Senate Budget Sub2 — 2026-05-21

Crowfoot. It's good to see you here. All right. Department of Finance, would you like to present? Sure. Good morning, Madam Chair. Stephen Benswood's Department of Finance. I will start with a few statements about the May revision overview in general and then talk a little bit about some of the May revision proposals specific to natural resources. So the May revision follows through the governor's January commitment to balance both the budget year, 26-27, and budget year plus one, 27-28. The budget does that by leaving a positive SFEU balance of $4.5 billion in budget year, which is 26-27, and $2.1 billion in budget year plus one, 27-28. It also, importantly, takes steps to significantly address the structural imbalance that both the administration and the LAO has identified and talked about. They're rather large in the out years. The governor's budget, there were over $20 billion in structural imbalance in each of the out years. The mayor revision has more than halved that amount. Specific to the natural resources area and Prop 4, where I'll start, the governor's budget proposed billion in 2627 from the climate bond to continue funding critical projects and programs The mayor revision requests an additional million for strategic investments that support the acquisition of 161 property known as Golden Gate Fields for the development of Shoreline Park and Recreational Hub, as well as to fund projects, shovel-ride projects for wildlife refuges and wetlands statewide. Specific to the Golden Gate Fields, the Mayor Vision includes up to $125 million one-time funding to provide a maximum contribution amount per state contribution to the acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields. This includes $25 million in CNRA's budget, $25 million in WCB's budget, and $75 million in the Coastal Conservancy's budget. This proposal also includes language authorizing the Department of Finance to shift funding from this project to the respective department's competitive grant programs if we're able to identify other non-state funding to offset that amount and reduce the state's contribution. Regarding wildlife, refuges, and wetland habitat areas, the mayor's vision includes $23.2 million for one-time funding in CNRA's budget to help improve the conditions for wildlife, refuges, and wetland habitat areas. In 25-26, CNRA received some funding to get the program sort of up and going. Since that time, they've identified a number of stakeholders who've come forward and identified a number of shovel-ready projects. And so while we had sort of planned on proposing this funding next year, with all the projects ready to go, the decision was made to move that up and try and get those projects moving. Outside of Prop 4, the Mayor Vision also proposes $3.6 million of general fund in 2627, which is 3.3 million ongoing. Of that, about a million is general fund and a little over two is from the State Parks and Recreation Fund and this would be support the Fort Orr and Dunes State Park Campgrounds. That project is nearing completion, something we've been funding over the last couple of years and so this reflects the operations and maintenance to open those campground areas. So it'll provide new campground with accessible, low-cost, coastal overnight accommodations along the Monterey Coast where camping opportunities have been historically limited. It provides new beach access, aquatic recreation opportunities, and important natural and cultural resource stewardship along a relatively remote stretch of the coastline. The mayor's vision also includes statutory changes for the – oh, sorry. You know what? Not in the subcommittee. I'll stop right there and turn it over to Andrew March.

Ellie, would you like to provide comments?

Thank you. We'll open it up for discussion and questions from the members. I have a simple question. Very good. Senator McNerney.

Across the whole budget, not just for this subcommittee, but I think our assessment was in the neighborhood of $1.3 billion in new discretionary, what we would determine as discretionary general fund across the budget in the mayor vision.

I think our definition of discretionary is that it doesn't meet, it's not required by current existing law. And so that doesn't speak to the prioritization. It may meet a bar that you think we need to spend it anyway, even if it's not required by current law. I think in the context of a budget deficit, that means you're cutting somewhere else. So those are the tradeoffs before you. But we came up with a list of discretionary, meaning that it is really at your discretion as lawmakers if you want to spend that money. But, again, that means cutting somewhere else.

Thank you. And before we go on to other questions, let's call Cora. Senators Reyes?

Reyes, present. Blakespeare?

Choi?

McNerney?

Thank you. We do have quorum. Senator Choi?

That's correct. Those numbers reflect the governor's estimates for the mayor vision. And the LAO, usually we always do our own independent revenue estimate, and ours are pretty close. And the administration is proposing one, you know,

I think I would correct that, that they're suggesting putting $10 billion in a temporary revenue surplus account, which is essentially holding it to spend in budget year plus one in 27-28 for already existing spending commitments. So we think of a reserve as money that's available if revenues come up or down. Under the governor's proposal, that funding is already committed. So that means $10 billion temporary holding place so that they are ready to use any time when they see fit? The way the rules are set up about that account that the administration has used, it may only be used in the next year. So it would not be available in 26, 27 if revenues were to go down, for example.

We could manage, right? And then we can build the reserve. I think that would be our advice to you. I think one thing that's challenging is that when new revenue comes in, it's not just all available for the state because of the constitutional formulas. So a lot of it must go under the Constitution to be spent on K-14 education under Proposition 98. Some of it has requirements under Proposition 2. So it can be counterintuitive that, oh, the state has all this money, and now we can spend it on whatever we want. But because of those budgetary framework, it is a lot less available, which, again, is why we suggest that the dollars you do have to help provide you with flexibility, that you give yourself more buffer by putting it into a more flexible reserve, the budget stabilization account.

Excuse me, Senator Choi. If we're going to ask questions on natural resources, perhaps we can ask Secretary Crowfoot to step up and be prepared to answer those should the questions be directed to him.

