May 7, 2026 · Budget Sub2 · 26,812 words · 15 speakers · 215 segments
Thank you. Thank you. The Senate Budget Subcommittee Number Two on Resources Environmental Protection Energy will come to order We are holding our hearing in the O Street building I thank the members of this subcommittee for being present so that we can establish a quorum Senator Reyes.
Present.
Reyes, present. Blakespeare.
Present.
Blakespeare, present. Choi.
Here.
Choi, here. McNerney.
Yep.
McNerney, here. We have a quorum. We have 23 issues on today's agenda. We'll be discussing six issues listed in the discussion section of the agenda. After discussion, we will have public comment on all of the items. We will not hold a vote today. All items are being held open. Items will be voted at a future hearing. All right, let's start with issue number one, elimination of vacant positions. All right, let's hear first from LAO, Ms. Pettick. Would you like to begin?
Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and good morning, Senators. I'm Sonia Pettick with the Legislative Analyst's Office. Because today I am both presenting the issue as well as offering the LAO's analysis, I'm going to break this up into three sections. First, I'm going to start with providing sort of a lay of the land, and then I'll go over what the Joint Legislative Budget Committee found in its review of this proposal. And then third, I'll go over our office's analysis and recommendations. Thank you. So first to start with the general landscape, if you could turn to page four of your agenda and refer to the top row of this figure. I'm going to pull it up as well. At May revision last year, the governor had proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions across state departments as a cost savings measure. However, because this was at May revision, it didn't give the legislature a lot of time to consider which positions were being proposed for reduction or for elimination, rather. the final agreement, instead of eliminating all of those positions, it effectively eliminated about 5,000 of the positions as shown in the next row and then allowed the legislature through the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to review about 1,000 of those positions. It gave it more time until January of this year. These thousand positions were all of the positions in nine specified departments, of which five are before you today. And the remaining positions were associated with legislation that was chaptered in recent years, in 2022 and 2023. So if you look at the next row, after a thorough review, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee did not concur with 650 of the proposed roughly 1,000 position eliminations. And then as shown in the final row, 293 of these positions are in the eight departments that are before you today. So the governor's budget released in January essentially built in savings from elimination of all 6,000 positions. So for the departments here today this would include annual savings of about 37 million about half of which is from the general fund So next I going to go over what the JLBC found in its review The JLBC considered various criteria across all of the departments that had positions proposed for elimination. So, for example, were the positions associated with efforts to reform a program or enhance a program or improve program outcomes? or were the positions performing important public safety functions. In addition, the JLBC considered factors unique to each department. So at a high level, I'm going to go over some of the findings and reasons the JLBC did not concur with certain eliminations at the eight departments here today. So starting with departments of Fish and Wildlife and Parks and Recreation, the JLBC did not concur with the elimination of 77 of the proposed 164 eliminations at Fish and Wildlife and did not concur with 62 of the 85 positions at Parks. For both of these departments, a good number of the positions are related to law enforcement functions, So game wardens at Fish and Wildlife and public safety and peace officers at parks. In addition, for both departments, the JLBC had concerns about reducing staff in light of either known staffing shortages. So, for example, in the case of Fish and Wildlife, through the service-based budgeting exercise that took place in recent years, the department has known gaps in service levels, and part of this is due to staffing shortages. And in the case of parks, the JLBC had concerns about efforts, about sort of affecting efforts to improve program delivery. So, for example, the Fixing the State Parks initiative, some of these positions are associated with that initiative. For Department of Fish and Wildlife, I would also mention that 18 of the proposed eliminations are associated with various permitting programs and initiatives. For the departments of pesticide regulation and toxic substances control, at DPR, the JLBC did not concur with the elimination of 15 of 19 positions, and at DTSC, with about 80 of the 112 positions proposed for elimination. At both departments, many of these positions proposed for elimination play a role in efforts to expand or enhance or reform core high-priority programs. At the State Water Resources Control Board, the JLBC did not concur with eliminating 43 positions. This was about half of the number proposed by the administration. The JLBC considered the Water Board's core functions, including issuing and enforcing discharge permits, managing water rights and water quality control plans, and had concerns about eliminating positions that support those core functions. So the JLBC also took a look, as noted earlier, at the positions associated with recently chaptered legislation. And for three of the departments here today, the positions proposed were recently authorized to implement some of these legislative priorities. So, for example, some of the positions are associated with Senate Bill 272, which requires coastal communities to develop sea level rise plans. The governor has proposed eliminating six of 18 positions authorized at the Coastal Commission and one of 15 positions authorized at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission or BCDC The JLBC did not concur with the elimination of all seven of these positions out of concerns that this would reduce the state ability to meet these ambitious sea level rise goals sea level rise adaptation goals, and would reduce both of the commission's ability to help local governments develop these plans. Several bills included or a number of the positions proposed for elimination concern bills that would be implemented by CalRecycle. This includes AB 1526, requiring certain reporting of aerosol paints sold and recovered, AB 2440, requiring battery producers to establish stewardship programs for the collection and recycling of specific types of batteries, SB 1013, adding wine and distilled spirits to the Beverage Container Act, and SB 1215, expanding electronic recycling to include battery-embedded products. In total, the governor's budget proposes eliminating nine of 81 full-time positions associated with these four laws. The JLBC did not concur with any of these eliminations because they might delay implementation of key activities. Okay, so next I wanted to talk about the Legislative Analyst's Office assessment and recommendations on this proposal. So first point, to the extent that the legislature wishes to retain rather than eliminate any of the 650 positions, including the ones being discussed today, this would erode savings built into the governor's budget. And the legislature might need to find a similar level of savings elsewhere in the budget. In the context of finding budget solutions, we note that for parks, the Coastal Commission, BCDC, and 14 of the positions at the Water Board and 31 at Fish and Wildlife are positions that are general funded. So this is challenging, of course, because retaining them would erode about $18 million in general fund savings. For Fish and Wildlife, we would note that the Governor's budget proposes retaining all of Fish and Wildlife's special funds, even as it eliminates the positions associated with that funding. Consequently, if the legislature wishes to retain all of the Fish and Wildlife positions, it would only result in a loss of savings on the general fund side. All of the remaining positions, 29 at the Water Board and all of the positions at DPR, PSC, and CalRecycle are special funded. So eliminating them would not help address the state's structural budget deficit since they have no impact on the general fund. Our second point is that eliminating positions could have undesirable program impacts. They were established to serve important functions, as the JLBC found in its review, and eliminating them would thus have tradeoffs. Our third point is that just because a position is vacant doesn't mean the position is not important. Positions can be vacant for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with programmatic need, such as being hard to fill because they require special skills or training, or because they were just recently authorized, as in the case of some of the recent legislation. So what we recommend is that the legislature retain the positions that are special funded. So these would be the positions at Fish and Wildlife, the Water Board, DPR, DTSC, and CalRecycle. that these positions serve important functions and eliminating them could have negative program impacts. And moreover, eliminating them doesn't help with the out-year structural deficit problem. For the general funded positions, this is a tougher choice for the legislature because all of the same arguments apply. These positions serve important functions and eliminating them would have trade-offs. But we suggest that the legislature weigh the importance of those positions against some of its other priorities across the state budget. Thank you very much.
Good morning. Stephen Benson with the Department of Finance. I'll take just a few minutes to do comments to help set some of the context for how the administration went about doing this exercise, and I think it'll be helpful to the conversation as we go through here. So this exercise started with the realization that the state has about 40,000 vacant positions annually. And that number holds pretty steady across several fiscal years. Of course, there's some fluctuation in terms of like which positions and things like that. But the total number is pretty steady across several fiscal years. And within individual departments, there's also a fair level of steadiness in terms of the vacancy rates. Again, there's fluctuations as to which positions are vacant. That changes as you fill some and others become vacant, things like that. But there's a pretty steady level of vacancy rates in most departments. And what that situation results in is you have a whole bunch of funding that was put into budgets to fund positions that are not going towards those positions because the positions are vacant. And also the work that was intended to get done is not getting done because the positions are vacant. And so it's not a very effective use of all of that funding being tied up. And it's sort of a realization that, again, while the positions may vary a little bit, the overall amount of funding that fits in this pot is pretty steady because the number of positions is pretty steady. And so the idea was to go about looking at this and finding ways to more effectively and efficiently use that funding within the state's budget while still maintaining a level of flexibility for departments to manage and meet their base operating needs. so I would say that this but this funding that's available is used by departments in a number of different ways so for example the state doesn't do cost of living adjustments for departments every year so things like rent fuel costs utilities things like that that increase over time we don't make adjustments every year to cover those so in some instances you have departments that keep positions vacant because they need funding to cover those cost increases at certain points in time we of course we can propose BCPs and come in and try and true some of that stuff up but it's not like an automatic adjustment every year and so to manage that they'll use vacant positions to help do that there's other ways that are other things that result in some of the vacancies for example some classifications are really hard to fill that may be because they're in a remote location there's housing challenges there's other recruitment challenges but there are a number of classifications across the state in different departments that are just hard to fill. Sometimes there's a shortage of that particular expertise available in the market altogether. Sometimes there are employers that are more competitive than the state and getting that limited pool of people. So there can be a number of reasons, but there's hard to fill positions. And that's one of the ways that we end up with these salary savings as well. And then some of the cases like that, sometimes a portion of those salary savings is used to try and contract for services. So there's work that you're trying to get done with these positions, we can't fill them, but maybe we can contract with somebody to come in and do these things to help fill it out So some of that savings might go towards that type of a cost as well But ultimately there a number of reasons we want to maintain some level of flexibility And so what we did in setting this up, actually I think another factor that I want to make sure I hit on before I get to that is we also do annual employee compensation adjustments with the state every year. And so when you have this large pool of vacant positions, we're increasing the amount of funding that goes with those vacant positions every year as well. So it's not just that there's this pool of funding, but it's a growing pool of funding every year, while the number of vacant positions is, again, relatively steady over time. So that creates kind of a growing problem in terms of the, I guess, effective or efficient use of the state's funds. And especially in our current budget situation, it's important that we look at that pretty closely. and we try and use that funding pretty effectively and pretty efficiently. It doesn't need to be tied up just for flexible administrative needs, all of it. So some of the questions have come up in terms of what criteria we used in deciding what positions to eliminate and how to go about the exercise. So I just want to touch on that quickly. At a high level, the Department of Finance really didn't put a lot of criteria on the exercise. We set some targets. Generally speaking, those targets were somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the vacant positions at the time the exercise started. But then, and we said it needed to be done in a way that minimizes impacts to public services. And then departments were given a broad amount of discretion to go in and come up with plans in terms of how they could try and meet those targets. There was a lot of iteration along the way as we came in and looked at things. And I would say that by and large, there probably are very few departments where we actually have reductions that are at that level. In most cases, there were reductions for various different reasons. For example, federal funds were excluded from it. There's no reason to turn down those reimbursements and try and fill the positions. So there were some exclusions and exemptions that were put into place through iterations. Most departments came in at lower than those sort of 50% targets. So they maintained, again, a fair amount of flexibility in terms of vacant positions that remain and the funding that results from it. And another thing that I want to make sure I note just for context is that departments have the ability to reclass positions. So I think there are some concerns about, you know, if we take away certain classifications, and those classifications are really important, that work can't get done. I do want folks to realize that so long as there are vacant positions in the department, if they can be reclassed to whatever the highest priority need is. So they have flexibility to manage that way too. If you've got hard to fill positions that are still vacant and you have a higher priority position that you can fill, you reclass it, you fill that position. That course has to be done within funding available to the department. And so sometimes we have to sort of work through some of those challenges. But there is a lot of flexibility to handle that. One example that I think is worth talking about, we touched on park rangers a little bit earlier, and we'll probably talk about it more as we go along but an illustrative example is that there are currently 627 authorized park rangers in the Department of Parks and Recreation of that number there were at the time the drill was being put together there was a hundred and forty seven vacant positions in that classification the result was proposing elimination of 15 so that left 132 vacant park ranger positions that are still able to be filled and you know the department, and they'll let the department talk about it if there's questions on it, but the department doing a lot to try and improve recruitment and filling those It an important aspect for them so it something they focusing on But there still a pretty large number of vacant positions that we have to close on that And if we get to a point where all 132 are filled and none have become vacant sort of along the way, then we can certainly have conversations about whether or not it makes sense to restore those 15 positions. I think what we're trying to get at here is that, again, given that pretty steady over several years statewide we're at this big level of vacancies, we should be trying to capture savings, maybe reduce that pot of flexible administrative funding a little bit, live within those means a little better. And then if at some point we manage to fill more of the positions and the vacancy rates are a lot lower, then we may need to revisit, you know, restaffing some of these things. But we don't need to, especially in circumstances like this, maintain that large of a pool of positions on an ongoing basis that can't be filled in the funding that's related to it. Just double check here. I think there's been some discussion about special funds. I think one thing I want to talk about there is the control sections that drove this exercise. They instructed finance to look at all of the budget items. So we did that. It wasn't specific to the general fund. It was to all of them. So that's the analysis that we did. We acknowledge that the analysis for special funds can be a lot trickier than the general fund itself because special funds collect their revenues in a lot of different ways. And the reductions to those can have a variety of different impacts depending on how that's collected. And while the general fund was the highest priority, given overall budget resiliency, we looked at all funds. I think that we can all acknowledge that in some cases the state has relied on special funds to help out with general fund resiliency over time. I don't think it's a surprise or a secret to anybody here that the state, through discussions with the legislature and administration, has on a number of occasions coming up from a lot of different areas, turned to special fund loans as a way of helping out the general fund. We don't love it, but the fact of the matter is regardless of which side of which house or which branch of government you're in, those suggestions have come from a lot of different places and they've been relied on a lot of different times. And so there is a factor of special fund health that goes into overall budget resilience. Also having structurally balanced and healthy special funds helps reduce pressure to find backfill funding in some cases. Sometimes we're trying to backfill special funds from the general fund because they're not healthy in and of themselves. So we view the special funds as being part of the overall budget resiliency and health. And then another factor that we looked at or perspective we looked at is general affordability. The state in some cases has an affordability issue. And these special funds are supported by a large array of different fees. and so one of the ways that we look at affordability issues is trying to find ways that we can have some state control over how much fees need to increase to support different programs and things like that. And so in some cases, finding ways to be more efficient and capture that efficiency delays or reduces the amount of fees that need to be increased in the short term. So with that, I will stop with my comments, but I'm joined with colleagues from the Department of Finance and other departments, and we're available to help answer questions.
