WHERE THIS BILL IS DIRECTED AT
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS, AND MY
FRIEND OVER HERE, MENTIONED HOW
MANY PRODUCTS WOULD BE AVAILABLE
STILL ON THE MARKET, ONE ACTIVE
INGREDIENT CAN CREATE MULTIPLE
DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. SO IT'S KIND
OF AN APPLES TO ORANGES
COMPARISON. IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE
ONLY BANNING TWO AND THERE'S
GOING TO BE 100 PLUS LEFT, BUT,
THAT'S NOT REALLY THERE ARE
PROBABLY HUNDREDS OR DOZENS OF
PRODUCTS THAT WILL COME OFF OF
THE SHELVES WHEN YOU BAN THESE
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS. SO I JUST
WANTED TO FLAG THAT IT'S NOT
LIKE A PRODUCT AND AN ACTIVE
INGREDIENT OR TWO SEPARATE
THINGS. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, SOME. THANK YOU,
FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE
EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE WHO KNOWS
EXPONENTIALLY MORE THAN THAN I
DO ABOUT THIS ISSUE. AND SO MY
QUESTIONS, WILL LIKELY BE VERY,
MAYBE SIMPLE TO YOU, BUT
IMPORTANT TO ME AS I TRY TO
UNDERSTAND THE BILL. I GUESS I'D
START WITH THE EASY PART, THE
AUTHOR HAS ALREADY STATED THAT
ON THE ISSUE OF THE PRIVATE
ACTION, THAT THAT ISSUE WOULD BE
ADDRESSED ON THAT ALONE. IF THAT
WASN'T ADDRESSED, I WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT THE BILL. SO NOW
I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE ISSUE
OF, OF WHAT EXACTLY, WHAT
HAPPENED ON THE GROUND? THERE'S,
LET ME START WITH THE ISSUE OF
THE 2500FT. AND JUST TO MAKE
SURE I UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE IT
SEEMS LIKE MAYBE OTHERS DO
UNDERSTAND THE BUFFER WOULD BE
2500FT FROM THE, OUTLINED SKIRTS
OF A WILDLIFE AREA. WOULD THAT
BUFFER ALSO THEN POTENTIALLY
CROSS INTO LAND THAT IS BEING
USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.
SO THESE ARE DESIGNATED WILDLIFE
HABITAT AREAS. SO THEY IN MY
UNDERSTANDING, THEY WOULDN'T
TYPICALLY BE THE FARM BECAUSE
THAT'S NOT A WILDLIFE AREA, SO
WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS DON'T PUT
THE POISON WITHIN THAT RANGE. IT
WOULDN'T AFFECT THE WHOLE FARM.
JUST DON'T PUT THE ACTUAL POISON
YOU KNOW, THE POISON WITHIN THAT
2500FT. SO IF THE FARM IS WITHIN
THE 2500FT, WHAT WOULD THE
IMPLICATIONS BE? THEY WOULD HAVE
TO USE, ONE OF THE DIFFERENT
POISONS. SO IF YOU DO HAVE
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, FARMING
WITHIN THE 2500FT, YOU WOULD BE
LIMITED FROM USING THE PRODUCT,
JUST THE ANTICOAGULANT
RODENTICIDE. YOU'D HAVE TO USE
ONE OF THESE OTHER OVER 100,
PRODUCTS. AND JUST CURIOUS, I
DON'T KNOW IF THE 5000
AMENDMENTS TO 2500 HOW THAT CAME
TO BE, BUT, I'M JUST INTERESTED
IN WHAT? WHY A NUMBER OF FEET IS
THE RIGHT NUMBER OF FEET. WELL
WE'RE TRYING TO BE OBVIOUSLY
REASONABLE TO THE FARMS AT THE
SAME TIME, THESE ANIMALS THAT
ARE HUNTING ARE CROSSING OVER
INTO THE FARM. THAT'S WHY WE'RE
SUGGESTING USING A BUFFER AS AS
THE WITNESS WAS SAYING, USING A
WILDLIFE, USING SOME KIND OF
BUFFER. AND IN ADDITION, WHEN
THE RATS ARE POISONED, IT'S A,
IT'S A BY THE SUBSTANCE
BIOACCUMULATES. SO IT'S NOT THE
CASE THAT THEY EAT IT AND DROP
OVER DEAD. THEY EAT IT, THEY GET
SICK, THEY WANDER OFF INTO THE
WOODS, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY GET
EATEN BY THE OWL OR THE BOBCAT,
ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY'RE KIND OF
STUMBLING AROUND AND THEY'RE
EASY PREY. SO WE'RE TRYING TO
KEEP THEM FURTHER AWAY SO THAT
AS THEY DIE, THEY'RE NOT DYING
RIGHT WITHIN THE WILDLIFE
HABITAT AREA. LET ME ASK, ALSO
ABOUT, THE PROCESS OF, OF, OF
MAKING LAW, ON A VERY, VERY
TECHNICAL ISSUE THAT, YOU
CERTAINLY SEEM TO HAVE THE
EXPERTISE, BUT I'LL JUST ADMIT,
I DON'T, ON THIS BODY OR ON THIS
COMMITTEE, AND SO NOT ALLOWING
WHY NOT ALLOW A TECHNICAL BODY
TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, THE DECISION
OR AT LEAST SOME RECOMMENDATIONS
TO US ON, WHAT WHAT THE RIGHT,
WHAT THE RIGHT LAW WOULD BE AS
IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR
PRODUCT. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR
THAT QUESTION. IT'S A GREAT
QUESTION. SO SINCE I'VE BEEN IN
THE LEGISLATURE, I HAVE
SUCCESSFULLY AUTHORED BILLS TO
BAN. FIRST GENERATION,
RODENTICIDES TO BAN PFAS FROM
CHILDREN'S CLOTHING, TO BAN THE
31 MOST TOXIC CHEMICALS FROM
PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS. LAST
YEAR, THERE WAS A BILL I'D LIKE
TO SAY IT BANNED SKITTLES. IT
DIDN'T REALLY BAN SKITTLES. IT
BANNED AN INGREDIENT IN
SKITTLES, WE HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS
BILLS THAT ENACT BANS OR
PROHIBITIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC
HEALTH OR THE HEALTH OF WILDLIFE
. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE OUR
AGENCIES TAKE WAY TOO LONG TO
ACT. THE REASON THE GROUNDWATER
IN MY CITY IS POISONED WITH PFAS
IS BECAUSE WE HAD AGENCIES THAT
DID NOTHING, AND WHEN A
LEGISLATURE THAT DIDN'T DO
ANYTHING. SO I'VE ALWAYS SEEN
IT, THAT YES, I WISH THAT OUR
AGENCIES MOVED MORE QUICKLY,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIRS THEY SAID
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST STUDIED
AREAS OF CHEMICALS IN THE
NATION. WE HAVE EPA ALREADY
MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF
BANNING THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT
THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE FOREVER
AND A DAY. AND FOR P22 IT WAS
TOO LATE. IT WAS TOO LATE. YOU
KNOW, HE WAS HORRIBLY POISONED
BY RODENTICIDES FOR THE
WILDLIFE. AND THE PHOTOS THAT WE
SHOWED IT WAS TOO LATE. SO I
TRIED TO BAN THE GREEN CHEMISTRY
COUNCIL A FEW YEARS AGO. I
ACTUALLY INTRODUCED A BILL TO
BAN IT, WHICH IS AN AGENCY
THAT'S SUPPOSED TO DO A LOT OF
THIS STUFF, BECAUSE IN ALL THE
YEARS THEY'VE BEEN IN EXISTENCE,
I THINK THEY'VE ACTUALLY BANNED
LIKE 1 OR 2 CHEMICALS. THEY DO.
THEY DO NOTHING. SO WHEN THEY'RE
NOT ACTING, WHEN WE SEE THAT
THEY'RE TAKING STEPS, THEY'RE
STUDYING THESE ANIMALS, OUR
WILDLIFE IS STRUGGLING SO MUCH
THAT THEY JUST CAN'T WAIT. AND
WE HAVE SCIENTISTS HERE WHO HAVE
BEEN STUDYING THIS FOREVER AND A
DAY. THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S,
RESEARCH STUDIES. THERE'S
RESEARCH STUDIES COMPARING
RAPTORS TO USING THESE POISONS
THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS THAT THE
RAPTORS IN MANY CASES WILL
OUTPERFORM BECAUSE YOU'RE YOU'RE
KILLING THE NATURAL CONTROLS. WE
HAVE EXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLIC
HEALTH CRISES. WE HAVE
EXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH. WE
HAVE EXEMPTIONS FOR CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE
EXEMPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURE. WE
HAVE EXEMPTIONS FOR VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS. WE HAVE EXEMPTED
OUT A TON IN HERE. WE WANT TO
GET THIS STUFF OFF THE SHELVES
FROM HOME DEPOT BECAUSE PEOPLE
ARE BUYING IT AND BRINGING IT
HOME. WE STILL SEE THOUSANDS OF
CHILDREN POISONED EVERY YEAR.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE ANIMALS.
AND THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES.
COULD WE NOT DO THAT AND NOT
IMPACT, THE AGRICULTURAL,
SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY
THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE I THINK
BASED ON THE EARLIER RESPONSE IN
MY READING, THIS WOULD BAN THIS
ON FARMS. IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE
WITHIN THE OR HAVE YOU MAPPED
HOW MANY FARMS? IT'S AROUND THE
EDGES OF THE FARMS, IT'S NOT THE
FARM ITSELF. IT'S. AND WE ALL
AND YOU KNOW, I MEAN, CERTAINLY
THERE'S AREAS OF SOME FARMS THAT
WILL BE AFFECTED. BUT WE, YOU
KNOW, OUR EXPERTS WILL TELL YOU
THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER
PESTICIDES THAT CAN BE USED
SAFELY IN THOSE AREAS. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, YES, A FARM THAT ABUTS
A DESIGNATED WILDLIFE HABITAT
AREA DOES HAVE TO TAKE EXTRA
CARE TO NOT HARM THEIR
NEIGHBORS, AND THEY SHOULD BE
USING AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS
EFFECTIVE AND SAFE. AND THERE
ARE PLENTY ON THE MARKET. THIS
IS NOT THE ONLY PESTICIDE. LET
ME ASK, MAYBE THE OPPOSITION WHO
REPRESENTS, FARMERS AND GROWERS.
HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO ANALYZE
TO WHAT EXTENT THIS BUFFER
NUMBER OF FEET WOULD IMPACT HOW
MANY EITHER ACRES OF FARMING OR
INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES, ANYTHING
LIKE THAT? WELL, SO WE HAVEN'T
BEEN ABLE TO DO AN EXHAUSTIVE
REVIEW, ESPECIALLY WITH THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT TO TAKE OUT
THE OPEN SPACE PROVISION, BUT AT
THIS POINT, THERE ARE MANY, MANY
FARMS THAT ABUT A WILDLIFE
HABITAT AREA, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE
THOSE WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS
HAVE BEEN EITHER CONVERTED INTO
FARMS OR THOSE FARMS HAVE BEEN
CONVERTED BACK INTO WILDLIFE
HABITAT AREAS AS A PART OF
EASEMENT AGREEMENTS OR OTHER
THINGS. I JUST WANT TO NOTE
2500FT IS A HALF A MILE. IF YOU
ARE A SMALL FARM IN CALIFORNIA
THAT HAPPENS TO ABOUT ONE OF
THESE AREAS, IT COULD BE AN
EXTENSIVE BAN ON THE USE OF
THESE RODENTICIDE PRODUCTS. AND
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE AUTHOR IS
MAKING POINTS THAT THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVES. BUT AT THIS POINT,
PRODUCTS ARE USED ON FARM
BECAUSE PEST CONTROL ADVISORS
MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
MOST EFFECTIVE, MOST AFFORDABLE,
AVAILABLE AND LESS IMPACTFUL
PRODUCT. SO IF THESE PRODUCTS
HAVE ALREADY BEEN USED, THERE'S
BEEN A VETTING PROCESS,
ESPECIALLY IN AGRICULTURE, THAT
ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES OR
ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS MAY NOT BE
AVAILABLE. AND WHEN WE HAVE
IMMEDIATE IMPACTS LIKE FOOD
SAFETY CONCERNS, WE HAVE TO ACT
QUICKLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY TO
MANAGE THAT. SO ONCE AGAIN, I
WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THESE ARE
THERE ARE FARMS THAT ABUT
WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS, 2500FT
OR A HALF A MILE IS NOT A SMALL
AMOUNT OF ACREAGE TO COME OUT OF
PRODUCTION IN THOSE AREAS AS
WELL. SO IT'S A SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT TO FARMS IN CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE BOTH OF
YOU ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. I
THINK AT THIS POINT, I REMAIN
UNCERTAIN AS TO THE EXTENT OF
THE IMPACT OF WHAT, 2500FT
MEANS. AGAIN, I ACKNOWLEDGE AND
APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS OR
THE IT SEEMS LIKE REMOVAL OF THE
PRIVATE ACTION, WHICH I THINK IS
THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SO I
WILL, WITHHOLD MY VOTE TODAY.
NOT NOT KNOWING THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THE 2500FT, POTENTIALLY
CREATES AN IMPACT IN
AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CALIFORNIA.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER. THANK
YOU, CHAIR, AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR AND TO EVERYONE UP HERE.
THIS IS, BEEN A VERY
INFORMATIVE, VERY ROBUST
DISCUSSION, I'VE LEARNED SOME
THINGS AS WELL. I DON'T
REPRESENT YOUR TYPICAL
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, BUT I DO
UNDERSTAND WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GALLAGHER AND WHAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ALVAREZ WAS POINTING OUT,
BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY DO NOT
WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO IMPACT,
OUR AGRICULTURE HERE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I, YOU KNOW
, MY MAIN CONCERN AND I HAVE
SUPPORTED YOUR PREVIOUS BILLS
WITH, BANNING THIS PARTICULAR
FORM OF PESTICIDE. BUT THIS,
THIS, THIS BILL. AND I KNOW
WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THE
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION HERE.
HOWEVER, LIKE IT WAS STATED, YOU
KNOW, IF WE VOTE FOR IT, THEN
OUR NAME WOULD BE SUPPORTING IT.
AND SO I DO JUST NEED TO ADDRESS
MY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS, WITH
ONE IT BEING IN THERE IN THE
FIRST PLACE. AND TWO, THE
LANGUAGE IT I DON'T THINK I'VE
EVER READ ANYTHING LIKE THAT
SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE FOR, YOU KNOW,
SOMEONE CAN CAN UNDERGO CIVIL
PENALTY. SPECIFICALLY, IT SAYS
THE SUIT MAY BE BROUGHT BY ANY
PERSON ON THEIR OWN BEHALF OR ON
BEHALF OF AN INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL,
WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE, SPECIES, OR
ANY REPRESENTATIVE THEREOF THAT
ARE AT RISK OF BEING KILLED,
INJURED, HARASSED OR HARMED BY
THE UNLAWFUL SALE OR USE OF
FIRST GENERATION ANTICOAGULANT
OR SECOND GENERATION
ANTICOAGULANT. FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS OF THIS PARAGRAPH,
HARASSMENT INCLUDES CREATING A
LIKELIHOOD OF INJURY TO AN
ANIMAL BY ANNOYING IT TO SUCH AN
EXTENT AS TO DISRUPT NORMAL
BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO BREEDING,
FEEDING, OR SHELTERING. I MEAN,
I HAVE TO AGREE THAT THIS WOULD
OPEN UP THE FLOODGATES FOR
LITIGATION. IT'S SO I DON'T EVEN
KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DETERMINE
SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT, THAT,
THAT IT'S VALID OR NOT. IT'S
CONCERNING THAT WE WOULD EVEN BE
POTENTIALLY EVEN GOING IN THIS
DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE OF
THE CONCERNS FOR THE
AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
WHICH IS DEFINITELY VALID. AND
WE HEAR YOU AND, AND HOPEFULLY
THAT WILL BE ABLE TO BE WORKED
OUT, I KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING
TO BE DEALT WITH IN THE NEXT
COMMITTEE, AND I HAVE NO IDEA
WHAT THAT WILL BE. I DON'T THINK
THERE NEEDS TO BE ANY PRA IN
THIS. HONESTLY IT'S I DON'T EVEN
KNOW WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
BEING ABLE TO SUE, BECAUSE WE
THINK WE UNDERSTAND HOW AN
ANIMAL FEELS OR CAN DEFINITELY
SAY THAT THEIR PATTERN HAS
CHANGED BECAUSE OF A PESTICIDE,
AND NOT BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW,
CLIMATE CRISIS, GLOBAL WARMING,
OR THE FACT THAT THEY CHOSE TO
GO AND MATE IN THAT TREE BECAUSE
THEY FELT LIKE, I MEAN, I, I
MEAN, I JUST I JUST HAD TO VOICE
WHEN I READ IT, I JUST COULD NOT
BELIEVE THE WORDS THAT WERE
COMING OFF OF THIS PAGE. AND,
IT'S VERY CONCERNING. I HAVE NO
IDEA WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN
JUDICIAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL
HAPPEN WITH THIS BILL IF IT WILL
GET OUT OF COMMITTEE, BUT THERE
IS NO WAY THAT IF IT GOT TO THE
FLOOR AND THIS HAD ANY KIND OF
PRA IN IT, THAT I WOULD BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT IT, WHICH WOULD BE
UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I, I HAVE
SUPPORTED YOUR BILLS IN THE PAST
THAT DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR
TYPE OF PESTICIDE. THANK YOU. I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO FOCUS ON ON
ONE POINT, AND THAT IS THE
ABILITY TO ACTUALLY DO
SOMETHING, TO MOVE SOMETHING, TO
GET SOMETHING DONE. GENERALLY
OUR DEMOCRACY FROM THE VERY
BEGINNING HAS BEEN SET UP TO
MAKE IT REALLY EASY TO BLOCK,
BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO ACTUALLY
TAKE ACTION, TO GET SOMETHING
DONE. AND SO I THINK THE AUTHOR
RIGHTFULLY POINTED OUT THE
FRUSTRATION THAT WE HAVE SEEN
OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHEN WE KNOW
SOMETHING'S WRONG AND IT
CONTINUES, IT CONTINUES TO EXIST
FOR DECADES AND DECADES WHILE
IT'S STUDIED AND STUDIED AND ONE
OF THE. SO THERE ARE NUMEROUS
PLACES NUMBER ONE COMMITTEE
AFTER COMMITTEE AFTER COMMITTEE,
IT CAN A BILL CAN STOP IN THREE
DIFFERENT COMMITTEES HERE. THIS
BILL COULD STOP IN THREE
DIFFERENT COMMITTEES IN THE
ASSEMBLY. THEN THE ASSEMBLY
FLOOR, THEN 2 OR 3 COMMITTEES IN
THE SENATE, THEN THE ASSEMBLY,
THEN THE SENATE FLOOR AND THE
GOVERNOR. AND THERE'S NOTHING
WRONG WITH IT BEING CHALLENGING
TO GET SOMETHING DONE. BUT WE
HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE NEXT
PLACE WHERE THINGS STOP IS THE
REGULATORS THAT WE CAN SAY,
WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO
THOSE BILLS BECAUSE LET'S LET
THE REGULATORS FIGURE IT OUT.
