Assembly committee advances bills on tribal water rights, wildfire work, Joshua tree permitting and groundwater procedures

The California State Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee on (date not specified) advanced several bills addressing tribal water protections, wildfire and vegetation management, Western Joshua tree permitting, regulation of emergency flows in Klamath tributaries, data-center water reporting and reforms intended to limit litigation that can delay sustainable groundwater plans.

Why it matters: The committee moved bills that members and witnesses said aim to balance competing needs — protecting cultural and ecological uses of water and wildlife habitat, speeding local hazard-reduction projects, and clarifying how courts should treat technical groundwater planning documents. Supporters described measures as necessary to protect tribal cultural practices, public safety and long-term water and habitat sustainability; opponents warned some proposals could undercut procedural safeguards or pre-empt ongoing stakeholder negotiations.

Tribal water uses (AB 362). Assemblymember Robert R. Ramos introduced AB 362 to add tribal uses to the list of “beneficial uses” in state water law and to direct clearer consultation and implementation by the State Water Resources Control Board and regional boards. Vice Chairwoman Melissa Tayaba of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and Robert Jeff of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokuts testified in support, saying statutory recognition would help protect cultural, spiritual, subsistence and ceremonial uses tied to rivers and wetlands. Tayaba testified: “Tribes can fulfill their sacred duties of being stewards of the land…if they are given a voice at the table.” The bill drew broad support from conservation and scientific organizations and some tribal sponsors; the Association of California Water Agencies and several water districts registered opposition unless amended, chiefly over language they said could elevate tribal beneficial use above other uses and could add regulatory uncertainty for the Bay-Delta plan update. The committee passed AB 362 to the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee.

Wildfire preparedness and vegetation management (AB 846). Assemblymember Connolly presented AB 846 to create a voluntary pathway for local agencies (cities, counties, special districts) to submit wildfire-preparedness plans to the Department of Fish and Wildlife for faster determination whether incidental-take permits or other approvals are required, and to allow up to five-year incidental-take permits for approved plans. Fire chiefs and the League of California Cities supported the bill, saying local first responders need clearer timelines to execute fuel-management projects adjacent to communities. There was no formal opposition on the record; the committee passed AB 846 to Natural Resources.

Western Joshua tree permitting (AB 1089). Assemblymember Marc Carrillo brought AB 1089 to allow the Department of Fish and Wildlife to enter agreements with local governments to permit the take of Western Joshua trees for additional project categories, including commercial and industrial projects, where the department agrees. City officials from Adelanto said local permitting would speed housing and economic projects; conservation groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and several conservation organizations opposed the expansion, calling it premature until the state and local permit-delegation model is tested. The committee voted the bill to Appropriations.

Human–bear conflicts and regional mitigation (AB 1024). Assemblymember (sponsor not specified in transcript) presented AB 1024 after testimony from Sierra Madre officials and the city’s mayor and manager describing sharp increases in human–black-bear interactions. Witnesses urged a regional plan modeled on Tahoe Basin efforts, asking for tagging, tracking and measurable mitigation metrics so local jurisdictions have state support for prevention and safe responses. The committee passed the bill to Appropriations.

Emergency flows in Scott and Shasta rivers (AB 263). A bill to extend emergency flow regulations on the Scott and Shasta Rivers for a limited period or until permanent State Water Board rules are adopted drew intense debate. Supporters, including tribal leaders Frankie Myers (former Yurok vice chair) and conservation groups, said the watersheds are central to salmon recovery and cultural lifeways and that emergency flows implemented in 2021 were based on long-term gauged data and have been necessary to prevent fish die-offs. Farmers, Siskiyou County representatives and agricultural groups opposed the bill as written, arguing the measure would set a precedent for bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act and could crystallize short-term emergency rules without full CEQA review or compensation programs; some proposed water-leasing or compensation approaches as alternatives. The bill was amended and passed to Appropriations while the debate and local negotiations continue.

Groundwater adjudication and judicial-review bills. Committee members heard lengthy testimony on two related measures aimed at changing when and how courts may relitigate technical questions that are part of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) adopted under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Supporters representing groundwater sustainability agencies said years of investment and scientific modeling underpin GSPs and that comprehensive adjudications filed by some parties have been used to delay implementation. Opponents — including legal experts, some GSAs and agricultural and water associations — said the bills conflate validation proceedings and adjudications, risk locking in planning estimates without full judicial review, and could increase exposure for many GSPs. The committee advanced those measures (as amended) to Judiciary.

Data-center water reporting (AB 93). A proposal to require local jurisdictions to gather water-use estimates from data centers at business-license application and renewal, to require utilities to analyze data-center impacts on system costs, and to direct state agencies to develop best practices drew support from community water advocates and some municipal groups. Proponents said transparency and basic conservation standards are needed as large data centers expand into water-stressed regions. The committee moved the bill to Local Government with amendments under consideration.

Votes at a glance (committee actions as announced by the clerk) - AB 362 (tribal water beneficial uses): passed to Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials (as announced by clerk) - AB 263 (Scott & Shasta emergency flows, as amended): passed as amended to Appropriations - AB 846 (wildfire preparedness): passed to Natural Resources - AB 1089 (Western Joshua tree permitting): passed to Appropriations - AB 1024 (black-bear mitigation/management): passed to Appropriations - AB 1044 (groundwater agency for Tulare County): passed to Local Government - AB 1426 (Diablo Range Conservation Program): passed to Natural Resources (as amended) - AB 1466 / AB 1413 (groundwater adjudication / review reforms): passed to Judiciary (as amended) - AB 93 (data-center water reporting): passed as amended to Local Government (Clerk read ayes/noes and recorded outcomes during the hearing; detailed roll-call tallies were read aloud on the record for each item.)

What happened in committee: Each bill drew a mix of stakeholder testimony — tribal leaders and conservation groups on water-protection measures, city and county officials on permitting and wildfire-response proposals, tribal and fishing representatives and farmers on Klamath-area flows, and water and agriculture interests on groundwater litigation rules. Committee members often emphasized the need for continued stakeholder meetings; several bills passed with committee amendments and sponsors committed to continued work with opponents and interested parties.

Looking ahead: Several measures were sent to fiscal committees (Appropriations) or to Judiciary for legal-review changes and will return to policy committees or the floor after further amendment and negotiation. Committee sponsors repeatedly said they would continue negotiations with opposing parties to refine language before final votes.

Ending note: Committee members framed the package as attempts to protect cultural and ecological resources, improve public safety and accelerate locally led wildfire prevention — while opponents repeatedly urged caution about unintended legal and economic effects and asked for more robust mitigation or compensation strategies where regulatory changes could affect farm and municipal water users.