Thank you both It clear that there a problem that was identified There lots of work that went into it through the Department of Finance at the direction of the administration I sincerely appreciate the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and their review of the 40 identified 6 and 1 was subject to this review and of those we have 650 remaining that non I do want to open it up to my colleagues now for questions. Please know, as you know, we have all of the departments that have been discussed here. representatives are available to answer questions as well as LAO and Department of Finance. Mr. Choi.
Okay. Thank you, Chair. And for your presentations, obviously administration is proposing to eliminate the unfeared positions for a long time and in the hopes to save the unfeared positions in the general budget. That's the intent of that. But in your presentation, Department of Finance mentioned that even though because of no inflation adjustment annually for the department budget, sometimes these departments would like to keep the position, vacant positions there and utilize the funds. Is it allowed to use personnel salaries for the use of general department operations?
Yes. The salaries are budgeted in a state operating, a little bit technical budget jargon here, but in a state operations item. So it's an appropriation that's for the general operation of the department. Salaries are in that. it is allowable to use salary savings for other things that fit within that type of cost. So rents, utilities, those types of things would be important. I've seen before that certain positions to be created and that the salary was a figure that based upon the rank and the positions and how many and the budget was set and a certain amount of such as 5 million, 10 million shall be allocated for these new positions. And that I understood that designation of a certain amount to be budgeted was for the human resources, not the operation of the department.
So I think this is the problem that departments would like to keep the positions, vacant positions, vacant rather than filling because of the flexibility of the resources they have for some of the operations.
I think that there's a need in some instances to do that. I think by and large most departments do want to fill the positions. They were authorized to get certain workload done, and it's workload that's important to the departments and their missions, and so they make every effort to try and fill the positions. But I think there's a reality that it's certainly demonstrated by the data that we just keep about 40,000 positions vacant statewide. We're not able to get really beyond that hump in terms of vacancy rates. And so while they continue to make every effort to try and fill the positions, they've got that funding available. And like I said, sometimes they'll use it to do contracts or temp help or other types of things to try and address some of the workload. In other cases, as acknowledged, there may be instances where they they need to keep a few positions open in order to make other base operation costs covered in cases like that those are those are times where we could we could go in and work with those departments and take a look and say, OK, what base operating costs are you not able to meet? And maybe we do some sort of true up where you leave the funding for those purposes and maybe eliminate positions that they're not able to fill or something like that. We've done exercises like that throughout the years.
Would it be necessary? would you recommend that legislation can be enacted for automatic cost of living adjustment for the department operational budget versus human resources salaries be designated for salary use only so that if they are not filled for a long time, that will become truly reflected in the general budget savings. And then also misuse of intended misuse of vacant positions, intentionally leaving them open, despite the majority of them may have some other reasons why those positions are not filled. And that's my thinking. And the second question regarding that vacancy will be why if long time – I think that's the reason. For long time, this vacancy existed. That's the reason governance office is suggesting to eliminate 6,000 positions in these nine departments. And why we would not evaluate which positions can be permanently eliminated can still we can serve reasonably in that the functions of the department. And the other ones will be by not filling those positions, certain detrimental impact upon public safety, on the services that have been damaged. And if that's the case, then somebody, auditors department or somebody can do in-depth study of unfilled positions, why they are such for a long time with a decent salary are not filled. and find out those deficiencies and try to meet the needs to improve to the conditions to fill the positions.
So a couple of thoughts on that. I don't think there's any new requirement that needs to be put in place. We have, as I mentioned, we have done exercises like that in the past. We could do exercises like that again without there being any specific requirement put in place to do it. So I don't feel like that is necessary. I think the other thing that we need to be careful about when we're taking a look at which positions to take away. So obviously this exercise is based on trying to reduce that sort of annual pool of flexible funding that's out there to keep it a bit more reasonable. But you also, as you're going through that, need to balance it with there are a lot of requirements on these departments in statute, things that they're supposed to do. And those positions were authorized to do them. And as I mentioned, they work hard and try very hard to get the positions filled and keep them filled. The reality is that it is what it is in terms of our vacancy rates If we were going to go in and say well look there certain positions that we just are never going to be able to fill then we probably also need to go in and take a look at the statutory requirements that were put in place for those and amend statute to say, okay, well, we tried to do this. We can't do this because you can't fill the positions. So the requirement should be taken off of the State Department to try and do it. Like, it wouldn't make a great deal of sense, and it would be incredibly unfair to our departments if we said, yeah, we're leaving all these requirements in statute, but we're going to take away all the resources that were provided to give them to you because you can't fill them. Like, it needs to be both ways. You know, if we want to say, hey, there's a certain number of positions that have been vacant for a really long time and we're never going to fill them, well, okay, we also need to realize that the workload associated with that's never going to get done and that requirement should be removed.
Yeah, because you mentioned that there are a certain set of annual recurring fixed positions of $40,000 altogether by the state? The total number is that level, but it's not always the same positions.
So it could be a different mix of positions every year. Like you may fill some, but then others become vacant and whatnot. The total tends to stay around $40,000, but the mix of which positions they are can switch up. among those certain positions stayed vacant for, you said, number of years.
So to me, it gives me an idea of more than two years can be vacant or three years can be vacant. If that department operated for that long time without the position filled, then I guess we don't need that position, then it should be eliminated. But anyway, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee is reviewing thoroughly and non-concurring with a certain number of positions such as 650. I'm glad that they are doing the job.
They absolutely are, and we're grateful for all the work that went into that.
Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator McNerney.
Well, I thank the chair and I thank the witnesses for testifying this morning. Last year we discussed the gaps in the capability of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to meet its mission. And meanwhile, the budget proposes cutting further, which is kind of annoying and disturbing. And I appreciate the discussion on the special funds position. I can imagine that it's tricky because it's volatile. You're not sure from one year to the next. So that's something that I'd like to make sure that those positions that don't really cost the state anything aren't eliminated because they're providing essential services, especially things like permitting obligations and timeline for permitting. So I want to make sure that those are not eliminated for the sake of eliminating positions.
Yeah, so Department of Fish and Wildlife is here. they can certainly come up and talk to things. I think some initial comments that I would put is that, so in certain cases, special funds are authorized for very specific purposes, and so you have to use the funding for that purpose. And so in the case of Fish and Wildlife, for example, as was mentioned, there are instances where the funding was retained, but the positions were removed, and I think that's a recognition of we maintain the flexibility to reclass positions within the department. So if we leave them a certain pool of vacant positions, they can switch them around to what they need to be. That might be permitting, might be whatever. By leaving the funding in place if we decide that those positions need to be used for permitting then we maintained the appropriate funding to pay for somebody doing permitting and the existing vacant position can just be moved over there and you got the appropriate funding to match up with what that person is now going to be doing So that's part of, I think, the thinking behind leave funding but take the positions. You're still giving the flexibility to reclass whatever by having the funding that's specifically linked to those activities. if you need to reclass a position to those activities you still have the appropriate funding to pay for those positions. I think you're kind of
showing us some of your cards by talking about well we have these positions that aren't being filled and we want to use that you know to as a sort of a slush fund which is all right but wouldn't it be more logical I guess is the right word to just say, here are the positions we need, and then let's establish a fund for flexibility. Don't call it a slush fund. That wouldn't work, but would that be more logical to do that?
So I don't view it or refer to it as a slush fund. I didn't accuse you of that. And I'm fine with showing you my cards because, again, we're trying to be transparent about how we went about doing this. The thoughts are saying that because you have such a high level of vacancies annually throughout the state, that ties up a lot of funding in things that aren't going towards those positions. And as I talked about, there are some very justifiable uses of those funding that they have. And so that's why we are trying to maintain some flexibility for folks to be able to live within their budgets and meet these base operations needs and to have some flexibility to move positions around and reclass them and fill the highest priority stuff. But we think that the belt can be tightened a little bit in terms of how big the pool is on that flexibility. Right.
But I think it would make more sense to me personally. I'm not sure about the rest of the committee, but to have a fund specifically for flexibility for those purposes rather than having vacant positions that are fully paid and using that in the way that you're describing? It's certainly an alternative.
I think what happens then is you've set aside a specific pot of funding for this flexible thing in addition to having your vacant positions. So now you have twice as much unutilized funding. So what we're trying to say is within the funding already authorized, let's allow them to do these things that they have to do to operate a department appropriately. but maybe shrink down the size of it a little bit because we have seen from the data over several years that we're not filling a pretty big chunk of the authorized positions.
Okay, but it's still kind of bothersome that you have, as Senator Choi mentioned, positions that are not filled over a long period of time. They may not be essential in that case. And I understand you're saying that, hey, there's a lot of these positions that are very hard to fill because they have certain requirements that are hard to meet or because the price of living is so high in my case. So taking a look at what positions are essential for the operation of the department. And then that brings me back to my earlier question. Is the CDFW able to meet its obligations in terms of permitting? and what is the timeline effect of these changes, of these eliminations?
I'll defer to the department to address that question.
Good morning, Senators. My name is Megan Hertel. I'm the director for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I have our Deputy Director Dan Reagan here with our Fiscal Services Division And I will just hearken back to about a month or so ago when we were here before and we talked about service budgeting and laid out clearly the difference between where our capacity levels are versus our service mandates. And last year we were at about 2.64% short, our time short of what we would need to meet our service mandates, and we actually broke that down by category. So I'll pass it over to the deputy director now.
Morning, chair members. Dan Reagan, Deputy Director for Fish and Wildlife. Yes, the 164 position reduction that is slated in the 4.12 would have an impact across all service areas of our budget, service-based budgeting category, particularly also to permanent environmental protection. Of those positions, approximately 87 of those positions are related to, across 164, related to permitting. With the flexibility, though, that finance said, it does allow us to recognize the SBB gap. It still does allow us the flexibility to reclass existing positions, move positions around to the highest priority need, utilize the funding as such, recognizing that we already have a gap within SBB. I would also like to note that there is more than one way to close the SBB gap absent just more additional positions, as you've seen and heard over the years that we've implemented SBB, through use of process improvements, technology solutions, equipment solutions, and automation that will help close the gap. But it does have an impact on the department. But we are working hard to ensure that permitting obligations under the department are minimized.
Okay. So to answer the question about delays and timelines for permits, how is that being affected or will be affected?
We don't know how it will be affected. We are working just to ensure that any permitting delays or timelines are minimized due to this reduction in positions associated with 4.12 and ensuring that we are prioritizing positions within the department that are still remaining to help minimize those activities. It is important to note that during the drill and during the prioritization that my colleague talked about finance, the department eliminated through the drill 70% of its eligible vacancies and 80% of its general fund vacancies. So there wasn't a way for the department to really prioritize and 100% protect anything just due to the magnitude of it. Our department runs on norm about a 10% to 12% attrition rate and vacancy rate across it. As Mr. Benson said, it's not one position. We have very few positions. In fact, the department has a process in place called the six-month vacancy rule that if the position within the department remains vacant for six months, we automatically bring it back into a pool within the department to reallocate to a higher priority need or determine why it's been vacant for so long. if it is one of those hard to fill classifications.
I mean, what you're describing sounds like a qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative analysis. Is that impossible at this point?
I would say it is impossible to give you a defined measure as far as if a delay would be an additional month or two months. Right now, we're not seeing any additional delays in capacity, recognizing we have prioritized specific activities, but other things also give at that point in time.
Director? The only thing I would add to that is each of our permitting processes have different timelines that are required, and we do try to look at what is on the horizon and understand when big projects are coming in or, for example, when projects are being held up and need to take advantage of federal incentives. So we try to prioritize in real time to make sure we're meeting the greatest need where it's at, and we work very closely with the project proponents to do early consultation and try to move things as quickly as possible.
Okay, well, I would recommend looking at the quantitative... so that you can say, yeah, here we have some numbers for you. I'm going to yield back to the chair.
Thank you. Okay, thank you. I wanted to ask the Department of Finance the first question, which is what number of positions do you think is appropriate to baseline toward? If it's not 40,000, what is the reasonable number that would be vacant each year in the state of California? I'm not sure I could give you an answer on that, like a fixed number.
I think there are a lot of factors that would go into that. And I think individual departments across the state try to take a look at that as a part of this exercise. And I'm certainly not in a position to be able to comment on, you know, what findings there were for CDCR or, you know, a lot of other departments that just aren't under my sphere. I think when we look at individual departments on an annual basis, it seems like vacancy rates in the neighborhood of 5% and 10% seem very reasonable because there's people attritting for various reasons all the time, and there's a process that it takes to fill those positions. And probably also not a secret that the state's process for doing that is not the most nimble and quick process on the planet. So that sometimes takes a little effort to get it done. So I think that if we ever got down to a 0% vacancy rate, that would be like a miracle, and I don't even think it's possible. So, like, there has to be some level of vacancy rate. And I think, again, generally 5% to 10% would be considered pretty reasonable.