THEY'RE THE EXPERTS. AND WE HAVE
SEEN REGULATORS BE CAPTURED BY
ARGUMENTS OF DELAY. AND THE MOST
COMMON WAY TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T
HAVE AN ACTION IS NOT TO SAY
IT'S A BAD ACTION, BUT TO SAY WE
NEED MORE DELAY AND MORE DELAY
AS IT GOES FORWARD. SO THIS IS
THE FIRST HEARING OF THIS. AND
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IN
FRONT OF US IS, IS THERE ENOUGH
INFORMATION OUT HERE ABOUT THIS
BEING A, A, A NEGATIVE CONCERN
THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW THIS BILL
TO CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD AND
GET GET IT, GET FURTHER REFINED
WITH EACH TIME MY COLLEAGUE HERE
POINTED OUT LANGUAGE THAT
CONCERNS HER A LOT. THAT'S GOING
TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION
BY THE AUTHOR. AND I THINK VERY
ELOQUENTLY POINTED OUT. BUT
THAT'S HOW A BILL GETS REFINED.
THE EASIEST THING IS TO KILL THE
BILL. THE HARDER THING IS TO
KEEP WORKING THE BILL AND HAVING
IT MAKE IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
AND WITH THAT, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL AS IT MOVES
FORWARD, BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE
AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE OUT THERE
ABOUT THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY
THIS PARTICULAR, PESTICIDE.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?
ASSEMBLYMAN RIVAS, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. I HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE
AUTHOR AND THE SUPPORTERS SAY
THAT THEY'RE ALL THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVES, RIGHT, TO THIS,
THIS PESTICIDE AND, AND WHY
WOULDN'T I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE FARMERS WITHIN THIS
2500FT BUFFER ZONE. WHY COULDN'T
THEY USE ONE OF THE EXISTING
ALTERNATIVES? I KNOW THE
OPPOSITION SAID IT MAY NOT BE
AVAILABLE, BUT I JUST DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY CAN'T USE
THAT ALTERNATIVE. ONE OF THE.
YEAH, BOTH SIDES. WELL, I THINK
THERE CAN. AND I'VE HAD
INTERESTING CONVERSATIONS WITH
SOME OF THE PEST CONTROL
OPERATORS WHO KNOW SOME OF THESE
PRODUCTS BY THE NAME, YOU KNOW,
KILL QUICK SOFT BAIT, BUT THEY
DON'T KNOW THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT
THAT'S BEING USED. AND SO
SOMETIMES IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW,
WHAT IS AVAILABLE, WHAT'S
RECOMMENDED, WITHOUT REALLY THE
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SOME OF
THE, THE ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS ARE
. BUT CERTAINLY A LOT OF THESE
PRODUCTS ARE FREQUENTLY USED
MUCH MORE SO THAN THE
ANTICOAGULANTS THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT HERE, THAT WE
PROHIBITED. SO THEY CAN BE USED.
AND THAT'S JUST I MEAN, THAT'S
JUST THE CATEGORY OF RAT
POISONS. AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT NOT TALKING ABOUT OTHER
TYPES OF LESS NOXIOUS POISON
POISONINGS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S
ABILITY TO USE CARBON MONOXIDE
VENTING INTO INTO, BURROWS FOR
GROUND SQUIRRELS. THERE'S
ABILITY TO USE, OLD FASHIONED
SNAP TRAPS, MOLE TRAPS. THERE'S
A WHOLE SUITE OF OPTIONS THAT
ARE LESS HARMFUL THAN THESE
RODENTICIDES. BUT WE'RE SAYING
IS THERE ARE STILL OVER 100
DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, THE POINT
WAS TAKEN THAT THOSE ARE ARE NOT
ALL ACTIVE INGREDIENTS, BUT
THEY'RE PRODUCTS THAT ARE
REGISTERED WITH DPR, BUT THE
DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE
REGULATION AND THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THE VOLUME OF USE WOULD NOT
BE AFFECTED BY THIS, BY THIS
BILL. SO I DON'T I CAN'T ANSWER
THE QUESTION AS TO WHY SOME
NEFARIOUS PRODUCTS ARE USED MORE
THAN OTHERS. IT'S JUST, YOU
KNOW, SOMETIMES THERE'S BETTER
MARKETING WITHIN THE
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY. SOMEBODY
SOMETIMES THERE'S, THERE'S,
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH COST, BUT
THE LABOR COSTS ARE GOING TO BE
MUCH MORE DRAMATIC THAN ANY OF
THE COSTS OF THE PRODUCTS
THEMSELVES. OKAY YEAH. I JUST
FEEL LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF
ALTERNATIVES. AND AT LEAST, WHAT
WE'RE EVALUATING TODAY, YOU
KNOW, AND MAKING A DECISION
TODAY, YOU KNOW, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS BILL. I KNOW
THERE THERE SEEMS TO BE OTHER
ISSUES THAT WILL GO TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BUT IN
TERMS OF THIS COMMITTEE, I JUST
FEEL LIKE THERE'S OTHER
ALTERNATIVES THAT CAN BE USED.
AND ARE SAFER THAN, WHAT'S BEING
PROPOSED TODAY TO BE BANNED. SO,
YEAH, I AGREE WITH, JUST ABOUT
ALL MY COLLEAGUES. I THINK
THERE'S SOME REALLY INTERESTING,
COMPLICATED ISSUES HERE. AND I
HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE AUTHOR
IS GOING TO WORK DILIGENTLY TO
WORK THOSE ISSUES OUT, JUDGMENT
HERE TODAY IN WATER PARKS AND
WILDLIFE IS THAT THERE IS A
PROFOUND IMPACT ON, SPECIES THAT
ARE ARE INGESTING THESE
DANGEROUS, TOXIC CHEMICALS AND
THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING
ABOUT THAT. AND FRANKLY, THE
REGULATORY REGULATORS THAT ARE
CHARGED WITH DOING THAT WORK
HAVE NOT DONE A GOOD JOB. THE
EVIDENCE IS CLEAR. THERE IS A
PROBLEM, AND WE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING. AND TRYING TO FIND
THE SWEET SPOT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE CAN PROTECT AGRICULTURE AND
PROTECT WILDLIFE. IS OUR JOB.
AND I'M GOING TO BE VOTING FOR
THIS BILL TODAY. WHAT ELSE? OKAY
THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DO PASS
AS AMENDED. I THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR TAKING THESE AMENDMENTS,
BECAUSE WE REALLY DID TRY TO
REACH A BALANCE BETWEEN WHERE
CIVILIZATION BUTTS UP AGAINST
WILDLIFE AND CIVILIZATION THAT
FEEDS US, BUTTS UP AGAINST
WILDLIFE, WHICH MAKES IT ALL THE
MORE IMPORTANT, SO I APPRECIATE
THAT THE OPEN SPACE YOU ARE
AMENABLE TO OUR REMOVING THE
OPEN SPACE, BECAUSE THAT WAS A
BIT MORE AMORPHOUS AND
DIFFICULT, AND THE AGRICULTURE
EXEMPTION, I, I'M HOPEFUL WILL
BE WORKABLE, WITH THAT, WE
UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRA. I
APPRECIATE YOUR REMARKS, SOME
MEMBER FRIEDMAN ON THE PRA AND,
I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS AND HOPEFULLY THAT
WILL WORK ITS WAY OUT IN JUDICI.
BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THE
PARAMETERS OF THIS JURISDICTION,
THE JURISDICTION OF THIS,
COMMITTEE, I THINK WE'VE TRIED
TO REACH A BALANCE AS TO HOW FAR
OUT WE CAN GO. I COME FROM A
SUBURBAN AREA. YOU COME FROM A
SUBURBAN AREA. I KNOW WHAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE
REALLY DO HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT
THAT THIS IS A HUGE STATE THAT
FEEDS A LOT OF THE NATION. AND I
THINK WE'VE REALLY REACHED THAT.
TO USE YOUR WORD, ASSEMBLYMEMBER
HART, SWEET SPOT. SO WITH THAT,
DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
Ó, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSION. THERE'S NO BAD GUYS
HERE. WE'RE NOT YOU KNOW, WE'RE
NOT. WE EAT FOOD. WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, HURT
AGRICULTURE. CERTAINLY. YOU KNOW
AND TO BE CLEAR, WE DID REMOVE
OPEN SPACE. SO WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT DESIGNATED WILDLIFE ZONES
WHERE WE'VE SORT OF TOLD THE
WILDLIFE, THIS IS FOR YOU. THIS
IS AN AREA FOR YOU. AND SO I
THINK WE DO HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE
ANIMALS WHO LIVE IN THOSE, THOSE
SPECIAL AREAS, WE WILL CONTINUE
THE DISCUSSION. I REALLY LOVED
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT'S, YOU
KNOW, COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW,
THESE THINGS ARE HARD. THAT'S
WHY IT TAKES A LONG TIME. WE
SHOULDN'T IN THE COMMITTEE
STAGE, BE JUST SORT OF VOTING
AGAINST SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE
WE DON'T LIKE, YOU KNOW, 1 OR 2
PROVISIONS IN IT. YOU KNOW, I
HEAR YOUR COMMENTS. I HEAR THE
CONCERNS. WE'RE WILLING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OPPONENTS.
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO
LOOK AT THE PDA LANGUAGE TO
REMOVE, YOU KNOW, TO REMOVE THAT
IT WAS ACTUALLY TARGETING, BY
THE WAY, THE PEOPLE, UNLIKE
ORPHALI SELLING NOT USERS. JUST
TO BE CLEAR, THESE ARE PEOPLE
WHO ARE KNOWINGLY SELLING
SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BANNED
ON THE MARKET. BUT WE WOULD
WE'RE FINE WITH TAKING THAT OUT,
AND YOU KNOW, ADDRESSING THOSE
CONCERNS. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE SO WE CAN
CONTINUE THIS IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE CAN'T
JUST KEEP WATCHING YEAR AFTER
YEAR WHILE WE LOSE OUR PRECIOUS
WILDLIFE TO THESE POISONINGS.
THANKS SO MUCH. AND I'M GUESSING
YOU'RE REQUESTING I VOTE. I DO
REQUEST AN AYE VOTE. GREAT. DO
WE HAVE A MOTION? OKAY. AND A
SECOND. I'LL SECOND. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER HART ALREADY SECONDED
EARLIER. OH UNDER HIS BREATH, HE
SECONDED. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO
THROUGH THE ROLL CALL. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER
THREE, AB 2552. MOTION IS Dð
PASS, AS AMENDED TO JUDICIARY.