And what is 40,000 positions? What percentage is that?
I actually don't recall off the top of my head what the total number of authorized positions in the state is, So I'm not sure what 40,000 is a percentage of that. We could certainly get that and give it back to you. I mean, it's simple math. I just don't know what the number is off the top of my head. Okay.
Does anybody else that supports you in the room know that? I doubt it. Do you have an answer?
Anderle with the Department of Finance, no, I don't have the total statewide positions with me.
Okay. I mean, the idea that 40,000 vacant positions – so I'll just back up a little bit. I agree that we need to be right-sized. We need to be nimble. We need to work toward eliminating structural deficits. We need to belt tighten and live within our means. And it's really important that we use that analysis when we're looking at what is the state doing. Recognizing that 40,000 vacant positions across, and this includes health and human services, right? Does it also include, it includes education, right? Which is like a whole 50% of the general fund is for education. And so, you know, what we're talking about right now in this committee is an extremely small part of the overall budget. So if the math is correct, which I think it is, that these proposed cuts would save one one hundredth of one percent of the general fund in our state budget. So, you know, recognizing, like, where are we getting savings for a general fund structural deficit and a need to belt tighten one one hundredth of one percent of the general fund? You know, this these might be really severe cuts in this particular area and not doing a lot for our general fund. So so I think it's just important to recognize that 40,000 vacant positions sounds like a lot. But when we don know what percentage that is maybe we are in the five to 10 percent I mean I don know but I guess that where I trying to to to to benchmark that statement because it seems like a lot of positions But when we don really know what the percentage is it hard to to to really put that in context So so I just I think it's important to go back to the numbers that we started with with the L.A.O., which were. so there were 6,000 proposed positions for elimination. Almost 5,000 of them have been eliminated, right? And so then we have 1,000 of them where there's legislative review, and of those, 650 were non-concurred. And so the question of, to me, these non-concurred positions really, you know, we need you to take a more serious look at those non-concurred positions because it seems my understanding is that the administration doesn't typically pursue elimination after non-concurrence. So this is somewhat unusual to continue pursuing that. And then when we look at what are these positions doing, they do seem to me to be really important things. Like, for example, in the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which this is going from memory from our last year's budget hearing, but my understanding of the service mandates was framed a little differently. then you just answered the question to my colleague. But my understanding was that we're really only fulfilling 30% of the mission. It's something around like a third of what the mission for Department of Fish and Wildlife is.
The current funding, because of years of underfunding, we're at this position where we're really not anywhere near fulfilling what all the goals are. So some of these positions that were non-concurred in CDFW to me seem really important. Like, for example, oil spill prevention and response. There are 14 positions there. You know, we have not had oil drilling off the coast of California for more than 50 years, and it's just restarted off the Santa Barbara coast with the Sable pipeline. It's back and forth with litigation and the Trump administration. But we know that when we drill, we spill. So the idea that, you know, there are things happening around oil drilling. We're also going to be seeing more drilling in Kern County. And so having oil spill prevention and response, to me, that seems like a critical position that we should not be cutting at this time. I'm also concerned about the proposed Endangered Species Act permitting activities. There are a lot of things happening around SECRA and the need to continue to protect our endangered species and recognize that the federal government is backsliding in that area and that these are important positions that we at the state need in order to fulfill our basically values commitments to our natural lands and habitat. And then also law enforcement, wildlife and resource protection, the Cutting Green Tape Initiative, stream bed and lake alteration activities. You know, these are all, to me, they're 77 positions. They seem like they're really core to doing the important natural resources work that we have in the state of California. So I wanted to just ask you if that's true, if what I'm saying is true, if there are any of those positions you want to speak more specifically about so that we have a better understanding of that. Thank you for your comments, and I would agree that meeting our permitting mandate is core to the work that we do. As you heard from Department of Finance, we would basically have to think about reprioritizing other positions to move into this space to continue to meet that mandate or finding other improvements.
Okay. You want to say anything?
I mean, everything you've said is accurate. In addition to the law enforcement reduction of 45 sworn law enforcement officers has an impact to the department Again law enforcement officers while one of the other options that we have with the remaining being able to maintain the special funds is also the option to hire limited term staff to kind of help address workload flow workload fluctuations in that fashion Although being not permanent there is challenge to hiring limited term that they can no longer they can't be in a position for more than two years absolute maximum per government code. But law enforcement positions limited terms not an option for those for those positions.
Okay. Yeah, I mean, there was a reference to 637 park rangers, and there are 147 vacancies. And I was wondering, does the academy service 150 people all at once? So when you go through the academy to become a park ranger, you know, is that a vacant amount? Because that's the amount that is in an academy. So the academy certainly is trying to fill the vacancies. But, oh, see, I have Liz come talk about that. She knows better than I do. But I don't think the classes are that big. Thank you, Senator Liz McGurk with State Parks.
So our academy capacity is roughly 50 a year. So with that, you know, after the elimination, roughly 130 vacancies left, it would take us several years still to fill those vacancies. But we are very focused on recruitment and retention for our peace officers and very focused on filling those classes and retaining folks.
And so why do we have 147 vacancies?
Lots of reasons. I think some of the positions can be hard to fill. They're in remote locations. You have labor market issues. So there are various reasons that the vacancy rate remains high.
Okay. Okay. Yeah, I mean, the information that was provided about, really, there's only a proposal to cut 15 of those because 132 would left to be filled. You know, those type, I do think that type of information contextualized is important because we are still going to be filling most of them, it seems like. Do you want to respond to the 15 that would be cut or somewhere around that?
Sure. I mean, when we were looking at the positions, you know, we did really try to focus on maintaining public safety and visitor services. It was a core principle. When we looked at these 15, they were positions that had historically been vacant, have been hard to fill, and knowing the rate that we can fill our academies, it seemed appropriate to include that this time.
Okay. And these are within the Department of Fish and Wildlife, right?
No, they're within parks.
Yes, these are parks. And you're with parks.
I'm with parks, yes.
Okay. Okay, so this is an example of those, for you, looking at your own department, those seem like appropriate reductions.
That seemed acceptable. It seemed acceptable. I guess it's hard to say appropriate. Of course, you know, we want to keep all of our ranger positions, but in looking at the totality of the exercise and knowing the rate that we can actually fill those academies, that's why these were included in the exercise.
Right, okay. Okay, well, then that seems acceptable to me. I'm not going to go through every single one of these. But I guess I also just want to make a couple of other points. So it's important that we fulfill the mission of the state government, which does involve processing permitting faster than we currently do. We receive enormous numbers of complaints about government not doing its job because we can't get things through the system faster. And you know it ranges from permitting people who are trying to get a child care license to someone who trying to get their project through the Coastal Commission So you know when I talked to the Coastal Commission they say we are you know we are burdened by not having enough staff to process permits and we wish more cities would get their local coastal programs so that they would be the processing of it, but then there are certain ones that take a long time. You know, looking at the Coastal Commission cut, it does appear, I don't know if the Coastal Commission's in the room, but it does appear that there's only one position. And I don't know if it's related to permitting. So I don't know if I would have an issue with that one position. But would you like to address the Coastal Commission cut?
Yeah, good morning. Madeline Cavalieri with the Coastal Commission. I believe there are six positions at issue for the Coastal Commission. The one may be from the BCDC. And these positions are for implementation of SB 272 for sea level rise adaptation planning, working with local governments to get their LCPs updated to address sea level rise within the framing of the bill, which is by 2034.
Right. Okay. Yeah, I mean, those types of positions, the public-facing positions, to me seem like the most important, the ones where, I mean, it's obviously a balance where we need staff to be able to interact with cities. But we do recognize that sometimes our processes can get really bogged down with enormous numbers of back and forth and requests for additional studies. And I've had a number of complaints about the Coastal Commission's ongoing open-ended process. So recognizing that the Coastal Commission, you know, has areas where it could be reformed, but also needs to have staffing to accomplish its mission, it's a complicated space. And so I'll just leave the Coastal Commission positions at that. And then I did want to return to one other topic, so thank you. I don't think I have any follow-up, Coastal Commission. But I did have a follow-up question, actually, for CDFW. So one of the things that I'm really focused on is the number of wildlife incidents, human wildlife conflict incidents that we have in the state of California, and also livestock wildlife protection activities related to our interactions with wolves who have traveled over the border from Oregon and now have established themselves in the state of California. And so we have had in the last five years a 31% increase in wildlife incidents, and this has led to more examples of euthanasia of bears and wolves. We had one just recently in Southern California where I represent Blondie the bear had to be put down after swiping at some person at least twice. And one wonders if after the first swiping incident if Blondie could have been relocated instead of having to be euthanized. You know, I know these are specific situations, but also, of course, a wolf pack made the news quite a lot when it had to be put down as well. So if the positions are swept, these positions are swept in the Department of Fish and Wildlife, how do you think this will impact the existing livestock wildlife protection activities?
Maybe I can start, and then I'll pass it over to Chief Arnold. So first of all, we take human-wildlife conflicts very seriously. We are seeing an uptick in it. We get roughly 30,000 to 40,000 reports a year of human interaction with wildlife. A small percentage of those are deemed a public safety threat. It is taken very seriously, and Chief can talk about the process for that, but you Indonesia is the last resort. We would much rather invest in communication, engagement, and helping communities understand how to prevent human-wildlife conflict from happening in the first place so that we don't end up with a case where people's lives are being harmed or at risk from wildlife. I will also say on the wolf side, we are working very hard to try to get more tools out in the hands of sheriffs and of ranchers. The packs are growing. You'll have seen from our most recent quarterly report that we're up to 12 packs. and between 50 and 70 wolves. It is a conservation success story, and it is being borne the hardest by our rural communities who are dealing with this every day as they try to ranch, right, and make a living in their communities. So the department and myself personally spend a lot of time working with partners and working with these communities to try to find solutions that both protect them, their livelihoods, and the wolves. So I will turn it over to Chief to talk some about public safety and human wildlife conflict.
Hi, Chief Arnold with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. So, yeah, specifically with public safety, looking at these incidents, when that decision is made through the department, it is when in the very majority of cases when there is injury to the person. In the particular case with the bear down south, it was caused injury twice. We tried to locate the bear the first time, and the injuries were fairly significant of both victims. So we take a look at each and every one of those incidents before that decision is made for obvious reasons, for euthanasia. So we do relocate a lot of wildlife, but again, with spatial memory, especially with bears, they come back to the same area, and they pose a great threat. particular issue. Tons of elementary schools in the area. This is not a rural community. This is in an area that kids frequent, sidewalks, community housing, all in the same area. With public safety, like the director said, it is a small quantity of the human-wildlife conflicts that we deal with, but we do deal with it.
I appreciate knowing more information about that incident. because it actually was a curiosity with not much information. But I'll also reground this discussion in the point of with more people, you can do more to help keep communities safe, right?
That is correct.
Okay. Do you want to say anything more about how these proposed department sweeps would impact your current wildlife human conflict staffing situation?
Yes, specifically with the wildlife officers, as Deputy Director Reagan said earlier, talking 45 wildlife officers, that's 9% overall, 14% of actual wildlife officers boots on the ground. So, yes, it has a tremendous impact from Northern California to Southern California with every activity that we do, but specifically with human-wildlife conflict as well.
Okay. Okay, great. Thank you. And then just my last point before I yield back to the chair, thank you for your indulgence with so many questions, is really about I just want to return to the special funds. So this question of resilience and health of special funds, you know, when we are asking like in the Department of Toxics, we ask a particular pesticide manufacturer to pay more. Ten million I think is the amount that has been raised into the fund to then hire people to make sure that our system is safe I mean I summarizing but I just don understand why we would be cutting special fund positions I do understand if what you're saying is that we have structural deficits. So we have too many positions. We're not collecting enough money from a special fund. And so it has to be backfilled by the general fund. I understand trying to get that right. But I don't understand if the fees are on the backs of the users, whether it's someone who owns a boat or someone who manufactures a pesticide, and then it goes for a specific purpose, why we would cut those positions? So I'd have to defer to the individuals over specific budgets because I personally am not familiar with the pesticide situation.
I did not review that one personally. But I think in some cases, these reductions do help with structural imbalances. They avoid the need to do fee increases. And I think the other piece with some of the special funds is there's a lot of, as I alluded to in my opening comments, there's a lot of differences in terms of how some special funds fees are set. And so the impacts to the reductions can impact them all differently. And so I think in those cases, it is important that we have to bring the departments up and talk about the specifics, which I can't do. But if Pesticides is here and wants to talk about that, we could certainly bring them up to do that. But I think there's just special funds in general, there's just a lot of factors. Some special funds, the fee is determined by a calculation that's based on how much is appropriated from that fund every year. Some fees are set in regulations based on other factors. And so just the way the special fund is set up and works, the specific reductions can vary in terms of how they impact and what benefits they may or may not have with the fund.
Okay. Yeah, I mean, I guess I'll just return to my bigger point, which is we do have a general fund budget deficit, but we don't, to my knowledge, we don't have a special fund budget deficit. If we do, then we should be addressing that, you know, specifically. Are you with the Department of Pesticides? Okay, would you like to come forward and answer some of these questions about these proposed positions?
There are 19 proposed for elimination. It will have zero benefit financially to the general fund. And it's a total savings of $1.7 million within the special fund. That's correct. impacting branches across the board, which do have a role, obviously, in product registration, looking at the environmental fate of it, making sure that they are safe to be used around humans and the environment, obviously, in the enforcement side of things, human health side, assessment side of things, integrated pest management side of things. So there is an impact overall to the department since those 19 positions do impact the multiple branches within the department that have a different role in making sure that PASETI use laws and regulations are being followed Okay So if these positions are eliminated and million is saved in a special fund what is the benefit of that Or what will happen now
Nate Williams from the Department of Finance. So, I mean, I think the DPR fund is not in a structural deficit. So, you know, that isn't necessarily a concern. But I think that as we were looking at this more broadly, we were really just trying to find efficiencies where we could find efficiencies. And despite, you know, this not helping necessarily with the general fund or these specific positions, and also this fund is not in a structural deficit, We are looking at future potential increases that may not need to happen as far as increases in fees for the fund. So we were really just looking at trying to find efficiencies in this vacancy drill kind of across the budget.
Well, I do think that's an important thing. I mean, I was wondering how you were tying this to affordability because clearly if you cut these positions, they're not nobody's price of buying roundup is going to go down because of this so you know but the what you're what you're saying here is that next year and the year after that the that the um assessment might not go up because there would so i mean i do think that's an important value when when we're evaluating these these positions and in the structural in the uh these special funds. And I guess I don't have enough information about that to be able to speak to it, but I do recognize what you're saying. So thank you for that. So I guess just to conclude my remarks, you know, I am very concerned about the non-concurrent positions in general. So I just want to express, you know, to the committee chair and to the team that the 650 non-concurrent positions after we've already eliminated 5,000 positions, you know, those really need a second look because they are doing these important things permitting habitat protection public safety in all of these really important areas and and I'm also particularly worried about the Department of Fish and Wildlife because that does have 77 positions and also the parks and rec actually the truth is I'm worried about all of them so they're all my favorite children so so I hope that there is a reevaluation of that from the Department of Finance and also from the committee so that we can continue to advocate for keeping our commitment to the important mission that these that these departments do in the state of California. With that I'll yield back. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for those questions. While I've got the Department of Pesticides still here, I do have one final question after the questions that were asked. Can you tell Tell us if any of these proposed positions or these positions proposed for elimination are responsible for or provide the support for registration of new pesticides and meeting the deadline required under AB 2113?
Yeah, so I will clarify that these positions are not part of the new permanent positions that we received a couple of years ago as part of the BCP associated with AB 2113. We did calculate the number of new positions based on the department being whole so under the assumption that we would still have these positions These positions as I mentioned are impacting branches across the board including the registration branch program evaluation program So they do indirectly will be supporting some of the requirements associated with 2113
Very good. Thank you. I had some questions for DTSC, but before that, Parks and Rec, not Parks and Rec, CDFW. Under the proposal, as you're walking up, it seems that permitting would be lowered from 40% to 37% of meeting the mission. Enforcement would be lowered from 33% to 29%. Both of these have been well below the mission goals for several years. Deputy Director Reagan mentioned there were other ways, such as technical ways, to achieve the department missions. But even with these alternatives, it looks like the efficiency cuts only serve to harm the department. What are your thoughts, Director?
Thank you for the question, Chair. Obviously, when there are less positions, we face a reduction in capacity. But we also recognize that in challenging budget times, there are hard decisions that have to be made. And so we will work hard within the budget that we are given to provide the best level of service that we can. Regardless, we are always looking for efficiency improvements. We are looking for ways to streamline our process, ensure consistency and training, work better with the people who are on the outside asking for these permits. And there is a limitation on what you can do with that. So I will just say we continue to be creative and committed to providing the level of service that is expected of us and to protecting California's natural resources in tough budget times.
I will tell you that that is, it is commendable. It isn't, I love all of the departments, and I'm not just talking about the ones that are here today. But just in general, there's so much that the state of California has to provide, and every department does their share to do whatever needs to be done to provide the service to the Californians. But I have been concerned that you have not received the financial support that would be necessary. And I remember during the last hearing, we heard about the shortfall in law enforcement funding. And these are the sorts of things that are of great concern, that we applaud your stretching the dollar. But I think when we're talking about law enforcement very specifically, and it goes through so many different areas of what you're trying to do throughout the state of California to be able to cover the entire state of California. the positions that are non-concurred it is important just as my colleagues have all mentioned that we need to make sure that before we do eliminate those positions that we take a third and fourth look at those but I do appreciate that you do stretch the dollar I would suggest that you not stretch it so much so that there's more relief for your team. All right, I do want to thank you. Yes. I just wanted to follow up on a couple of things. So I had an astute colleague back in the office who provided me some data towards Senator Blakespeare's question earlier. So using numbers from 24-25 when this drill actually initiated, so apples to apples number usage, there was about 250,000 positions across the state and so 40,000 of those is around 16%. We had checked with ChatGPT and we came up with the same thing. AI is quicker, but at least we've got the same number. I told the team, I said, there's got to be an answer. They quickly went to ChatGPT. I try not to use that on my phone in the hearing. I'm not saying that's how we get our information. I'm just saying I wanted there to be some answer, and I'm glad you... The other thing that I just wanted to mention quickly is we do have special funds that run structural deficits, and so that is part of what we think about with these two. That was a question at Camp earlier. But it's rare, though. I think you use special funds to take care of the deficit to backfill. I think we have the ability to address them a bit more flexibly. I don't know that I would say it's rare that they come up. I just think that our ability to address them is probably a little easier than with the general fund. Okay. Well, very good. For DTSC. Where's my question for DTSC?
Welcome back.
In 2022, DTSC increased fees and added over 300 positions to make governance and fiscal reforms at the department. Hiring 300 people, as we all can imagine, would be very difficult, not just from DTSC, but HR department for the state of California. How did you factor into the department's vacancy rate when the department was asked to identify these vacant positions? And were you still in the process of hiring at that time?
Good morning, Madam Chair, Senators. Brian Brown, I'm the Chief Financial Officer at DTSC. Yeah, thank you for the question. Yeah, for a bit of context, you're right. The committee may recall that in 2021, the legislature and governor approved a big legislative package for DTSC. We refer to it as our fiscal and governance reform legislation that, among other things, added additional fee revenue for the department to support our mission so that we could hire more staff was one of the main functions so that we could meet our statutory mission and obligations. And so a consequence of that was in the 22 and 23 fiscal years, the Budget Act include roughly 300 additional positions for DTSC to implement those reforms. And so when this initiative, the vacancy reduction effort, went into place at the beginning of the 24 fiscal year, we were still in the process of filling those hundreds of new positions. We had been making a lot of progress, though. So at the outset, at the beginning of the 22 fiscal year, our vacancy rate was up in the neighborhood of 30 percent. At the beginning of the 24 fiscal year, we had gotten it down to 15 percent. So we were slowly, methodically working through filling those vacancies. And as you alluded to, Madam Chair, part of that is just a function of it does take time to recruit and onboard new staff as just something that takes a while to make sure you identify the right people to fill a position But we were also because it was such a large number of new positions we had to be very deliberative in how our recruitment strategy We couldn go out and hire 200 or 300 new people all at once We just didn't have the capacity administratively. So we were very deliberative about doing things in certain phases. So one example would be our Safer Consumer Products program effectively doubled under reform. And so one of the strategies they employed was to focus first on recruiting and hiring the new supervisory positions. And then once they had those positions filled, then those managers and supervisors would go and start to build up their new units that they were in charge of and do the recruitment for those staff positions, the scientists and other positions. So the consequence of that was it did take longer than if we were just hiring a handful of new positions. It also had the effect, too, of oftentimes the people who were being hired into those supervisory positions were people who were promoted internally. So even as we filled one position, that actually created a new vacancy. So that plus just the normal turnover that's been discussed earlier, we still had a vacancy rate that was relatively high, 15 percent. but we were making slow and steady progress, and I think we would have continued to show.
Are any of the 112 positions that are proposed to be eliminated part of that 2022 reform?
Yes, I think it's around 20 or so positions.
Okay, and my final question is, what activities will the department not be able to fulfill with the elimination of these positions?
Well, the intention or the approach that we took to selecting the position that would be vacant were to look across all of our programs and select those positions that we felt were the lowest priority. Now, that didn't mean they weren't important positions, didn't have important functions in meeting our mission, but we spread those reductions across all of our programs with the explicit intention of not having to concentrate the reductions in a single program such that we would have to decimate any one program area or activity that we employ. So what that means is that while we – I don't think there's any specific activity that we won't be able to do anymore. we are intentionally trying to maintain all of our activities. It just means that some of the activities may not happen as quickly or we might not be able to do as many of certain activities as we would if we had a higher staffing level. But it does mean that every area of our operations is affected.
Wonderful. Well, I thank you so much. Are there any further questions on issue one? All right. Let's have State Water Resources Control Board. Let's spread the love. Make sure everybody... So with the need to protect water quality and supply from changes in federal laws and oversight with the concerns about drought and flooding in California how will the loss of 97 positions impact the state and regional water board ability to carry out their many responsibilities
Thank you for the question, Chair. I'm Karen Mogas with the state water board, and I appreciate the question. And similar to DTSC, we chose to spread the cut of positions widely across all of our program areas. We have nine regional boards and many organizations within the State Water Board that implement many programs across our authorities. So what we chose to do was take the number of positions in each of these organizations. their vacancies, excuse me, the vacancies that needed to be reduced were proportional to the number of positions that existed in those organizations. So the larger the organization, like our Division of Financial Assistance, for example, is over 300 positions just for that division, had the largest number of positions that they needed to reduce. Smaller organizations like our smaller regional boards had fewer positions just proportionally. So because of that, the program areas that are impacted depend on which organization those vacancies were removed and the priorities within those organizations. So as a result, what that will impact is.
That was my next question. the wide range of functions that we do.
So, for example, most of our program areas are in the permitting arena. There are inspections. There are permits to be issued on a variety, you know, whether that's water rights permits, groundwater recharge permits, to waste discharge permits across all of our program areas. So the functions are permitting, inspections, enforcement. Those kinds of activities don't completely get eliminated with these position cuts, but take longer to do. And we end up with backlogs of permits, for example. Obviously, we don't want that, as has been commented on previously.
Is it going to impact public health or safety?
We intentionally saved programs that were focused on public health and safety, like our Division of Drinking Water, from having to make cuts so that we reserved the positions that were focused on public health and safety as best we could.
Wonderful. As you know, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee didn't concur on a number of those positions.
Do you agree with them on the ones of the positions not to eliminate? Andrew Hall with the Department of Finance. One thing that I would like to try to make clear, I think, you know, the legislature and the administration are looking at this a little bit differently. And it's completely fair to be looking at the specific positions and what those duty statements were at the time. I think what you know my counterpart Stephen Benson was saying and what we're trying to say is that Even after the reductions of these vacant positions, there's still going to be a couple hundred You know for some of these departments on any given day that can be redirected to other higher priorities So if there was a concern over permitting there is flexibility within the department to move other vacancies to fill those roles But you know acknowledging that you know reductions in positions is not an easy task for any of these departments I just wanted to see if I can get an answer though The department the administration proposed a number of positions to be eliminated permanently
The committee reviewed those, didn't concur with a number of those cuts. And that was my question, is what is your opinion, rather than saying do you agree, what is your opinion regarding the JLBC's findings?
Well, we certainly agree that the positions in many instances were high-priority work that needed to be done. And since those vacancies were reduced, and to finance's point, we have identified other positions where we could reclassify and move them into higher priority work.
Since then, we have done that.
See, it helped that he gave an answer first. You wanted to ask.
Yeah, I just wanted to add just one thought. I think where we're still hung up with some of the non-concurrent stuff is the ability to close workload gaps with them is based on a presumption that the vacant positions will be able to be filled. And where we still struggle is that when you look at over a multi-year period of time, the general amount of vacancies stays pretty steady. So there's a certain amount of this that is workload that already stretches departments to get done because they're sort of having to absorb workload for vacant positions. And unless we actually have an overall reduction in the vacancy rate, then the gap of closing the workload doesn't actually close. it may shift around as to which people because of which ones are filled, but you have to actually get a lower vacancy rate overall in order for the gap in service level to change. And what we're trying to say is over a multiple-year period of time, we're not seeing an overall reduction in those gaps. And it goes back to what Senator McNerney said earlier, that if the work is going to be done, then instead of leaving those vacancies open, just to set aside a separate fund that says you can use this to provide the services that the department has to provide.
But I thank you all for your presentations. Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to issue number two, Department Overview of the State Water Resources Control Board. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Chair Esquivel. Would you like to begin?