PAPIN A, PAPIN I TO ADDIS
ALANIZ. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ NOT
VOTING. BENNETT. BENNETT I
BONTA. GALLAGHER. DAVIES. GARCIA
HART. HART I THREE OF US. THREE
OF US I. SCHIAVO. SCHIAVO I.
VILA WEBER. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. OKAY, WE'LL KEEP IT ON
CALL. THANK YOU. SO, MEMBER
FRIEDMAN, THE ELUSIVE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. GARCIA I'M HOPEFUL IT
WILL BE NEAR.
GOOD MORNING, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
GARCIA. IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE GOT THREE. TWO.
THREE, EIGHT. YES THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AND THANK YOU, AND YOUR
TEAM FOR, KIND OF DIVING INTO
THIS ISSUE. AND, WE WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS, I WANT TO ADDRESS
THE COMMITTEE BY SAYING THAT
THIS BILL IS ABOUT ENSURING THE
ACCELERATION AND BUILD OUT OF
ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION, CAN
MEET CALIFORNIA HAS AMBITIOUS
CLIMATE GOALS, BUT ALSO ENSURE
THAT WE ARE PRESERVING AND
PROTECTING, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICIES THAT ARE IN PLACE.
ACHIEVING THE STATE'S AMBITIOUS
CLIMATE GOALS WILL REQUIRE
UNPRECEDENTED CONSTRUCTION OF
ELECTRICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND
PROVIDE RELIABLE RENEWABLE
ENERGY TO ELECTRIFY HOMES,
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND
TRANSPORTATION TO ACCOMPLISH
THIS, CHANGES ARE NEEDED. THE
TOTAL, EFFORT HERE BY THIS BILL
MODIFIES EXISTING PROCESS TO
ACCELERATE THE ELECTRICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. FROM
THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
COMMITTED TO FOSTER, GOOD,
COLLABORATIVE COMMUNICATIONS,
WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEES, WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS, TO FOCUS
SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT IS A VERY
SENSITIVE AREA, WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT ANY TYPE OF CEQA, MODIFY
ACTIONS, THIS BILL SEEKS TO
FOCUS ON SOME CEQA EXEMPTIONS
FOR WILDFIRE MITIGATION AND
INCORPORATING A SUNSET INTO THE
DATE BILL, WHICH ARE PART OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ACCEPTING,
THROUGH THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND
ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, WE'VE
ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES, VIA THIS
COMMITTEE, OUR WORK CONTINUES
TO, ASK THAT MEMBERS, NOT ONLY
OF THE PRIOR COMMITTEE, BUT OF
THIS COMMITTEE CONTINUE TO
COLLABORATE WITH US AND THE
STAKEHOLDERS, BOTH PROPONENTS
AND OPPONENTS OF THE BILL, SO
THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON
THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES IF GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE ON TO
THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE.
THE OTHER AREA THAT I JUST WILL
MENTION, THAT I APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S INPUT ON ARE THE
CHANGES TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT, ACT
AND THE NATURAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION PLANNING CHANGES
THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. AND SO
WITH THAT, I DON'T NEED TO TELL
YOU HOW IMPORTANT IT'S GOING TO
BE THAT WE CAREFULLY THREAD THE
NEEDLE ON ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES
WHEN IT COMES TO ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY. BUT YOU ALSO, I KNOW,
RECOGNIZE HOW SIGNIFICANTLY
IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE
ACCELERATE THE BUILD OUT OF OUR
TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE IN
ORDER TO MEET OUR CLIMATE GOALS,
THAT WE'VE SET FORWARD. SO I
WILL STOP THERE AND, PASS OVER
THE TIME TO OUR WITNESS. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MADAM CHAIR, I'M
HAPPY TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY.
MY NAME IS ERICA MARTIN. I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES FOR SAN DIEGO GAS AND
ELECTRIC. HAPPY TO BE DISCUSSING
AND SUPPORTING AB 3238. AND THE
ESSENTIAL ROLE THAT THIS BILL
WILL PLAY IN THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION, JUST TO UNDERSCORE
WHAT THE AUTHOR JUST DESCRIBED
ABOUT THE NEED FOR
UNPRECEDENTED, CONSTRUCTION OF
GENERATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,
THE CAISO JUST, PUT OUT ITS
DRAFT TRANSMISSION PLAN FOR 2023
2024 ON APRIL 1ST AND FORECASTED
THAT WE WILL NEED TO ADD 7000MW
OF GENERATION ANNUALLY FOR THE
NEXT TEN YEARS, WHICH IS AN
INCREASE FROM THE 2021 PLAN,
WHICH ESTIMATED A NEED FOR
1000MW. AND JUST TO PUT THINGS
IN PERSPECTIVE, 7000MW CAN POWER
WOULD INSTANTLY POWER ABOUT
AROUND 5 MILLION HOMES. SO
THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
GENERATION. AND THEN THE
ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NEEDED TO
CARRY THE GENERATION FROM THE
PLACES WHERE IT'S PRODUCED TO
THE PLACES WHERE PEOPLE NEED IT,
IT JUST UNDERSCORES WHAT WE
ALREADY KNOW, WHAT THE
COLLECTIVE CONSENSUS OF THE
STATE IS, IS RECOGNIZING THAT WE
NEED TO MOVE AT AN UNPRECEDENTED
RATE AND SCALE. IF WE ARE GOING
TO MAKE THE CLIMATE POLICY GOALS
OF THE STATE, IF WE'RE GOING TO
SUCCEED IN PROTECTING THE
ENVIRONMENT FROM A WARMING
CLIMATE, AND WE ARE APPRECIATE
AND ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE
CONTINUING ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT
WE NEED TO DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS
IS TO CONSTRUCT THAT
INFRASTRUCTURE, TO BRING THOSE
RENEWABLE RESOURCES ONLINE,
THAT'S IMPORTANT AND IS MOVING
US FORWARD IN THIS DEBATE. THE
CHALLENGE IS, OF COURSE, HOW DO
WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY? WHAT
IS IT THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IN OUR
EXISTING PROCESSES AND
REQUIREMENTS, IN ORDER TO
STREAMLINE AND GAIN EFFICIENCIES
TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD?
THIS IS THESE ARE TOUGH
QUESTIONS. THIS IS COMPLICATED.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE APPRECIATE THE
CHALLENGE. OBVIOUSLY THAT'S
THAT'S BEFORE, IT'S BEFORE YOU
ALL THAT'S BEFORE THE STATE IN
UNDERGOING THAT EXERCISE, AND SO
WE PROPOSE WITH AB 3238 THAT
THERE ARE SOME STRATEGIC
MEASURED APPROACHES THAT THIS
BILL CAN TAKE TO FIND PLACES IN
THAT EXISTING PROCESS. THE
STATUS QUO, PLACES WHERE THERE'S
DUPLICATION, WHERE THERE IS
DELAY, WHERE THERE ARE
UNNECESSARY COSTS THAT CAN BE
REFINED AND EFFICIENCIES GAINED
TO NOT SHORTCUT ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, BUT TO STREAMLINE IT, TO
ALLOW IT TO MOVE FORWARD SO THAT
THESE PROJECTS, THESE ESSENTIAL
PROJECTS CAN MOVE FORWARD, IN
ORDER TO MOVE THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION FORWARD, THE FOCUS OF
THE BILL IS A LOT ON THE CPUC
RULES FOR PERMITTING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BECAUSE OF
THEIR STATUTORY AND
CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OVER
ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S
A PRIMARY FOCUS. BUT THERE ARE
ALSO PLACES WHERE WE HAVE LOOKED
OUT AT THE PROCESS, AT THE
STATUS QUO, TO TRY TO FIND OTHER
STREAMLINING MEASURES THAT WOULD
STILL PROMOTE CONSERVATION
PLANNING. FOR ONE, BUT ALLOW
STREAMLINING IN THE OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
INFRASTRUCTURE. ONCE IT'S BUILT,
WE NEED TO PROMOTE THE SAFE AND
RELIABLE OPERATION OF IT, AS
WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THOSE PROJECTS. SO THAT'S THOSE
ARE AN ADDITIONAL FOCUS HERE. AN
ADDITIONAL PLACE WHERE WE'D LIKE
YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR
STREAMLINING, FOR LOOKING AT
WAYS TO TRULY DO THINGS
DIFFERENTLY HERE, I LOOK FORWARD
TO TAKING YOUR QUESTIONS, ON
THIS BILL AND CONTINUING TO
SUPPORT THIS IMPORTANT EFFORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT THE BILL?
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MELISSA
CORTEZ, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA WIND ENERGY
ASSOCIATION, WE'RE ACTUALLY A
LITTLE BIT OF A TWEETER. WE'VE
BEEN WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE ON SOME TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS AROUND JURISDICTION.
WHEN THERE'S LOCAL OR CEC
AUTHORITY, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE
AGREEMENT. THIS IS A GOOD BILL
AND CONCEPT. AS THE AUTHOR AND
THE WITNESSES STATED, WE
DESPERATELY NEED THIS
TRANSMISSION IF WE WANT TO MEET
OUR CLIMATE GOALS. SO THIS IS A
GOOD EFFORT. WE ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, ALEJANDRO SOLIS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CLEAN POWER
CAMPAIGN AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. EDSON PEREZ WITH
ADVANCED ENERGY UNITED, ALSO IN
SUPPORT OF MOVING THE BILL
FORWARD. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. DO WE HAVE
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
GOOD MORNING CHAIR PAPPIN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS KIM DELFINO AND I'M HERE
REPRESENTING DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, AUDUBON CALIFORNIA AND
THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT
SOCIETY. LET ME START OFF BY
THANKING THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
AMENDMENTS TO AB 3238, AND FOR
THE AUTHOR TO ACCEPTING THEM.