Thank you. Thank you, Chair Reyes. Senators on the committee, it's an honor to join you this morning. I am Joaquin Esquivel. I'm the chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. The State Board is a five-member board. We, along with our nine regional water quality control boards, oversee water quality regulation within the State of California. That includes implementing Porter Cologne, California's landmark legislation, that predates the Clean Water Act and also includes then implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act here within the state. In addition, the state board administers water rights. They're administering the thousands and thousands of water rights that are here within the state. And additionally, a decade ago, the Division of Drinking Water was transferred over a little over a decade ago from the Department of Public Health over to the state board. And so the state board also oversees the nearly 3,000 community water systems within the state of California. We set maximum contaminant levels and really complemented both the quantity and quality regulations that the state board sets and has really focused us in the public health arena for sure. In addition, actually, our largest division by staffing is our Division of Financial Assistance, and they're proud to say since 2019, we've invested over $12 billion in the state of California, low-interest loans and grants in drinking water, wastewater, water recycling, stormwater capture, and so are a large funder of water in the state and a key to keeping water affordable. And I'll just say, you know, as a general overview, the board, since at least I became a chair here in 2019, has been in just an incredible period, both because of the historic droughts that we've continued to manage through, but also because of the real focus on communities without access to clean drinking water, where we've been able to go since 2019, thanks to the Safe and Affordable Fund, the leadership of the governor, and the legislature providing a financial source here to address small failing systems. We've been able to go since 2019 from 1.6 million Californians down to about 600,000 today, done about 180 consolidations, brought back into compliance over 300 water systems, and ultimately have been able to benefit nearly 3 million Californians, even if our net number is only about a million less, we'll say, from 2019. So proud of the work the board has been able to do. Also, in advancing water rights administration at a really critical time, This last turn of the drought, the board administered water rights for the first time, actively administered water rights for the first time in the state's history. And we recently completed an $80 million or $60 million investment in a new water rights data system that is modernizing the way that we track and account for water rights within the state. So a lot of pressure certainly on our water systems and our water resources within the state. but incredibly proud of the work that we've been able to do as a board to stay on top of, continue to spot issues in emerging contaminants, say, like PFAS or microplastics, and continue to serve Californians the best we can. Thank you. Questions?
Yes. Senator McNairny. Of course. Thank you, Director. Chair, I guess is the right word. I understand that the State Water Resources Control Board is in the process of updating the Bay Delta plan. And I thank the board for your continuing to be diligent stewards of the water for California. Overall, where is the board now in its decision about adopting the voluntary agreement? And if it is adopted, how effective do you believe that it will be in maintaining the two goals? of protecting the health of the Delta while providing water for the State Water Project?
Really appreciate the question, Senator. And amongst our priorities, should have very much highlighted at the top that passage and completion of the update of the Bay Delta Plan is a top priority for the board. The last time the Bay Delta Plan was adopted was actually or significantly adjusted was in the mid-90s. then to accommodate the Bay Delta Accord and the voluntary agreement if you will of that time And since then what come about is the Endangered Species Act has put further restrictions on the projects and we seen further declines ultimately of native salmonids and native species And so the update of the Bay Delta Plan is really critical for us to really wrap our arms around this declining system and begin to improve the in-stream flow protections that we see within that system. Importantly, the board adopted in 2018 the first component of the update of the Bay Delta plan. That included the lower San Joaquin. We are currently in the last stretches, if you will, of the update of the Sacramento Delta components of that plan. What's important, the current proposal is a dual pathway for the board where we will be updating standards. We will be adopting standards. And then also have now indicated that we will be looking to adopt the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal of voluntary agreements, which have been worked on now for two administrations, going back to the Brown administration. And the reason why it is here, you will see that I am in support of the current path of adopting both, is because we need to begin implementing. We need to start to ultimately afford ourselves the opportunity to have better tools in the watershed to actually start to reverse the trends that we're seeing. And what we've seen is that although the Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act are very important and their protections on the projects are ongoing, that's not enough. We really need to cast a wider net, if you will, something that we didn't do in the mid-90s, which was part of the compromise then, which was we're really going to apply these protections to the major projects, the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, and all the other water right holders, all the other projects that are part of this massive Bay Delta watershed, 40 percent of the land mass of our state, we're going to be left alone. What is obvious is that it's not just what we can do with the ESA or the projects, but how this system as a whole is going to function that is most critical. So the path that we have before us with willing partners in the water user community to come along, to add blocks of water, and here begin to, importantly, administer water rights at all times is really critical. because no matter if you have a regulatory approach that's generating water in the system, whether you have a voluntary approach where water users are putting water into that system, let alone things like 1707 dedications, which are in-stream flow dedications, already supposed to be protected, they're not. They're not because we don't actively administer water rights, and so other water right holders don't know not to pick up those blocks of water, so they're not protected. So what's important is that we move, we finally complete the work of the update of the Bay Delta plan, and we find ourselves in implementation, which is still yet another step, but such a critical one. Because as I said, whether it's voluntary approaches of blocks of water, whether it's a regulatory approach, whether it's other blocks of water that should be protected in the system, we need to begin to do what other Western states do, and that's actively administer water rights, so that we can actually start to see the benefits, the system-wide benefits that these contributions can make. And so where we are is here, we've released earlier this year a draft of our program implementation and our environmental documentation. We currently reviewing comments that we received We will come out with another draft here then this summer which will lead then to final adoption in the fall by the board
Okay, very good answer. I appreciate that. Do you have the scientific resources that you need to ensure that the Delta is moving in the right direction, or at least to understand the direction that it's moving in health-wise?
I will say yes, and we do continue to need more. And what I'm fortunate for, we are collectively, is, you know, it's not just the resources or the scientific understanding at the State Water Resources Control Board, which are incredible, but we also have partners like the Delta Stewardship Council, other water users, and importantly, non-government organizations that are all here. You know, we're all best collectively trying to figure out how we do contribute to our common scientific understanding, and ensure that our policies are based off of those and acknowledge that there is disagreement. This is a complex system that we're all collectively managing, but I think the process to gaining that better trust and understanding is really critical. And what I've appreciated about our update of the Bay Delta Plan is that there has been a lot of process, and we've heard a lot of folks, including concerns around the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes proposal and whether or not the resource is enough there to get it done. I think what's important on that note, again, is that the board is also updating standards. It's not an either or. We're doing both. And in the years ahead as we implement, we'll be able to ensure that we have tools to pivot if we need, but importantly to really focus on the success of not just relying on the ESA to fix our problems when it comes to declining species, but really use Porter Cologne, the board's broader authorities, in order to, again, wrap our arms really around the issue.
Well, thank you. I mean, as you must know, I'm determined to protect the Delta for my constituents. Now there's a bill moving through the Assembly that my Senate colleagues will see later in the year. It's AB 2215 that would provide the state water contractor statutory authority to exercise their historic water rights. But my understanding on this is that generally conferred, the right is generally conferred through a regulatory process at the State Water Board. So I'd like to get a feel for that conflict. Can you tell me where the board is in consideration of the contractor's rights? And does the water board believe that solving the issue through statute is necessary?
No, I'll say, and I have been somewhat briefed, but I wasn't fully prepared for the question. But as I understand, the right that is at that topic here for the State Water Project had been submitted to the board, was withdrawn in 2009, I believe, and then another resubmission recently. water rights is a complicated matter for sure. And unlike other western states that have spent a few decades here improving their water rights processes, going through things, our processes can be complicated. I don't have a position personally on the legislation that's currently moving through. I don't think we yet have one. But I do have here with me my legislative director, Candace Cotton. I don't know, Ms. Cotton, if you wanted to add anything further.
Hello Chair and Senator My name is Candace Cotton I the Legislative Director for the State Water Resources Control Board We don have a position on the bill We tend not to take positions on legislation as it still pending through the legislature You know, I think what Chair Esquivel said already is accurate.
Okay, well, I'd just like to be a little more comfortable in terms of where that rights are going to land. because in the current regime, I think we have some comfort with the proposed legislation. We're starting to lose our confidence.
Noted. I appreciate that, Senator.
Thank you. I'll yield back.
Thank you so much. Now, in reading your bio, I realize that you've been doing this for nine years. You were first appointed by Governor Brown in March of 2017. designated chair by Governor Newsom in 2019. You were previously Assistant Secretary for Federal Water Policy at CNRA in the Governor's Washington, D.C. office, where you facilitated the development of policy priorities between the CNRA, the Governor's Office, California congressional delegation, and federal stakeholders. And I mention all of that because my next question is, is after all these years of experience, do you have any concerns or issues that you see happening at the federal level that may impact the board's work relating to drinking water and water quality?
Thank you. I do appreciate that question, Chair. It has been, I'll just say I know for many of us, troubling to see the drastic reduction in the federal workforce. I believe Bureau of Reclamation is down 60% of their staffing. Many of the science agencies as well. I think of the California Nevada River Forecast Center, resources at NOAA, and other places that are really important to us here in the state. We rely on our federal partners incredibly. And so I'll say that the reduction in federal workforce and having our federal partners there is definitely a concern and is putting pressure then on state programs and resources to, if you will, pick up the slack. I know our next item here to discuss is around our second proposal for positions there because of a –
That would be the next question. What are we doing to prepare?
Yeah, we are. In the case of, say, the Supreme Court decision on SACET that drastically reduced the scope of the Clean Water Act, we are now having to rely on our, again, state authorities and programs in ways that we haven't before. And so that's why, again, on this next item, you'll see we have a request for positions in order to fill that hole, ensure that we don't have delayed permitting timelines, and try to build back some of the efficiencies that we had in place prior to this dramatic rollback on the federal government side. So whether it's rollbacks because of Supreme Court decisions or because of active changes here in federal priorities, it does put strain on the state and I think as well around funding for water generally. The state revolving fund for the clean water and drinking water side, the federal program, we've seen declines in the baseline funding that we're receiving. So Whether it's the money that we're receiving through grants, whether it's the partnership on the policies and the programs with the feds, the steps that we've seen on the federal side have not been welcomed. Did you want to add something?
Viedlong Wing with the Department of Finance. Nothing to add, but I'd have to answer any questions on the BCPs as we get into that conversation.
Wonderful. Thank you. And my last question is that you've benefited from the transition between governors. We're getting ready for a new governor. We don't know who it's going to be. Some of us feel it's going to be one person in particular, but nobody knows. But as we're getting ready, are there lessons that you've learned, having gone through this transition before, that will help you prepare to pivot and to adjust to a new administration?
What I really do appreciate is the structure in which the Statewide Resources Control Board is crafted in that we have four-year revolving positions. I think that really does help to have continuity across the efforts that the board is undertaking because, regrettably, and this is because of the complexity oftentimes of the decisions that we're in the midst of and the time truly it takes to try to get through those, but they span multiple administrations. And so the ability to have continuity at the board as we move into another administration so that we keep momentum is really critical. I certainly feel the continued urgency because of climate change, because of aging infrastructure, because of water quality challenges with emerging contaminants, we need to keep the momentum. And I think we have an opportunity to do so.
Wonderful. Thank you.
All right. If there are no other questions, let's move on to issue number three. This item is regarding permitting impacts from the recent Supreme Court decision, so a good segue here. The State Water Services Control Board is requesting $2.6 million in fiscal year 26-27 and ongoing, and 12 permanent positions from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund to conduct essential water quality permitting enforcement work in response again to the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Sackett ruling substantially narrowed what quantifies as waters of the United States, reducing the Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction and leaving gaps in oversight of wetlands and other waters. So these positions and the Water Board has analyzed our data on orders issued since the Sackett ruling. And per the request of the 2024 Budget Act, we actually submitted a report on the impacts of Sackett to the legislature this last January. And so this BCP is in alignment with that report to the legislature and is meant to, again, really fill the void that the pullback in federal jurisdiction created.
I'll note that last year we requested 26 positions. At that time, it was a higher number than that 26. It was kind of part of a larger ask. And appropriately, it was reduced down to the 26 positions. these 12 positions are essentially the other half of that request. And important to note that of those 26 positions we received last year, a majority have now been filled. There's just a few, as I understand, left, but these resources are actively now at the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. And so these additional 12 positions again will help us ensure that we do our best to try to maintain the timelines that we had prior to the decision It not lost on me in an era of discussions around streamlining and moving faster Folks often try to remove components or narrow, say here, the jurisdiction of the Federal Clean Water Act. And it hasn't materialized somehow, meaning that we have less timelines and, in fact, has created a lot of confusion and chaos and actually extended permitting timelines because of it. So these resources are really critical for us to, again, try to at least just get back to where we were prior to this federal decision.
Wonderful. Thank you. Elio?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sonia Pettig with the Legislative Analyst's Office. I want to start with the proposal at hand. As you know, our office has suggested that the legislature apply a high bar to approving any new proposals in light of some of the budget challenges that the state faces. We recommend or we find that this proposal would meet that high bar for legislative consideration. these positions and funding are justified and supported by the Water Board's data and the reporting that they provided to the legislature and serve really important functions related to water quality. I wanted to just take a moment, however, to address some of the findings from that report that the Water Board provided to the legislature in January. And as the chair, Chair Esquivel noted already, one of the reasons that the legislature didn't originally approve these 12 positions in 2425 was a desire to have more information about how the process was, how this redefinition of waters of the United States was the effects that that really was going to have on water board staff. So that information was provided in this report, and there were a few things that we'd like to highlight from that report. So the state processes are not – it's our understanding that the state processes were really designed to sort of work in tandem with the federal processes and not be a direct replacement for the federal processes. And because of that, some of the tools that the Water Board now has to rely on in state statute are not quite as efficient as what they were able to use when they were using their federal authority on these waters of the United States. So just to name a couple of examples, in the area of enforcement, state statute provides fewer enforcement tools than federal authorities. These tools are less proactive. The penalty amounts are lower than the federal penalty amounts. And altogether, these provide sort of less of a deterrent effect for people to do illegal discharges into state waters. Just as another example, when the state board issues a water quality control plan, those plans only apply to waters of the United States. So if the state board wants those to apply to all waters in the state, each regional board then has to do an amendment to their water quality control plans. This obviously isn't quite as efficient as the state plans just applying statewide. So I just wanted to know a few of those examples and then to say that we would recommend that the legislature consider some of the issues that the water board has identified in statute as being a little more challenging I guess than the federal process And consider making amendments to state statute to help the Water Board do these things more efficiently. The legislature could do this, they could do it through a trailer bill, but they could also do it through the policy process, which will give them more of a chance to consider these issues in depth and any tradeoffs.
Before we go to the Department of Finance, is there already a bill?
It's my understanding there is not. The trailer bill hasn't been proposed, and I don't think there is a policy bill. I believe there is a live policy bill. Oh, there is a live policy bill.
Who is the author?
I believe. SB601. SB601.
Apologies.
Apologies. I get too focused on the budget. And the author? Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Wonderful. Okay. Okay. At least we're on our way on that part. Okay.
Thank you so much. Apologies.
Department of Finance. V. Long Wing, Department of Finance, nothing to add.
Thank you. Questions from committee? No, I mean, I do appreciate you highlighting that you would be looking for some statutory improvements to help the situation. And, you know, the need for CEQA reform in a lot of areas is important, and this, you know, is an area where we really need to be looking at it. So I just appreciate you raising that.
Thank you. Well, I was going to say pretty much the same thing. How big is the gap? I mean, what does the new definition of waters of the United States look like? Is there a nexus requirement?
Yeah, it has to have a direct connection with a navigable water body. So wetlands, ephemeral streams, all were essentially removed, which are a big part, especially ephemeral streams, you know, streams that don't flow all year round, are big parts of the features of the West. California. So I don't have a percentage, say, of reduction off the top of my head, but I know, again, it's quite significant. It was a very significant narrowing and unfortunate.
So, I mean, the wetlands, the very few remaining wetlands, natural wetlands, are at risk now for this?
Could potentially, yeah.
So we'd need to sort of expand the definition of California wetlands?
We thankfully don't need to expand our definitions. We actually, it was just, I think, in the first year as I became chair, updated our definition for wetlands and our dredge and fill procedures. Didn't know Sackett was coming down the line, but there had already been previous threats to jurisdiction around the Clean Water Act and holes basically created that we updated our definition to ensure that it broadly captures it. The changes that we recommended in our report and the issues are more that, again, we haven't used waste discharge requirements in Porter Cologne and those tools often to do a lot of the work that is often really routine. I think a lot of the nationwide permits that the Army Corps created and that were being used and utilized had become very efficient. And as Sonia said our current authorities were just never used in this way and so there are efficiencies that can be made there But it's not around the scope or jurisdiction, ultimately, of our definitions of our program. It's more just the nuances of the actual implementations of the program.
So you do have recommendations then?
We do, yeah. Our report to the legislature in January lays us out.
All right, thank you. I'll go back. Thank you. What's the timeline for revising the enforcement inspection procedures and providing training on these revised procedures?
Well, it really is a matter, you know, we have our current work. If there are changes in statute, you know, then the timelines will kind of match up to what those changes ultimately be and how we can implement them. But we would be seeking to implement them expeditiously for sure.
Wonderful. Any further questions?
All right, let's move on to issue number four, recycled water program needs, SB 31. All right. So here, the State Water Board requests $1 million in ongoing funds and four permanent positions from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Account to permit and oversee new types of water recycling that were authorized by SB 31. The budget change proposal also requests $500,000 annually between 2026, 27, and 2029 from the Waste Discharge Fund and two existing limited term positions for developing the necessary updates to water recycling regulations. SB 31 makes several changes to the California Water Code that will require updates to our regulations entitled 22 water recycling criteria, which are the non-potable water recycling regulations at the State Board. So this is non-drinking water recycling use. These water code changes will align regulations with advancements in technology and best practices. And these changes will help Recycled Water Project work towards the state's goal of recycling 1.8 million acre feet of water by 2040. This was in Governor Newsom's water supply strategy. But these changes do require changes to the regulations and ongoing review. But we're hoping that it will expand non-potable use of recycled water in parks and other areas. Very proud of the fact that now yearly the state recycles nearly 750,000 acre-feet of water a year. That's grown from 500,000 or so since 2000. So in this century, and we know growing, water recycling and continuing to reuse and be smarter about our water use in the state will be really critical to continue to adapt to the climate extremes we have.
Thank you. Department of Finance?
Yeah, I'll just clarify that the BCP request is for four ongoing positions, and then in the first three years we're requesting funding to fill two limited-term positions during the first three years. Thank you. Elio?
We've reviewed this proposal and don't have any concerns with it.
Thank you. Any questions from the author?
Well, thank you. I'm really pleased to say that the board is seeking positions to implement the 2025 Recycled Water Bill, SB 31. California needs all the recycled water it can get, and I'm supportive of water solutions to do that, that do not place additional stresses on the delta. SB 31 helps California close the gap in its water needs by making it easier to use recycled water in outdoor immigration at homes, businesses, parks and golf courses. It's a but powerful step to help us use as much recycled water as possible before tapping into freshwater sources. My first question, what is the board's timeline for implementing the legislation?
I'd have to take a look, invite up here Darren Polhamis, the head of our Division of Drinking Water. He'll be able to give more detail on where we are in implementation.
Yeah, thank you. Darren Polhamis, Deputy Director for the Division of Drinking Water. Generally speaking, it takes us about two years to get a regulation in place, so the limited-term positions would be utilized to make sure that that happens expeditiously.
Thank you. Okay. Are there any other areas where a state should be looking to use more recycled water?
Yes. You know, we, again, we have a goal of getting to 1.8 million acre-feet by 2040, 800,000 acre-feet here by 2030. and so we're looking to definitely continue to increase recycled water. Obviously, we have large urban water projects. I continue to feel that there is an opportunity and definitely a need in more rural communities even and other places throughout the state to really be expanding recycled water because it's a source that can help be drought-proof and helps get through those drier times and ultimately need to be reusing our water more often. The challenge, candidly, oftentimes, though, the more inland you go, those may be existing discharges into streams or rivers that are important for in-stream benefits, too. So there is this tension and balance of recycling as much as we can, but also acknowledging that it can have impacts on streams and in-stream flow and biology. There are fundamental tensions, I know, in L.A., say around the L.A. River. You want to keep the L.A. River wet, but the more you recycle, the more you start to butt up against some of that. So I think there is opportunity up and down the state to reach our goals. We'll need to do a lot more. And as all things, it's really about the local conditions and the local impacts that need to be weighed.
Well, we'll look forward to working with your experts to finding new ways to tap into recycled water. If I can, what comes to mind as well, I'll note, is that we have been an investor in research around recycled water.
The North American Water Alliance, NOWI, I believe it is, based out of Berkeley Labs, is a partner, an incredible partner in continuing to invest in the research that can reduce energy costs, reduce membrane fouling, continue to, to your point, just really expand the use of the work and the technology by focusing on fundamental research.
Okay, again, I want to thank you, but I do want to emphasize two years is kind of a long time. Let's expedite that, get a hold of that fresh water as soon as we can.
Yeah, I should note, Senator, as well, that we will be able to proceed ahead with projects. Your name, please. Oh, sorry. Darren Bohem is Deputy Director for Division of Drinking Water. We'll be able to proceed ahead with permitting projects even before the regulations are fully in place. We'll do our best in that regards. But the regulations certainly provide certainty for future projects that's needed. And, yes, we will definitely expedite them.
Okay. And I committed to ensuring that you continue to get the funds that you need to do this Thank you for the Leadership Center Thank you I going to yield that I have nothing more to add
I think as long as the author is happy with this, I think that we're happy. Thank you so much for your presentation.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members.
All right, now we're going to move on to issue number five, Department Overview of the Department of Water Resources. It once pronounced, yes. And before we begin, the Department of Overview for the Department of Water Resources.
I understand that Director Namath will be leaving the administration soon to become Executive Director of the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA. What a great acronym. I do want to thank you, Director Namath, for your many years of public service. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. It's really been an honor to lead the department almost nine years. So and, you know, when I when I took the job, several former directors said to me, it's just getting so hard. And I think about that now because I'm leaving. And I think that about, you know, my successor is the challenges will remain. And it's just a much more complicated picture. And I'd be delighted to give you an overview of what's happening this year as an example of that. But thank you so much for your well wishes. I appreciate that. So good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Karlyn Ameth. I am the Director of the Department of Water Resources for about another six weeks. And we are here today to discuss the 2026 budget. But it does feel important that I give you an overview of this year's conditions because it has been yet another unusual year. And just a couple of key markers. Right now, our precipitation for the state sits at right about average. But our reservoirs are above average, about 120 percent of average. And what that really signals is that most of our precipitation came as rain this year and a lot less snow than what we're used to. And in point of fact, our snowpack peaked in California February 24th, which is a full six weeks of our traditional peak, which is usually right around April 1st, which is why our almost our final snow survey or the snow survey that garners a lot of media attention when we're out there with the poll and measuring the snow water content. That has traditionally occurred on April 1st because that is our traditional peak for California snowpack. And usually what happens is we rely on that snowpack to melt during our long summer months, our long warm summer months when we tend to see very little rain in California. But this year it peaked in February because we had a March that was a full three and a half degrees warmer than normal And all of that snowpack that we had built up by the end of February was almost gone. I think we had just under 5% at our Phillips snow survey on April 1st. My reaction exactly, Senator McNerney. So it's upon us. There's just no question. I would say the bright spot in that, if you will, and I would also say that these conditions are not just affecting California. Actually, conditions are much worse in the Colorado River Basin, which, of course, supplies about a third of Southern California's water supply. So we are having what our climatologists call a snow drought throughout the western United States. And that's a signal we've been anticipating for a while that eventually we will have more of our precipitation will come as rain and less as snow. and our traditional wet season will probably shrink, and it will end up being a handful of bigger events, some cold, more warm, happening in a shorter time frame. The last real experience we had with this was in 2021, which was a pretty brutal year, a pretty brutal year for forecasting. The melt-off in that year happened much later. We had about 60% of snowpack on April 1st, but then it was really by Memorial Day that we had nothing. And I point that out because we make a lot of decisions about water management based on April 1st. And so in that year, we had already made some allocation decisions in advance of having a full picture of the water that was available to us. So, so much has changed since that year. that year, our practices at the department in terms of how we approach our allocation, being more conservative early on to anticipate the potential warming trends that we saw this year. But we have also invested an enormous amount in improved forecasting. And you're going to hear a little bit more about that. We do have a budget proposal for forecasting dollars. But as a result of that, 2021, we developed a roadmap to improved water forecasting, and it meant that this year, not only did we have our aerial snow observations, we also have incorporated modeling that accounts for the dryness of our soils, meaning we may get the same precipitation, but when we have warming temperatures or have had a really hot previous summer, it doesn't generate the same amount of runoff that we have become accustomed to managing. So that soil moisture is now part of our thinking. And in addition, the final piece of that is really how we account for geologic variability across California's watersheds. It's not the same picture everywhere. And so it's really those three things coming together to give us a much more accurate temperature-sensitive portrait of when we get the precipitation, what's going to happen relative to runoff in our river streams and reservoirs. And so this year the big story of this year was no snow decent precipitation So here we sit at 120 of capacity in our reservoirs It not a bad thing But I think there a continuing sense that we have to be in a position to capture more of that because this is what we have to get us through the hot summer and through the uncertainties of conditions heading into next winter. And many of our reservoirs, certainly Oroville, also in that time period increased its carryover storage by about 20% to account precisely for this. So when we start the water year in October, we'll be better off than we were just a handful of years ago in our planning. All of that may be a fairly wonky, nerdy way to talk about, you know, the world is changing and we do need to continue to invest in water supply reliability, our climate-resilient water supplies. The department is also a big supporter of recycled water. We're excited about the potential. We're excited about the partnership with the Water Resources Control Board to see those projects come to fruition. I want to just second what Chair Esquivel said. There are also real opportunities for brackish water desalination in addition to water recycling in rural communities where we can get the costs down. And a lot of that was the result of funding the legislature gave us several years ago to invest locally in California. We were a water energy nexus hub to innovate in this desalination space to see if we could get those costs down. And it's generating real results that can be very important for California's rural communities. So, you know, in addition to all of that, you know, I'll just say over the last eight years, the governor and legislature invested nearly $8 billion in water resources management for California. You know, just real hats off to our colleagues at the Water Board implementing the SAFER program and the more than a million Californians they've gotten safe, reliable drinking water. The department has been actively engaged in also supporting small communities. We have the, we call it the DRIP Collaborative, which came out of the last drought, which was to do a much more thorough assessment of, again, mostly rural communities, but the smaller communities that tend to be the most vulnerable during drought. So we are making good progress there to have an even amount of information coming from those rural communities, which also tend to be resource constrained in their own ability to plan for drought resiliency. And then I would say finally, we have been investing significantly in habitat restoration that really enables our ecosystems to also survive in drought conditions and generally warming conditions. We do have Prop 4 investments in front of you. I'm joined here by Brian Fuller, who's our budget guru. So some of the detailed questions he's here to help answer for you all. But I'm also joined by several key deputies. Deputy Paul Gosselin, who you may know as our groundwater guru at the department managing all of our recharge efforts and budget dollars there. James Newcomb, who handles our habitat restoration. And then you'll hear a little bit later from Laura Hollings. who is our flood deputy. A lot of our forecasting really lives in the flood part of our department because it's criticality in terms of public safety. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have, and I will bring my colleagues up if they can provide improved insights over their director. So thank you.
Thank you. Questions, Senator McNerney?