THEY ARE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
BILL. HOWEVER, EVEN WITH THOSE
AMENDMENTS, THE BILL STILL
INCLUDES A BREATHTAKING ARRAY OF
EXEMPTIONS, WEAKEN STANDARDS AND
LIMITATIONS TO STATE
AUTHORITIES, I WANT TO TURN TO
THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES
CONSERVATION PLANNING ACT
CHANGES THAT REMAIN IN THE BILL,
WHICH WE DIDN'T REALLY TOUCH ON
IN THE WITNESSES TESTIMONY AT
THE HEART OF THE NH█P ACT, WHICH
WAS A SIGNIFICANTLY REDONE IN
2003, WAS A DEAL AND A WIN WIN
SOLUTION OF ESTABLISHING
CONSERVATION, WHILE SECURING A
PERMIT THAT THE PERMATEASE WOULD
NOT HAVE CHANGES TO THAT PERMIT
AS LONG AS YOU STAYED WITHIN THE
CONFINES OF THE DEAL. IT'S KNOWN
AS NO SURPRISES. UNFORTUNATELY,
THE CHANGES, BEING PROPOSED IN
THIS BILL WOULD REALLY GET TO
THE WOULD UNDERCUT THE HEART OF
THE NH█P ACT, BECAUSE THE WAY
THE ACT WAS STRUCTURED IS THAT
YOUR DEAL IS A DEAL. UNLESS AS A
PLAN APPLICANT, YOU GO BACK TO
THE WILDLIFE AGENCY AND SAY, I
WANT TO MAKE CHANGES. IF YOU GO
BACK LATER ON AND SAY, I WANT TO
MAKE A BUNCH OF CHANGES TO MY
PLAN, THAT REOPENS THE WHOLE
ISSUE. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE, IN ORDER TO
ISSUE AN AMENDMENT TO A PLAN,
STILL HAS TO FIND THAT THE PLAN
WILL PROVIDE FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE TWO CHANGES
THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED HERE FOR
MAJOR AMENDMENTS ARE THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
CANNOT LOOK AT IMPACTS TO COVER
TO ALREADY EXISTING SPECIES, AND
IT HAS TO NARROW WHAT THEY'RE
EXAMINING IN TERMS OF IMPACTS TO
ONLY THE NEW ACTIVITIES. THEY
CAN'T LOOK AT THE WHETHER THE
PLAN WAS FUNCTIONING OR NOT
FUNCTIONING. AND SO THAT REALLY
GOES TO THE HEART OF THE NH█P
ACT, BECAUSE IT UNDERCUTS THE
CERTAINTY FOR CONSERVATION.
WHILE WE WERE GIVING CERTAINTY
TO THE, TO THE DEVELOPERS, THE
OTHER ISSUE THAT THE OTHER
CHANGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED
HERE IS THAT THE BILL WOULD
CREATE A NEW REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION THAT EVERYTHING IS
GOING WELL IN THE PLAN IF YOU'RE
REOPENING IT AND ASKING FOR NEW
CHANGES WHEN THE NH█P ACT WAS
DRAFTED AND I UNFORTUNATELY, I'M
OLD ENOUGH WHERE I WAS PART OF
THE DISCUSSION IN 2003 THAT WE
IT WAS A CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED
DEAL, AND WE DID NOT PUT
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS IN ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER. WE DIDN'T PUT
A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IN
SAYING THAT THE PLAN WAS WORKING
WELL, AND WE DIDN'T PUT A
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IN, SAID
THE PLAN WAS WORKING POORLY, AND
TO MAKE THIS CHANGE DOES
DESTABILIZE THE BALANCE. AND THE
AGREEMENT THAT WAS ARRIVED AT IN
2003 WHEN SENATOR SHAH AUTHORED
THE CHANGES TO THE NH█P ACT. AND
I AM NOT I AM NOT OVERSTATING MY
CONCERNS THAT IF THESE CHANGES
MOVE FORWARD AND UNDERCUT THE
DEAL THAT WAS THE NH█P ACT, WE
WILL NOT SEE NEW, NEW IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY, WHEN
THEY AGREED TO THIS DEAL, SAID
THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET
CONSERVATION THÀNH. AND BY TYING
THE HANDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE, WHEN THEY'RE
LOOKING AT MAJOR AMENDMENTS,
UNDERCUTS WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL
END UP WITH CONSERVATION IN A
CHANGED PLAN. SO I YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE THE CHANGES THAT WERE
MADE, BUT I AM LETTING YOU KNOW
THAT THOSE WERE NOT
INSIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT ARE
BEING PROPOSED BY SAN DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC. AND I WOULD ALSO
JUST COMMENT THAT SAN DIEGO GAS
AND ELECTRIC HAS ONE DISPUTE, A
1995 PLAN THAT THEY'RE IN
DISPUTE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND WILDLIFE. YET THEY'RE
COMING HERE AND PROPOSING
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE NH█P
ACT THAT WOULD AFFECT EVERYONE.
AND I JUST THINK THAT WE HAVE TO
BE REALLY CAREFUL IN TERMS OF
DESTABILIZING THE NH█P ACT. THE
LAST THING I WOULD JUST I'M NOT
GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CEQA
EXEMPTIONS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING
TO BE HEARING THE BILL IN IN
NATURAL RESOURCES. BUT I DO WANT
TO FLAG THAT AB 3238 PURPORTS TO
ENSHRINE A SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
TO THE PUC. BUT WHAT'S IN THE
BILL? IT GOES FAR BEYOND WHAT
THE PARTIES PROPOSE TO THE PUC.
AND THE ONE PART I WANT TO
REALLY CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IS
AT THE END OF THE BILL IN
ARTICLE THREE THAT CREATES AN
IN-LIEU PERMITTING PROCESS FOR
THE PUC. SO THE PUC WOULD ISSUE
FOR TRANSMISSION PROJECTS AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS, A ONE
STOP SHOP PERMIT, WHICH, YOU
KNOW, POTENTIALLY COULD BE OKAY.
WE DID THIS IN AB 205 WITH THE
ENERGY COMMISSION A COUPLE OF
YEARS AGO, BUT THIS BILL DOESN'T
INCLUDE ANY STANDARDS IN TERMS
OF INTERPRETING WHETHER OR NOT
YOU'RE MEETING THE UNDERLYING
STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS THAT
YOU'RE ISSUING THE IN-LIEU
PERMIT FOR. IT INCLUDES AN
EXEMPTION FOR THE COASTAL ACT.
IT INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION FOR THE
FISHING GAME CODE. IT INCLUDES
NO INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE, HOW
THE PUBLIC CAN PARTICIPATE IN
THE PROCESS. WHAT'S THE TIMING
OF THIS? THERE'S NO SIDEBOARDS,
NOTHING. NOTHING THAT WE
NEGOTIATED IN AB 205 IS SHOWING
UP IN THIS BILL AT THIS TIME.
AND I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY IS
I APPRECIATE THE NEED TO TRY TO
HURRY UP TRANSMISSION PLANNING
OR TRANSMISSION IN ACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSMISSION.
BUT I'M ACTUALLY CONCERNED THAT
BY CREATING A NEW IN-LIEU
PERMITTING PROCESS AT THE PUC,
THAT WHAT'S GOING TO END UP
HAPPENING IS THAT THE ENERGY
ENERGY DIVISION AT THE PUC, IF
ANYONE'S EVER HAD EXPERIENCE
WITH THE ENERGY DIVISION AT THE
PUC, IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS PARALYSIS,
AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THE
PUC TO DO A BUNCH OF STUFF
THEY'VE NEVER DONE BEFORE. AND
I'M WORRIED THAT ACTUALLY WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO CREATE WILL END
UP HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.
AND WE WILL ACTUALLY SLOW DOWN
THE ENERGY PROJECTS. WITH THAT
BEING SAID, AS WE MOVE FORWARD,
IF THIS IN-LIEU PROCESS STAYS IN
PLACE IN THIS BILL, I STRONGLY
URGE THAT WE INCLUDE STANDARDS
FOR REVIEW, THE ABILITY FOR THE
PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE, DO NOT
EXEMPT THE COASTAL COMMISSION,
DO NOT EXEMPT THE FISHING GAME
CODE. AND, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY
TRY TO PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT
WHILE WE'RE BUILDING THE
IMPORTANT TRANSMISSION WE NEED.
THANK YOU. AND FOR THESE REASONS
, I WOULD URGE A NO VOTE. ANY
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO COME FORWARD TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING. JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA
CLUB CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, SOPHIA
MURKOWSKI ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA COASTAL PROTECTION
NETWORK. ENDANGERED. ENDANGERED
HABITAT LEAGUE, CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, EPIC, NRDC
AND SAN DIEGO AUDUBON IN
OPPOSITION. OKAY, SEEING NO
OTHER WITNESSES FOR OR AGAINST.
LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS COMMENTS.
SOME OF THE MEMBER BENNETT. I
THINK THERE'S PROBABLY VIRTUALLY
UNANIMOUS. EXCUSE ME. UNANIMOUS
SUPPORT FOR IMPROVING THE PACE
AT WHICH WE ARE, EXPANDING THE
GRID AND GETTING OURSELVES READY
FOR ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
THINGS WE HAVE TO DO FOR CLIMATE
CHANGE, WHICH IS HAVE A MUCH
MORE ROBUST GRID, AND SO I, SO I
APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE
THE AUTHOR, YOU KNOW, WORKING
WITH SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
IN TERMS OF TRYING TO, FASHION
SOMETHING. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER
TWO, I REALLY WANT TO COMPLIMENT
THE COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THE, THE AMENDMENTS
AND THE ANALYSIS HERE. TO ME,
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT THAT WE GET, THE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE OTHER
ITEMS ARE HAVE CHALLENGES TO
THEM. AS POINTED OUT BY THE
COMMITTEE STAFF WITH THEIR
AMENDMENTS. AND I HAD SOME,
THINGS I WANTED TO ARTICULATE
ABOUT THAT. BUT THE OPPOSITION
WITNESS ARTICULATED THEM BETTER
THAN I COULD. AND SO I JUST WANT
TO SAY I WILL BE SUPPORTING
MOVING THIS OFF TODAY, BECAUSE
THIS AS A COMMENTS I MADE LAST
TIME, THAT'S WHAT THE COMMITTEE
PROCESS IS, IS TO KEEP TRYING TO
MAKE THINGS BETTER, NOT TRYING
TO BLOCK, THINGS IF, IF WE CAN.