Maybe. Yes. Well, first of all, I want to thank you, Director, for your dedication to making sure that California has the water it needs. It's a big job. I personally wouldn't want to do it, so my hat's off. I don't have one with me right now, but I certainly have a lot of respect for your work. And I just want to point out, you mentioned improved forecasting. That's a tremendous achievement, especially considering what's happening with the federal government, and it's going to be desperately needed to manage the decisions you have to make early in the season. I understand that's a very powerful tool and continue to work on that. You mentioned storage, and I'm going to talk about one of my bills a bit later, but what are the prospects for increasing groundwater storage capacity to the kind of levels that we'll need to capture those big storm events?
Yeah, so a couple of things. You're totally on the nose that the capacity that we have underground is significant, and it's an underdeveloped resource. It's about 10 to 12 times the size of our surface reservoir capacity, so it's going to be essential for California to put water underground so that we can rely on it during a drought. It does sort of behave differently, if you will. It takes longer to store water in the ground than an above ground reservoir. It also takes longer to pull it out, but it has a real critical function. I think one of our bigger challenges to getting to groundwater storage kind of writ large and at scale is largely the funding that we have available for water storage came through the Water Storage Investment Program, which was 2014 that the voters passed that bond. And it was actually part of the 2009 bond that was agreed to by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. And of that bond, that was the only chapter that remained unchanged when it was passed by the legislature in 2014. The challenge there is that I would just observe, I think we have a fairly cumbersome process for how we winnow down projects. And if we winnow down storage projects, it's a lengthy process to onboard things like groundwater storage. And so I think that's a fundamental challenge that we have. It's also a challenge because Prop 1 was a voter-approved bond. So if we want to make any changes to that language to enable us to exercise those funds and get them into storage projects, you know, there's a requirement to have the voters approve of that. So I would say that one I would say general discomfort that I have about where we find ourselves in terms of you know how we get those investments done I think the second thing Senator is a bit more complex but it is important And that is, maybe I'll answer this by way of articulating some of the recent work the department has done on this topic, which is to marry all the good forecasting improvements we're doing. So how do we operate reservoirs better when we see these big storms coming in? We talk a lot about forecast-informed reservoir operations, which allows us to be more proactive in releasing water to create space for flooding, but do it with enough time in advance to actually take advantage of that water and store it underground. And so there's enormous potential there, enormous potential there, particularly in the Central Valley. it will require a lot of cooperation and coordination, especially with the Army Corps of Engineers. They are the entity that would need to approve that kind of change in reservoir operations. But equally as important is ensuring that we have the water rights processes available to us to identify that water and to make sure that the water that we're storing, we know who has a right to use it. And there's a great variability across those watersheds. And so I think that is a topic that I've discussed it from a policy perspective with Chair Esquivel. You know, how do we help California get better prepared for that? So it's very much on all of our radars. And the department does have a series of watershed studies feeding the Central Valley, where it really does tee up that very important question as one of the challenges. but it definitely presents the opportunities, I think, that you're alluding to, and there's a bit of work to be done there to actualize that.
Well, good. I look forward in my future years here in the legislature to working with the DWR and the board, the water board, to making those things come about.
Yeah, you bet.
So it's well known that we've had some differences of opinion, Director.
Yes.
But today we have something I think we can collaborate on, and that is preserving and protecting our existing water infrastructure. And unless we invest in it now, I think it's at big risk. And I'll go over two problems, which I'm sure you're well aware of. First would be subsidence. The DWR released a report last fall that the land subsidence threatens to reduce the water carrying capacity of the State Water Project by 87% by 2040. So that's a significant risk that supplies water to 27 million Californians. So it's urgent. We need to go after that. We need to go after it in a big way. The other one, of course, is Delta levies, which you're also very familiar with. Some of those levies date back into the 1800s. Many no longer satisfy the Army Corps' standards for Delta levies, for levies. and a breach there would be a grave threat both to human life and to property and to drinking water for the whole state. So these are very important, urgent issues that we need to deal with. As I'm sure you are aware, I introduced SB 872 this year, which calls for $300 million a year for 20 years, $150 million for the levees, $150 million for the State Water Project. and the good thing is that it comes together with Democrats and Republicans North and South labor and environmentalists and contractors I mean this is a pretty well program that needs to come forward We're a little worried about where the money's going to come from, of course. But it's a great idea. and I want to say my first question is I'm supportive of the governor's proposal to appropriate pop form funding for land subsidence this year it's important I think the funding should be dedicated specifically for water contractors for the purpose of repairing the state water project and director can you articulate the department's concerns about subsidence along with the state water project and does the department have any current numbers on what the cost repairs might be so that
we can calibrate our legislation in the future? Yeah, you bet. So one, thank you for going into the breach. What you've done is difficult in the water world to bring folks together and it's so critical. If it were easy, we'd be doing it already. So my sincere thanks for that. I was one of my my predecessors, not too much water. Right. So, yeah, so you really hit on some pretty eye-popping figures there about the effect, the potential effect of subsidence on State Water Project supplies. It won't surprise anyone to know that, you know, a loss of 87% of capacity would be nearly catastrophic, particularly given the conditions I've just mentioned, which is a lot of wet water moving through the system, and then it doesn't move through the system.
And the decline of the Colorado River is... Exactly, exactly. So the other eye-popping figure is what it might cost to fix that,
which we are estimating is an order of magnitude $3 to $4 billion. dollars. Part of the challenge, though, is we are in the stages of identifying some near-term, interim kinds of measures that we can do that we expect will enable us to refine the costs further. And so as a general matter, I think, you know, especially our contractors who right now are the ones who feel, I think, an enormous amount of pressure that they would be directed to pay the totality of that cost, which I think would be a poor policy outcome given the realities of what caused the subsidence, which is fundamental over-pumping of groundwater basins when they were just simply not regulated. SGMA is really critical to arresting that, and the plans do, as a general matter, arrest that moving forward, which is allowed under the law. But prior to 2015, there was an enormous amount of damage done in a way that is, to me, kind of a fundamental tragedy of the commons, if you will. And so I do think there's a strong policy rationale. But the target is $3 billion to $4 billion in repairs needed. The department has been considering some budgeting of around million over the course of the next several years to get going on these interim targets and see if we can identify more cost ways to reduce the overall expense of that well that good and we look forward to those refinements especially in the next few years Sure
We try to push this year's legislation through the process and ensure that that money is there to begin the program. I'm also supportive of the governor's proposal to allocate $60 million for Delta Lever repairs this year. And I think those funds should be dispersed in consultation with local communities. to reflect local priorities, both for the water supply protection and the protection of health in my communities. Can you tell me how the DWR works with locals today to determine levy spending priorities and whether they in a way may change, we may change them to increase the speed with which these projects move forward?
Sure. So the department does provide financial assistance using bond and general fund dollars. And essentially, all of that work involves our interaction with locals through a program called the Subventions Program. And then we also have something called the Special Projects Fund. I think, and you're kind of, I think, hitting on this, I think one of the biggest challenges is we have a cost share. I think the cost share is 25%, if I'm not mistaken, from a local entity. But some of those reclamation districts aren't even able to provide that. And so they kind of become orphans in these kinds of funding programs, which I think is a real challenge. But the general approach by the department is to prioritize lives and property and state interests and how we allocate those funds. One of the more recent developments over the course of the last eight-plus years has been the Stewardship Council and its role in determining a Delta Levy investment strategy. strategy. And so that strategy requires the department to rank them by priority. And it considers things like the potential for matching funds, benefits to water supply, levy system integrity, meaning, you know, the levies get interconnected, right? So if you do improvements over here, you don't know if you're creating other pressure in a different part of the system. So it It has to work as a system, ecosystem enhancement, and climate resilience. So those are the ways in which we would be interacting with the locals, both through a sister state agency, but also directly with the locals themselves in those programs. But again, just a flag that we are aware that the cost share aspects of them does mean that there are entities that aren't able to provide the match and then therefore are not prioritized.
Well, thanks for bringing up the cost share issue. And I think that's something that we need to take care to address here. And I'm also concerned that the money allocated is used to complete the project rather than getting siphoned off for other uses, which could dilute the progress of the projects. My final question is that I'm becoming more convinced that the state needs larger water infrastructure solution for the near future, the full estimate of the total cost of the state water projects. Is that me? That was me. The full estimate. Estimated cost of repairing the state water projects due to land subsidence and repairing the Delta levees is $6 billion, which I earlier identified. Do you have plans on how to fund this vital repair work over the next 20 years? In other words, we need to work together here, the DWR and the legislature, to make sure we have the funds and that the funds are accurately forecasted and put to use.
Yeah. So a couple of things. It's been a long time since the department has done a broad levy study in the Delta, really since 2005. And it was called the DREAMS study. And it was now 21 years ago. And that feels like a long time ago when we really think about the acceleration of climate and the pressures that we see on those levees. In the interim, the state policy really ran through this Delta Levy investment strategy. And so the reality is, you know, what dollars become available to the department or other parties to fund those projects through the lens of the Delta Levy investment strategy. And I think one of the important things is, so for example, I think it was about a year and a half ago, we did have a seepage incident on a levee around Victoria Island. And it was a bit of a wake-up call for us, frankly. And one of the things we've learned as a result of that, so we did an emergency repair on it. It was an expensive repair. Emergencies are always more expensive. So, you know, it's not something to kind of take home to the bank, if you will. But one of the things we learned is this was a pretty good levy, and it wasn't the prism of the levy. It was the fact that it's sitting on top of sandy soils, and it was really seepage that was happening. We think a lot about overtopping, but with sea level rise, we really start to think about the seepage that's happening. And as we update our expectations around sea level rise and the pressure, I do think introducing some of that analysis, we will be bringing it to the Delta Stewardship Council as they think through whether and how to update the Delta levy investment strategy based on sort of emerging conditions. I think all of that, Senator, is the work that we need to do to help us understand the full magnitude of the expense. But I would just say as a matter of being engaged in water infrastructure everywhere, it's getting more expensive, not less. And climate is more of a pressure that's coming quicker. So I don't particularly have a number to give you now, especially over the next 20 years. I think it could be better informed by our better and improved understanding of the conditions.
Well, thank you. Californians in the 1950s weren't afraid to make big investments, and they paid off. They made our state the fourth largest economy in the world, and we need to maintain that investment so that we can continue our leadership in all these fields. I also want to recognize that the people of California want their tax dollars used to intended purposes and approved projects can be completed as promised. I will insist that we oversee the money that committed to solving these two problems to use for those purposes And again I thank you for your hard work Congratulations on your new and we miss you here in the state
Thank you, sir. It's been a pleasure. Thank you.
I certainly appreciated the question when you asked for the next, what's the plan for the next 20 years. I was going to say we've got six weeks, six weeks left. But whoever takes the position will continue the good work.
I want us to move on to issue number six, but something that came up yesterday had to do with safe drinking water. You talked briefly about that. We still have 800,000 people in the state of California, the fourth largest economy, who do not have safe drinking clean water. And that is a great concern for me. It's a longer conversation, I'm sure, but I hope that there is a plan that is put together that will give us the timeline to get most of the people. Somebody said, we'll never get to zero. That is a dream. It should be a dream, because for the ones who don't have safe drinking water, it's the problem for them. Everybody else is fine. Everybody else is fine. 39 million people are okay, but the rest of them are not fine. And I think we need to do much more in that regard, but we'll leave that for another day. You bet. All right. Let's go on to issue number six, the river forecast and snow survey resources.
Good afternoon. My name is Laura Hollander. I'm the Deputy Director of Flood Management and Dam Safety for the California Department of Water Resources. As you've heard a bit about today from our director, we have been working to improve our forecasting. You know, forecasting, our ability to do that is fundamental to water management decisions in California. In the past year and a half, that has been greatly challenged by some of the reductions that we've had in resources at the federal level. Our California and Nevada River Forecasting Center is a partnership between the National Weather Service and DWR and has been for many decades. And so we've relied on our federal partners for flood forecasting, assistance with all of the forecasting that we do for water supply and many, many things. So the BCP or the budget change proposal that is before you is to essentially augment the resources that we have lost on the federal side. So it is $9.5 million ongoing for 15 positions. Part of that, $6.5 million of it, is to create our own river forecast center as a state, the systems and the models that would just be sort of state-run going forward. It is a state statutory responsibility to do this forecasting. and then another 2.5 million would be for snow surveys. We do also rely on a variety of federal partners we have to assist us with our manual snow surveys. We do manual snow surveys at 267 sites throughout the state and those are key to water supply forecasting as you heard about you know measuring runoff and forecasting our water supply for the year So I stop there but happy to answer any questions
Megan Larson, Department of Finance, nothing to add.
Sonia Peddick with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We have reviewed this proposal and think that it meets this high bar for consideration this year. It really supports critical activities and services. The information is vital for water supply forecasting, for flood management and emergency response. And as already noted, these are statutory responsibilities and core state services. Thank you.
A question. Do you plan to hire the National Weather Service staff that was let go at the federal level?
We absolutely would like to. We work with some wonderful experts, and if they apply, they will absolutely be considered once we get these positions. Wonderful.
And does the department have the tools and the computers necessary to do this work?
That is part of what this BCP would allow, quite frankly, because we have relied on federal resources and federal mapping or modeling, and in some cases, computers. Very good.
and as the LAO has commented, that it meets a very high bar for approval. All right. I thank you so much for your presentation. We're going to move to public comment now. Thank you.
Good afternoon. Kim Delfino. I'm going to start with Issue 3 on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. We strongly support the budget change proposal for the SACET positions at the State Water Board. Also as a sponsor of Senate Bill 601 by Mr. Allen, we would invite the administration to work with us on addressing the statutory issues that the Water Board raised. On issue number one, I really appreciate the fact that you held such a long conversation around the open position cuts. On behalf of defenders, California Native Plant Society, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sonoma Land Trust, and the Power of Nature, we urge that the open positions that are slated to be cut at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Parks, State Water Board, and the Coastal Commission are kept and funded.