BUT ENCOURAGE THE AUTHOR THAT
WHEN I EVALUATE THIS AGAIN, WHEN
IT COMES TO ME ON THE FLOOR, I'M
NOT ON NATURAL RESOURCES. I HOPE
THAT YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS
THESE THESE CONCERNS,
PARTICULARLY SEE HOW SOME OF
THESE THINGS ARE, WELL, SHE SAID
IT BETTER THAN I DID. I'LL JUST
LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER
ALVAREZ, THANK YOU, I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE TALK ABOUT
SOME OF THE CONCERNS. SO I'D ASK
THE AUTHOR TO, MAYBE PROVIDE A
RESPONSE TO WHAT? THOSE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP
PARTICULAR, I DON'T WANT TO JUST
DIRECT YOU TO THIS ONE CONCERN,
BUT I THINK IT'S A SOMETHING OF
VALUE IS THE STANDARDS FOR
REVIEW, FROM THE CPUC. SO JUST
TO WHAT WHERE OUR CONVERSATIONS,
WHAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT AND
WHERE DO THINGS STAND TODAY. SO
I'LL, I'LL SHARE WITH YOU. AND
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, MR.
BRENNAN. THANK YOU FOR, ALLOWING
US TO AT LEAST CONSIDER MOVING
THIS CONVERSATION FORWARD TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WE'VE
ACTUALLY BROUGHT FORWARD, A
WORKGROUP OF COLLEAGUES, THE
OPPOSITION PROPONENTS, AND I
THINK WE'VE MADE SOME STRIDES IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION,
CONVERSATION HAPPENING HERE
TODAY WITH SOME OF THESE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING TAKEN.
WE'RE BASED ON ISSUES THAT WERE
RAISED IN THE FIRST COMMITTEE,
THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEING RAISED
TODAY, WE'RE VERY OPEN TO
SETTING THOSE STANDARDS, FOR
REVIEW AND TAKING A LOOK AT THE
EXEMPTION ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED REGARDING THE, COASTAL
ACT, THE FISH AND GAME ACT. AND
I'M GOING TO ASK OUR SPONSOR OF
THE BILL, WITNESS, TO DIVE IN A
LITTLE DEEPER ON SOME OF THE
DETAILS TO THE CONCERNS THAT
WERE RAISED. YEAH. THANK YOU. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. AND
WE'VE APPRECIATED THE DISCUSSION
WITH THE OPPOSITION AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS TO UNDERSTAND
CONCERNS AND TO BE ABLE TO THINK
ABOUT HOW TO AS WE SAID, DO
THINGS DIFFERENTLY, BUT MOVE IT
FORWARD. AND SO, SO, SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS MOVE IN THAT
DIRECTION, JUST IN RESPONSE ON
ON THE CONSERVATION PLANNING
PIECE. SO CONTRARY TO WHAT THE
OPPOSITION STATED ARE, THE GOAL
HERE IS TO INCENTIVIZE OTHER
ENTITIES, INCLUDING SGA, TO
CONTINUE TO SEEK PROGRAMMATIC
PERMITS THROUGH CONSERVATION
PLANS. IT'S A NET BENEFIT TO THE
ENVIRONMENT. IMPACTS ARE FULLY
MITIGATED UNDER THE PLAN, AND WE
HAVE HAD WE HAVE HAD A PLAN
SINCE 1995 WHERE WE HAVE
OPERATED UNDER THAT, AND, AND I
THINK THE REGION HAS BENEFITED
SIGNIFICANTLY FROM A
CONSERVATION PERSPECTIVE FOR
THAT REASON, ARE SOME OF THE
REFORMS AND STREAMLINING THAT
WAS PROPOSED WERE BORN OUT OF
OUR EXPERIENCE THAT THE
OPPOSITION ALSO REFERENCED IN
OUR DIFFICULTY IN GETTING IT
AMENDED TO MODERNIZE IT AND
UPDATE IT FOR NEW ACTIVITIES,
INCLUDING WILDFIRE MITIGATION
WORK THAT WASN'T ENVISIONED IN
1995, BUT THAT WE DO NOW, AND
THAT THE PLAN SHOULD COVER. AND
THE IDEA WITH THE REMAINING
PROVISION IS THAT THE EXISTING
PLAN BECOMES PART OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, THE
PROTOCOLS AND MEASURES THAT ARE
APPLIED NOW ARE ARE THE BASELINE
AGAINST ANY AGAINST WHICH ANY
CHANGES, NEW ACTIVITIES OR NEW
SPECIES THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY
LISTED WOULD BE MEASURED. AND SO
THOSE NEW ACTIVITIES WOULD AND
THEIR IMPACTS WOULD BE MEASURED
AGAINST THE EXISTING BASELINE,
WHICH IS THE EXISTING PLAN, AND
IT ALLOWS THE DEPARTMENT, OF
COURSE, TO EXERCISE THE
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION IF THERE
IS, INFORMATION ON DATA OR
BELIEF THAT THE, THE UNDERLYING
PLAN HAS NOT FUNCTIONED THE WAY
THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, THAT IS
THE POINT OF THE REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION WHEN THEY ARE
CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT. SO IT
DOES NOT HAMSTRING THE
DEPARTMENT FROM CONSIDERING THAT
UNDERLYING PLAN. IN THAT WAY.
THE IDEA IS, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE
A CONSERVATION PLAN AND IT IS
BEING AMENDED IN A WAY TO ALLOW
NEW ACTIVITIES TO RECOGNIZE THE
LISTING OF NEW SPECIES, THAT IT
SHOULD NOT BE A PROCESS THAT
TAKES A DECADE OR IT IS A
SIGNIFICANT DISINCENTIVE FOR ANY
ENTITY TO UNDERTAKE THIS,
INCLUDING SDG. AND I GUESS I
GUESS I WANT TO ASK MORE ABOUT
THAT BECAUSE THAT'S, SO THE
OVERALL, MISSION OF THE BILL IS
TO EXPEDITE THE TRANSMISSION
THAT IS REQUIRED. I THINK
THERE'S JUST EVERYBODY JUST
AGREES WITH THAT, AND WHAT I'M
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN IT
COMES TO THIS PARTICULAR PART OF
THE PLAN, IT'S NOT JUST THE
PERMITTING, APPROVAL, REGULAR
PROCESS THAT TODAY, TAKES YEARS,
BUT IT'S ALSO THE PLAN THEN ALSO
THAT YOU ANTICIPATE THESE
CHANGES WOULD ALLOW TO ALSO,
TELL ME ABOUT YOUR, ASSUMPTIONS
OF THE EXPEDITE THE TO EXPEDITE
EXPEDITED PROCESS, IF YOU WILL,
THAT WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF
THESE CHANGES IN THIS BILL. SO
THERE'S MANY STREAMLINING
BENEFITS BOTH FOR THE AGENCY AND
THE APPLICANT IN OBTAINING A
CONSERVATION PLAN, THERE ARE
MANY BENEFITS TO THE OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF
INFRASTRUCTURE. SO AS I
MENTIONED EARLIER, WE NEED TO
CONSTRUCT THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE
AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. WE ALSO
NEED TO MAINTAIN THE SAFE AND
RELIABLE OPERATION OF IT. SO
THAT'S WHERE OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE COMES IN. AND THIS
STREAMLINES THE ABILITY OF, AN
ENTITY HAVING A CONSERVATION
PLAN TO, TO, NOT HAVE TO GO TO
AN AGENCY FOR INDIVIDUAL PERMITS
EVERY TIME THERE IS AN IMPACT TO
PAUSE THERE. GIVEN OUR HISTORY
IN SAN DIEGO ABOUT, WILDFIRES
AND THE ISSUE OF TRANSMISSION
LINES AS IT RELATES TO WHAT WAS
THE PROCESS THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN
AS A RESULT OF THAT REQUIREMENT
OF PROTECTING THOSE LINES, POST
THE OH THREE AND OH SEVEN FIRES
AS IT RELATES TO THE PLAN, THE
1995 PLAN, WHEN IT DESCRIBED THE
ACTIVITIES THAT THE PLAN
COVERED, DID NOT INCLUDE MANY OF
THOSE FIRE WILDFIRE MITIGATION
PROJECTS, MAINTENANCE CGRTS FIRE
HARDENING WORK THAT THE UTILITY
HAS DONE SINCE OH THREE AND OH
SEVEN. AND FOR US, OUR AMENDMENT
TO THE EXISTING PLAN WOULD BE TO
PUT THOSE ACTIVITIES INTO THE
PLAN AND MITIGATE FOR THEM AND
APPLY THE MEASURES AND PROTOCOLS
NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT THERE
ARE ANY IMPACTS ARE FULLY
MITIGATED. SO TELL ME, BECAUSE
I'M I'M FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HAD
TO BE DONE THEN IN OH THREE AND
OH AFTER 0307 HARDENING ALL OF
THAT. GIVEN THAT THESE CHANGES
DID NOT EXIST, THAT THE PROCESS
IS WHAT THE PROCESS IS TODAY,
WHAT WERE THE WHAT WERE SOME OF
THE CONSTRAINTS, LIMITATIONS OR
DELAYS IN BEING ABLE TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT WORK THAT WAS SO
IMPORTANT FOR THOSE PEOPLE IN
EAST COUNTY, SAN DIEGO? IF THERE
ARE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT
COVERED BY THE BY THE PLAN, THEN
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THE
PLAN TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
IMPACTS FROM THAT WORK. AND IT
IS THEY ARE NEW. THEY WERE NOT
THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE 95
PLAN. SO THEY NEED TO BE
DESCRIBED AND STUDIED TO
DETERMINE WHAT THOSE IMPACTS
WOULD BE SO THAT THE
CONSERVATION PLAN ADDRESSES THEM
AS THE UTILITY CONTINUES TO GO
FORWARD. SO THEN DID THAT WORK
REQUIRE FULL IARS AND EVERYTHING
ELSE THAT COMES WITH THAT, OR
WHAT WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO
PERMIT THOSE OR ALLOW THOSE, I
THINK YOU'RE I THINK YOUR
QUESTION IS ASKING ABOUT WHAT
WHAT APPROVALS WERE NECESSARY AT
THE CPUC FOR THAT. AND THAT IS
OUTSIDE OF THE NH█P, QUESTION
OR, OR THAT ISSUE, THOSE,
DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT,
OBVIOUSLY, THE FACTS AND
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT DICTATE
WHAT APPROVALS ARE NECESSARY. SO
THEY WOULD STILL BE UNDER THE
OVERSIGHT OF THE CPUC, BUT THIS
DEALS WITH THE ASPECTS OF THOSE
PROJECTS THAT MAY IMPACT THAT
HABITAT OR SPECIES. THE LAST
QUESTION WOULD BE ON, THE LENGTH
OF TIME. AND SINCE THE GOAL IS
TO REDUCE THE TIME, WHAT CAN YOU
BE MORE, GIVE US MORE, MAYBE
SPECIFIC. SCALE OF WE WOULD GO
FROM X NUMBER OF DAYS OR MONTHS
OR YEARS TO WITH THIS EXPEDITED
PROCESS, WE ANTICIPATE THIS
WOULD BE THE OUTCOME. SURE,
LOOKING AT THE BILL HOLISTICALLY
IN PARTICULARLY FOCUSING ON THE
REFORMS TO THE CPUC, PERMIT AND
REVIEW PROCESS, WE
CONSERVATIVELY ESTIMATE THAT IT
WOULD REDUCE THE, IT WOULD
REDUCE THE PERMITTING TIME BY
TWO YEARS. OTHER, STAKEHOLDERS
HAVE ESTIMATED AN EVEN LONGER
TIME REDUCTION SAVINGS FROM THE
PERMITTING PROCESS AT THE
UTILITIES COMMISSION. SO THOSE
ARE IT'S CUMULATIVE. ALL OF
THESE ALL OF THE REFORMS
TOGETHER CONSIDERED WOULD IMPACT
THE PROCESS. BUT IT'S REAL TIME
SAVINGS ON A ON A FIVE YEAR
PERMITTING PROCESS. THAT'S COULD
BE MORE THAN HALF THAT. WE CAN
SAVE BY THESE STRAIGHTFORWARD
REFORMS OF THAT PROCESS. OKAY.
I'D ASK THE OPPOSITION IF
THERE'S ANY SHARE ANY THOUGHTS
ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT
I'VE MADE THAT COULD BE HELPFUL.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. SO
LET ME JUST, I'M GOING TO GO
KIND OF BACKWARDS. SO ON THE PUC
PROCESS, THE BILL DOES INCLUDE
SOME, IT INCLUDES THE SETTLEMENT
PROPOSAL IN PART OF WHAT WAS
GIVEN TO THE PUC. AND I ACTUALLY
THINK SOME OF THE PROPOSALS IN
THERE MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. 270
DAY REVIEW. THE ABILITY TO USE
TO NOT HAVE TO USE THE TO USE
DRAFT SEQUA DOCUMENTS. I THINK
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WILL SPEED
UP THE SEQUA PROCESS, WHICH I
THINK IS REALLY AT THE HEART OF
WHERE FOLKS WERE TRYING TO FIND
EFFICIENCIES, MY POINT ABOUT THE
IN-LIEU PERMITTING PROCESS IS WE
COULD DO THAT AT THE PUC, WE
HAVE TO PUT STANDARDS IN. WE DO
HAVE TO PUT STANDARDS IN AND WE
DO HAVE TO PUT AND CLARIFY, YOU
KNOW, WHAT DOES THIS ACTUALLY
MEAN IF THE PUC IS NOW GOING TO
TAKE OVER THE ROLE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
AND OTHER, YOU KNOW, OTHER STATE
LAWS AND LOCAL LAWS, I MEAN, THE
CDC IS CURRENTLY DOING THAT
RIGHT NOW THROUGH THE AB 205
PROCESS. I FRANKLY, I'M NOT
ENTIRELY SURE THAT IS REALLY
GOING TO SPEED THINGS UP. SO I
THINK THAT THE BILL INCLUDES
SOME THINGS THAT ARE REALLY
HELPFUL. I THINK THE IN-LIEU
PERMITTING PROCESS MAY ACTUALLY
HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT,
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE PUC IS
PREPARED TO DO THE THING THAT
WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO, EVEN IF
WE PUT IN THE SIDEBOARDS. BUT
WE'RE OPEN TO DOING THAT. WE'RE
OPEN. I'VE SAID TO THE OPPOSITE.
I'VE SAID TO THE PROPONENTS,
WE'RE OPEN TO WE'VE NEGOTIATED
AB 205 TWO YEARS AGO. WE CAN DO
AN IN-LIEU PERMITTING PROCESS AT
THE PUC. THEY JUST NEED TO HAVE
STANDARDS, NOT EXEMPT. THE
COASTAL ACT, NOT EXEMPT THE FISH
AND GAME CODE. WELL, I THINK I
HEARD THE RESPONSE FROM THE
DIRECTLY FROM THE AUTHOR ON
WORKING WITH YOU ON ON THAT
ISSUE IN PARTICULAR. BUT I'M
CONCERNED WITH ONE THING THAT
YOU'RE SAYING THAT I THINK WE
SHOULD BE, IF IT'S A 270 DAY
REVIEW, YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH
LONGER DELAYS, BUT STATUTORILY
THEY'D BE REQUIRED FOR 270 DAYS.
OH, YES. STATUTORILY THEY WOULD
BE TOLD THEY NEED TO GET IT DONE
IN 270 DAYS. I'LL BE HONEST. I
MEAN, MY EXPERIENCE WITH
AGENCIES, WHEN YOU TELL THEM TO
DO 270 DAYS AND YOU HAVE
SOMETHING AS COMPLICATED AS A
MASSIVE TRANSMISSION PROJECT,
IT'S I'M NOT SURE THEY WILL MAKE
THAT. AND THEN YOU'RE ASKING
THEM TO TAKE ON THE ROLE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE,
THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION. YOU
KNOW, I WORRY THAT THAT WILL
ACTUALLY SLOW THINGS DOWN. BUT
THE 270 DAY REQUIREMENT FOR THE
SEQUA PROCESS, I DO THINK, MAKES
A LOT OF A LOT OF SENSE, I DO
WANT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ON
THE NH█P ACT, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
SO ONE THING I JUST WANT TO JUST
POINT OUT IS THAT THE STANDARD
FOR THE NH█P ACT IS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED. THE STANDARD FOR THE
NH█P ACT IS CONSERVATION AND
THAT WAS I. THAT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN
THE FEDERAL THE STATE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT, WHICH IS FULLY
MITIGATED AND YOU DON'T GET NO
SURPRISES, POLICY, YOU KNOW, YOU
GET THAT GUARANTEE. THE NH█P ACT
GIVES PLAN APPLICANTS THE NO
SURPRISES POLICY IN EXCHANGE FOR
THE CONSERVATION STANDARD. I'M
TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC SEEMS TO
THINK THAT THEIR AMENDMENT TO AN
NP ONLY NEEDS TO MEET A FULLY
MITIGATED STANDARD. THAT IS NOT
THE CORRECT STANDARD FOR THE
NH█P ACT. AND I THINK IT
ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATES WHAT WHAT
I'M TRYING TO SAY HERE, WHICH IS
THE CHANGES THAT THEY'RE ASKING
FOR IN THE NP ACT, WILL UNDERCUT
THE CONSERVATION STANDARD ON THE
NP. WHEN YOU'RE DOING A MAJOR
PLAN AMENDMENT. AND I CAN'T, YOU
KNOW, I AND THE OTHER POINT I
WOULD MAKE IS SGA DID WORK WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE. THEY GOT AN EMERGENCY
NH█P AMENDMENT, UTILIZED A CEQA
EXEMPTION IN ORDER TO MOVE THAT
2022 AMENDMENT FORWARD. SO IT'S
NOT THAT THE DEPARTMENT ISN'T
TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT SAN
DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC IS ASKING
FOR, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO A PLAN,
AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR A NO
SURPRISES GUARANTEES OUT TO
2050. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A
RESPONSE OR UNDERSTAND THE
CONCERN ON THE MITIGATION VERSUS
THE CONSERVATION IN THE PLAN?
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT STANDARD. AND IT IS A
REQUIREMENT OF THE PLAN THAT ANY
JUST STANDARD ASIDE, IT MUST BE
ALL IMPACTS HAVE TO BE
MITIGATED, COMPLETELY MITIGATED,
FULLY MITIGATED WHATEVER TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE, THAT
WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME,
THE APPROVAL STANDARD FOR AN
NH█P ACT IS 2835 OF THE FISH AND
GAME CODE, WHICH IS THE
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF
COVERED SPECIES. BELIEVE ME,
IT'S BURNED INTO MY BRAIN. OKAY,
LET ME LET ME LET HER RESPOND,
SO I MY POINT IN MAKING THAT IS
JUST THAT THE A CONSERVATION
PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT YOU OBTAIN,
IS A NET BENEFIT BECAUSE IMPACTS
ARE COMPLETELY MITIGATED BY,
IN-KIND MITIGATION AS WELL AS
THE MEASURES AND PROTOCOLS THAT
ARE REQUIRED FOR AVOIDANCE AND,
THE DESIGN TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS
WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND THEN
MITIGATE FOR THEM WHEN THEY ARE
SO THE RESULT IS THAT THERE ARE
THE ALL MITIGATE ALL, IMPACTS
ARE MITIGATED. MADAM CHAIR,
THANK YOU BOTH FOR, THE, THE
PRESENTATIONS AND CERTAINLY THE
ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. RIVAS THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. I'LL BE BRIEF. I
KNOW THERE'S ALREADY BEEN,
DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, I
APPRECIATE THAT THE AUTHOR, IS
TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION, YOU
KNOW, TO HELP OUR STATE MEET ITS
AMBITIOUS CLIMATE GOALS, YOU
KNOW, HOWEVER, I KNOW THAT, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO BRING ALL THE
GROUPS TOGETHER, AND I HOPE,
THAT ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT
ARE SEEKING TO PROTECT THE
ENVIRONMENT. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE
ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT
IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE AND
BEYOND. AND, YOU KNOW, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY, BUT I
HOPE THAT, THE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE OPPOSITION WILL
CONTINUE. THANK YOU. ESTÁ MÀ.