I'm going to make a quick point. One, certainly at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I would also say at the State Water Board and Coastal Commission, we're cutting muscle and bone and not fat. You can stretch a dollar only so far, and I don't think they have the dollars to stretch to cover the mandates that they're required to do, and it will have an impact on us. Two, we agree with the LAO that we should be not cutting the positions funded through special funds. Three, the general fund savings that we would be getting are so minuscule, one hundredth of 1% of the general fund relative to the impact. And then finally, there are a lot of federal workers out there that were laid off. There are young people that are graduating from college that don't have positions. I think keeping these positions open and they would be filled, I think we should be supporting a budget that's a job filler, not a job killer. Thanks. Thank you. I will tell you that the chair of human resources has committed to providing more information regarding how to apply for a job with the state. And, in fact, in the Inland Empire, we are doing a seminar just on that. And I hope other legislators do the same thing. Thank you. And as a mother of a recent college graduate with lots of other friends who don have jobs appreciate that Absolutely Tell your legislator to do a seminar I forgot to mention this at the beginning and thank you for all your comments You went way beyond 30 seconds but I didn tell you there was a limit So 30 seconds, please, for the rest of you, and it will be timed. You're going to hear an alarm.
Good afternoon. Molly Mala, representing the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA was a proud co-sponsor of SB72, so this is on Issue 12, which was signed into law last year to modernize the California water plan and includes an interim planning target for our water supply reliability future. Water resources projected costs of implementing SP 72 consistently to be $6.8 million for the first five years and $3.4 million thereafter. The dollars are primarily intended to cover staff time. The governor's projected budget allocated $5.8 million. So there's a shortfall of about $1 million annually. annually. So for implementing SB 72, DWR projects that this could delay updating the water plan by five to ten years because of that shortfall. And so we would just be asking for an additional one million annually to fund that staff time to make sure we can implement on time. And yeah, so asking SB 72 to be fully funded. Thank you. Thank you so much. And good afternoon,
Jamie Minor here on behalf of a large coalition of water users and agricultural entities. This includes Turlock Irrigation District, Eastern Municipal Water District, current water authority, sorry, Friant Water Authority, Chamber of Commerce and others. We're here on item six, the snow survey and forecasting item. While we do support that item and encourage that backfilling, it's key to note that is just a backfilling to keep us at the status quo. And we have this whiplash, you know, weather events where our snowpack is dwindling one month, then we get a huge storm comes in and it's, you know, even greater. We need to know what's up there. We can't manage what we can't measure. DWR this year did a study on the aerial snow survey program, which we're asking for funding for, which is a $35 million amount program. And they found that a return on investment of $846 million. So given the budget impact, we support full funding of that program. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mariela Rattro, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability on SAFER. As mentioned in the committee analysis, the program has a $130 million continuous appropriation from GRF with a backfill from General Fund. We ask the legislature to continue supporting that. since it was cut to $92 million from the governor, and then also ensured that there would continue backfill from the general fund. This program provides access to safe, affordable drinking water to many communities. In fact, I want to share some good news. The community of Tombstone near Sanger gained access this week to safe and affordable drinking water. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. I'm going to quickly comment on three items. So first, regarding issue one, we're really concerned about these special fund position cuts. These are funded by the fees and other things that our members are paying to have a service and also to have oversight of our environment, and that's extremely critical. Special fund does not help backfill the general fund. It just is not the appropriate way to address that issue. With regard to issue six, I would just align my comments with my colleague, Jamie Miner. We need data on our biggest natural reservoir and how to better manage that. our snowpack. That's a critically important tool for us to continue to be better stewards of our resources. So we would ask for that $35 million to continue program. And then finally, we're supportive of Senator McNerney's SB 872 and would just ask the legislature to fully fund that proposal in the bill, $150 million each for both the Delta levies and for the conveyance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chair and missing members. Danny Merkley with the Guaulco Group. On behalf of Kern County Water Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. We are very much in support of Senator McNerney's SB 872. And then I would also, on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Kings River Interest, and Modesto Irrigation District,
align ourselves with Jamie Miner's comments on the snowpack. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Despite what it looks like I'm not following you around this past 24 hours, it's nice to see you again, though. Beth Olasso. Important topics. Important topics. We've been having great discussions. Beth Olasso here for a number of different clients. First for Water Reuse California on SB 31 implementation. We are the sponsors of the bill. So support fully implementing that legislation to get more recycled water cruising through the state. For Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley on Issue 6, I want to echo my colleague's comments, Jamie Miner. Getting accurate data is super important. And then finally, for Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Municipal Water District of Orange County, also want to support the conveyance funding, Senator McNerney's SB 872. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, the 30 seconds is just not working. Are you not hearing? Can you hear the alarm? We can hear it. I'll even pay attention to it. All right. Paul Mason, Pacific Forest Trust. I'll echo the comments of the first speaker about issue one, the vacant positions, as well as the excellent analysis. And really just point out that last year you were handed this proposal to sweep 6,000 positions, establish a process to really look at what are those most critical positions where the harm exceeds the benefit and propose to retain 650 of them. I think you now need to actually follow through on the process that the legislature established. Thank you. Thank you. Yay, under 30 seconds. I'll try my best. Good afternoon. Karen Lang in support of item 6 for South San Joaquin Irrigation District with the points that Ms. Miner made first. And secondly, here on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition, the five Delta counties that ring the Delta, in support of Senator McNerney's work regarding SB 872, certainly the fiscal part should come from the budget committees in support of $150 million for Delta levies and $150 million to deal with the subsidence. I want to be super clear that SB 872 is not about new conveyance, it is about restoring the existing conveyance. Thank you. You'll be glad you said that. Good afternoon, Chair. Grisela Chavez on behalf of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition. We request that you maintain the CDFW staff positions currently under consideration for elimination. And we're particularly concerned regarding the proposed elimination of positions that support the implementation of natural community conservation plans, including those related to permitting, streambed lake alteration, and law enforcement. And on behalf of the Mid-Poninsia Regional Open Space District and California State Parks Foundation, we echo those similar sentiments and urge the retention of the critical CDFW and state parks jobs Thank you Thank you Good afternoon Madam Chair Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the California Wildlife Officers Foundation and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association strongly urging retention of the 45 wildlife officer positions and funding to avoid further jeopardizing public safety and environmental protection. Wildlife officers patrol vast and remote areas covering hundreds of miles, often without backup, and they don't just fight environmental crime. They also perform critical emergency responses like search and rescue and wildlife, wildfire evacuations, federal budget cuts have made their job harder by having, they now need to do this across 48 million acres of federal lands as well. So there are no compelling reasons not to retain these positions. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon chair and members. My name is Amari Gallo. I'm the California program director with Wildlands Network. In that role I work to reconnect and restore wildlife across California. Regarding item one today I'm here to urge you to reject the proposed elimination of all 164 vacant positions at California Department of Fish and Wildlife. I see firsthand in my work how critical CDFW permitting staff are to ensuring the decisions we make today don't cause irreversible harm that robs future generations of tomorrow in experiencing bighorn sheep in our deserts, salmon in our rivers, and pronghorn roaming the MODOK Plateau. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California, here to also urge the rejecting of the 164 positions sweeps at CDFW. Most of these positions provide crucial environmental protections and critical public safety around the state. More than a dozen of these provide environmental protection services additionally and help manage and restore disaltency. And these funds, these positions won't really result in general cost savings. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Andrew Antwi with Shariot and Antwi, Shmuelzran Lang here today on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor and Tom Cat Branch LLC. Issue number one, we're focused on the vacant position issue, specifically the 45 positions that are vacant now in the law enforcement division. Specifically from our perspective, data has shown that human wildlife incidents have risen 31% over the last five years while staffing has declined. So we urge that reestablishing these positions be paramount. Thank you. Good afternoon. Cynthia Cortez with Restore the Delta in full support of Senator McNerney's SB 872 and the allocation of $150 million for Delta levy repairs and $150 million for subsidence repairs. In addition, we ask that the legislature adopt a three-year exemption on the current cost-share program, ensuring that these funds can meet the needs of Delta communities. This proactive investment of $300 million over 20 years would protect upwards of $22 billion in state assets and save the state billions more on... emergency funding. Also on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Vanessa Oliveira Bondroso, and I'm the policy analyst with Restored Delta. We would like to encourage the community to consider the inclusion of funding for Delta levies in a sum of $150 million in this year's budget. There are numerous projects that could be started today if this money were made available. Projects that would ensure Delta The levees meet a 200 flood risk standard that would ensure reliability to existing water supply and most importantly project the lives of the 4 million Delta County residents We encourage the committee to consider this important funding request Thank you. Thank you.
Hello, Chair Reyes.
Natalie Brown, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. First, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and the Golden State Salmon Association, in support of the request just discussed by Restorative Delta. Additionally, on behalf of California Trout Environmental Action Committee of West Marin and the Golden State Salmon Association speaking on Issue 1, urging the budget includes reinstating all the positions and funding at DFW State Parks Water Board California Coastal Commission. Additionally, the positions at CDFW perform important oil spill prevention and that protects public health by protecting coasts from oil spills and pollution. A number of the CDFW staff positions were intended to fulfill commitments made by the governor and others. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I'm Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy speaking on issue one. We'd like to echo the comments provided by Kim Delfino earlier, and we respectfully urge the legislature to reject cutting all the open positions at our state agencies. In particular, CDFW, more than half of these positions are permitting positions, which help to move forward habitat restoration projects, and a number of these positions were intended to fulfill commitments made by the governor to better conserve and protect salmon. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Dan Jacobson speaking on behalf of all to see also in terms of issue number one. CDFW staff are critical in terms of making sure that we're protecting our coast and the critical resources that we have. So urge you to ensure that they get full funding. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jennifer Savage on behalf of Surfrider Foundation and nearly two dozen of the state's leading marine conservation organizations, urging retention of 164 positions at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, particularly those supporting marine coastal and law enforcement, as well as the six positions at the California Coastal Commission. Department of Fish and Wildlife oversees marine habitat protection, implements and patrols California's landmark network of marine protected areas, and leads key efforts on environmental disasters like oil spills. Without the six staff, the Coastal Commission will be unable to carry out mandates in SB 272, further setting back California's efforts to protect our coast and public from the worst impacts of sea level rise. Please reject the elimination of these positions and ensure the Department and Commission retain the funds and positions needed to protect California's ocean ecosystem, sustainably manage fisheries, and support resilient coastal communities. Thank you. Thank you. Our timer didn't work that time. You were a little over.
Good afternoon, Chair Reyes. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting.
relative to issue two on behalf of our client water foundation we wanted to voice our strong support and the need for stability for the safer program since launching in 2019 the safer program has been a massive and measurable success and yet we still see hundreds of thousands of californians and billions of dollars of unmet infrastructure needs the problem with safer is that it's entirely funded through cap and invest auction revenues which we know are going to decline precipitously over the coming years. That kind of instability makes it difficult for these infrastructure projects. We urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Neil Desai with the National Parks Conservation Association. We strongly urge the legislature to protect open positions at CDFW State Parks Coastal Commission and the Water Board At the federal level the elimination of open positions has been central to the agenda to increase pollution and erode public confidence in government. The state of California should be protecting its game warden, its oil spill prevention staff, permitting staff, and its park rangers. Cutting positions to save one one hundredth of one percent doesn't add up. It should be rejected. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Tracy Iser with Women for Wolves. I'm also urging you to reject the proposal for the vacant positions. Resources are already spread extremely thin. We don't need to add to that. And the ones who are suffer are our wildlife, our environment. So please consider rejecting this. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Rena Hatchman. I'm the co-founder of Women for Wolves. Cutting department positions is detrimental and will only escalate conflict if we remove the people responsible for coexistence and we're choosing failure before the work even begins. If we care about science or ecosystems and the future of wildlife in the state, then we need to invest in coexistence, and that starts with protecting these positions. Thank you. Thank you.
You're the co-founder?
Yes.
You seem so young to be the co-founder.
She has a baby face.
You've got a great future then.
Hello, commissioners. I'm the founder of Women for Wolves, and I'm here to urge you. My name is Anjali Ranadeva. I'm here to urge you not to cut the positions. through our nonprofit fieldwork with ranchers, biologists, indigenous communities, and many other groups. They've all exhausted their resources trying to implement non-lethal wildlife coexistence between humans and carnivores. So already these positions are shorthanded and people are exhausting their own resources in trying to coexist. So we urge you not to cut these positions. Areas where there are no coexistence programs are three times more likely to have losses. Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you for being the founder. I know that Senator Blakespeare would have appreciated your comments right now.
Good afternoon. My name is Tara Daddari, and I'm the Director of Technology for Women for Wolves. California is home to some of the greatest biodiversity in the country, yet we've already lost over 90% of our historic wetlands. At the same time, wildlife across the state continues to face growing pressure from habitat loss and climate change. Cutting environmental and natural resource positions now would move California backwards at a time when we should be investing more in science, monitoring, and conservation. I don't want future generations growing up in a world where protecting wildlife and the environment becomes an afterthought. Please protect these positions and fully fund our environmental agents. Thank you. And the director.
Well, I do want to thank all of you who have participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments and suggestions in writing to the Budget and Fiscal Review Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you, and we appreciate your participation. Thank you to everyone, and thank you for your patience and cooperation. We have concluded our agenda for today's hearing. Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 2 is adjourned. Thank you.