THANK YOU. I KNOW, IT'S
COMPLICATED, AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK IN THIS
SPACE. I KNOW YOU'VE YOU'VE BEEN
A LEADER ON THIS ISSUE AND IN
THIS SPACE FOR A LONG TIME, AND
THERE'S SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE OUR GOALS. AND
WE'RE FEELING LIKE IT'S NOT
LOOKING SO GOOD, SO, YOU KNOW,
WE HAVE TO MOVE FASTER AND WE
HAVE TO DO MORE, I SHARE
CONCERNS AROUND SOME OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO FIGURE
OUT RESOLUTION. AND, WE'LL ALSO
SUPPORT TODAY TO BE ABLE TO
ALLOW THAT PROCESS TO CONTINUE,
AND, AND I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT
THERE WILL BE SOME OTHER GREAT
AMENDMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND OF
COMMITTEE HEARINGS, THAT WE'LL
SEE MOVE FORWARD TO, TO BRING
TOGETHER SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS
AND, ESPECIALLY AROUND, YOU
KNOW, THE, THE STATE LANDS AND
BEING ABLE TO EXPAND ON STATE
LANDS, I WONDER IF THERE'S I
MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU COULD
JUST EXPAND AND THEN EXPAND
AGAIN AND THEN EXPAND AGAIN,
RIGHT. LIKE SOME KIND, YOU KNOW,
GUARDRAILS IN, IN, SPACES WHERE
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE
IS CONSERVATION, THAT THERE IS
PROTECTION, AND BUT ALSO WE, YOU
KNOW, WE ALLOW FOR, FOR THINGS
TO MOVE MUCH MORE QUICKLY TO BE
ABLE TO MEET OUR GOALS, WHICH IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO US. SO
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR WORK
ON THIS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?
OKAY, BEFORE I LET YOU CLOSE, I
DO HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS,
FIRST, I APPRECIATE THE
ENDEAVOR, BECAUSE IT'S NOT EASY.
AND THE MINUTE YOU START SAYING
THE WORD STREAMLINE, PEOPLE GET
VERY ALARMED. I'M NOT AFRAID OF
THE WORD STREAMLINED. AND I
LOOKED AT THIS BILL FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IS THE
PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT IT'S GOING
TO ACHIEVE? BECAUSE THESE
UTILITIES PROVIDE A PUBLIC
BENEFIT AND SO FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE, I WASN'T AFRAID OF
THE WORD STREAMLINE. AND I THINK
THAT THE CPUC HAS TO LOOK AT ALL
THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS, WHETHER
IT'S THE COASTAL ACT, WHETHER
IT'S, YOU KNOW, FISH GAME AND
WILDLIFE AND WHAT STANDS UNDER
THEIR PURVIEW. I THINK 270 DAYS
IS GOING TO PUT THEY'RE NOT
KNOWN FOR THEIR EXPEDITIOUS
MANNER. SO I APPRECIATE THAT
YOU'VE GOT 270 IN THIS BILL TO
REALLY PUT THEIR FEET TO THE
FIRE. IT'S NOT PERFECT. I
RECOGNIZE YOU'RE GOING TO
ANOTHER COMMITTEE AND YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE OTHER, PERHAPS
OTHER AMENDMENTS. BUT FROM I
JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT
CAME THIS BILL CAME TO ME FROM
THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IS THE
PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WE'VE GOT TO
FOCUS ON HERE. SO THAT'S WHY YOU
HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DO PASS
AS AMENDED FROM ME. I APPRECIATE
THE, THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME
FROM MY FROM MY COLLEAGUES, SO
WITH THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU. AND I
APPRECIATE THE OPENNESS. I
APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS TO
CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, WE
ARE, COMMITTED TO BRING THE
GROUP TOGETHER. WE WILL ADD YOUR
OFFICES. MR. ALVAREZ. MR. BENNET
, MISS RIVAS, TO THE WORK GROUP.
THEY MET YESTERDAY, PROPONENTS,
OPPONENTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES
THAT WERE RAISED IN THE FIRST
COMMITTEE, WE WILL SCHEDULE
ANOTHER MEETING AND INVITE YOUR
OFFICES TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP TODAY.
I HOPE THAT WE WILL HAVE A VERY
SIMILAR KIND OF ENVIRONMENT,
CLIMATE TO HAVE A GOOD
CONVERSATION. IF THIS BILL GETS
OUT IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE. THIS
BILL WASN'T ORIGINALLY TRIPLE
REFERRED. AND WHEN WE HEARD THAT
IT WAS GOING TO GO TO A THIRD
COMMITTEE, I THOUGHT IT WAS A
GOOD THING SO THAT IF IN FACT,
THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS, WE
CAN VET THOSE OUT. AND IF GIVEN
THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME ON THE
FLOOR BEFORE YOU WITH THIS BILL,
AFTER THREE BILLS, AFTER THREE
COMMITTEE POLICY COMMITTEES ARE
VETTING AND 3 OR 4 STAKEHOLDER
MEETINGS, I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE
THERE WOULD BE TO VET AT THAT
POINT. I THINK IT'S A QUESTION
OF NOW, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO YOU
STAND ON THE ISSUE OF
ACCELERATING TRANSMISSION,
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AND
MEETING OUR CLIMATE GOALS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA? SO, THANK
YOU FOR ENTERTAINING THIS ISSUE.
I APPRECIATE THE IRICO AND THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEFORE US
AND RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE. OKAY, GREAT, AND YOU
DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING HERE. SO,
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE COME UP
WITH A REASONABLE SOLUTION, NO
DOUBT, DO I HAVE A MOTION? Þ
DAVIS HAD A MOTION. EXCUSE ME.
AND WEBER WAS A SECOND. GREAT
LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE.
OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SIX, AB 3238.
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO
NATURAL RESOURCES. PAPPIN I
PAPPIN. I TALKED TO I ADDIS
ALANIZ. ALVAREZ ALVAREZ I
ALANIZ. ALANIZ I BENNETT.
BENNETT I BONTA. GALLAGHER I
GALLAGHER I DAVIES. DAVIES I
GARCIA I GARCIA I HART. THREE OF
US. THREE OF US I SCHIAVO
SCHIAVO I VILA. PADUA. LAPUA I
WEBER. OKAY, IT'S OUT AND WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN. ASSEMBLYMEMBER
GARCIA, FOR ADDITIONAL VOTES.
AND WE'VE GOT SOME CLEAN UP
VOTING. THANK YOU. WE HAVE SOME
CLEAN UP VOTING FOR SOME THAT
WERE NOT HERE FOR ALL THE VOTES.
AND I'LL LET THE CLERK TAKE IT
AWAY ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR TO
A TO I BONTA GARCIA A GARCIA I
OKAY. ITEM NUMBER TWO. AB 2517
TO I TO I BONTA GARCIA A GARCIA
I ITEM NUMBER THREE AB 2552
FRIEDMAN. MOTION IS DUE. PASS AS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY TO NÓ TO NÓ
ADDIS ALANIZ. ALL IN EAST NØ.
BONTA. GALLAGHER. GALLAGHER NØ
DAVIES. DAVIES. NØ GARCIA.
GARCIA I PHILIP. PHILIPPOU.
WOULD NOT VOTING. WEBER OKAY.
GARCIA. RIGHT ON. GARCIA.
THAT'S EVERYTHING. SIR. ITEM
NUMBER FOUR AB 2799. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO AGRICULTURE. TO A
TO I. BONTA GARCIA. GARCIA, I
OKAY, AND WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU.
NEED TO GET HIM ON CONSENT. YEAH
WHAT'S NICE TO SEE YOU. LIKEWISE
.
ITEM NUMBER SIX. AB 3238. MOTION
IS DUE. PASS AS AMENDED TO
NATURAL RESOURCES AS ADDIS
BONTA. HART. NOT VOTING. HART
NOT VOTING. AND WEBER. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR COMING.
AND STOPPING.
WELCOME. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. BONTA.
LET'S SEE IF WE'LL GET SOME OF
YOUR VOTES ON RECORD. THANKS FOR
GETTING HERE. THANK YOU. SO, ON
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. BONTA I.
BONTA I. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER TWO
2517. MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. BONTA
I TO I OKAY. ITEM NUMBER THREE
AB 2552. MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED TO JUDICIARY. ADDIS
BONTA I BONTA I WEBER OKAY. AN
ITEM NUMBER FOUR AB 2799 MOTION
IS DUE. PASS TO AGRICULTURE.
BONTA I BONTA I OKAY AN ITEM
NUMBER SIX AB 3238. MOTION IS Dð
PASS AS AMENDED TO NATURAL
RESOURCES. ADDIS BONTA I BONTA I
WEBER OKAY. THANK.
ITEM NUMBER THREE. AB 2552.
MOTION IS Dð PASS, AS AMENDED TO
JUDICIARY. ADDIS WEBER. WEBER I
OKAY. AND THEN ITEM NUMBER SIX
AB 3238. MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED TO NATURAL RESOURCES.
ADDIS WEBER. WEBER I OKAY.
WHATEVER OKAY. WE WILL STAND IN
ADJOURNMENT. NEXT NEXT. WE'LL.