Thanks so much. I'm Wade Kroffit. I lead the California Natural Resources Agency. Thank you for all you do on the budget, Chair and members. In short answer to your question, yes, essentially that the acquisition of this property and the eventual transfer to the regional park district would mean that the state is not obligated for the maintenance and operations of that new 161-acre park and open space. That would be a responsibility of the Regional Park District. I might just take a moment to explain why we're proposing funding for this opportunity. I've been in this role for eight years, and at certain times, very large opportunities come forward that are time-limited and transformational. And they have required us to actually put designated funding in the budget to get this done and required leaders to come together in ways beyond our normal granting processes. In this category, I would put Klamath Dam Removal, which at times required specific funding to actually get that project done and the restoration of 400 miles of habitat. That was a tribally-led project. The Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, which will be completed by the end of the year, which is the world's largest wildlife crossing north of Los Angeles, required specific appropriations of funding. Also large parks and open space projects like Los Angeles Historic Park, which is a transformational urban park just south of downtown. So this potential acquisition represents, from our perspective, the opportunity of that scale. 161 acres, a huge area of land in an urban center on the San Francisco Bay, an opportunity to build nature-based solutions from sea level rise to provide for coastal wetland habitat, which is critically important and actually essentially endangered in our state, and to expand public access and open space. So this is a time-limited opportunity. There is an option to purchase this property. The nonprofit Trust for Public Land is facilitating that in partnership with East Bay Regional Parks and others. So from our perspective this is the opportunity and we think the responsibility for us to step up collectively as a state to enable this project to happen So that gives you a little context hopefully

Very good question, and I'll do my best to answer this. I'll mention also I have two colleagues who are far more expert in property acquisitions than I am, Amy Hutzel, who is the executive officer of our Coastal Conservancy, and Jennifer Norris, who leads the Wildlife Conservation Board. So at any point, if they want to share an answer, they can. As I understand it, and I'm confident in this information, there is an option. The current property owner, which has owned the horse racing track for some decades, has under essentially an option with the Trust for Public Land to purchase the property. That includes an agreement and a commitment from the current landowner to deliver the property clean, quote-unquote, so doing environmental remediation prior to the transfer, which is really quite important for the future of the park. This is a long-term project, and so this acquisition would be the beginning of a community planning process. Critically important that the parks and open space is really shaped by and for local communities, and that design and composition of what's in the 161 acres will obviously identify what improvements need to be made. But that would be on down the road and ultimately the responsibility of the regional park system. Let me turn to Amy and Jen for more specific information.

that's already clarified in their contract. So that's good to hear. One more question regarding that project would be if and when they need some extra fund, I don't know whether that area is minimal for residential development or not. if and when they try to sell five acres or ten acres, whatever, for the development and to have access to capital fund for their project. Do we have any conditional clause prohibiting such a thing developing?

Good. Thank you. I think that's all the question I have regarding the park purchase, but my next question is, while I'm speaking, LAO already mentioned that the Museum of Tolerance funding, whether that is from the general fund or from this Prop 4 fund, which I think has nothing to do with the museum or natural resource money?

It's not Prop 4. Oh, I see. So, and then I hear that they all rejected that proposal idea, which is good to hear.

Yeah, and the other question is, reading through this informational package, I don seem to find any fund request for the future plan for water storage facilities like reservoir development because that a very essential unpredictable water forecast we need to be always prepared to have enough reservoirs, water saved from the raining, instead of just sending them down to the ocean. So is there any, did I miss any amount set aside for water storage development?

As a result of demand, is there any feasible area restful development plan under planning?

I mean when I think of a water reservoir it would be more needed in Southern California Northern California has natural water plentiful and the reserved water can be hopefully channeled down to the south That is also a good resource for us to have a fresh water reserved. But in Southern California area or Central Valley area, any such promising project on the way right now?

Thanks to Senator McNoney. he proposed his bill regarding restoration and maintenance of state aqueduct. And I hope it will pass through. And once it passes, does it have an amount of money requesting in your bill? Can you explain?

Let's ask questions at the panel here.

Okay, if you know about the bill, maybe you can mention.

Thank you, Stan. Okay, thanks, and thank you for your detailed explanation. I have tons of other questions, but for the benefit of all the members, I will stop here, such as including Delta Tunnel project as a related matter for the water supply to the South, etc. But I don seem to read any budget set aside for that

It's a fair question. I receive it a lot. There's nothing voluntary about this program of implementation. It gained that moniker because it was a new approach that brought people together in a voluntary way. water agencies specifically as well as state agencies and federal agencies have numeric commitments that they must achieve including restored water flows in specific tributaries in the main stems of these rivers and through the delta in the five water year types from very wet years to critically dry years those flows have to materialize and we need to demonstrate those additional flows materializing. Likewise, very specific commitments on the number of acres of habitat created, again, within specific watersheds and by certain types, spawning and rearing habitat, for example, for certain species. So it's a complicated program of implementation, but it's very clear. These commitments are numeric and enforceable. If we fail to materialize these commitments, there is a regulatory backstop, meaning the water board doesn't start over again and take several years to develop a new approach. The regulatory backstop would impose the unimpaired flow, just that single approach of a percentage of unimpaired flow on those watersheds, and therefore impact those water agencies pretty mightily. So I'm confident in explaining to you that there's every incentive for the water agencies and state agencies to meet these enforceable obligations.

No. And then that became code in some way after that. So, again, this was a seven-year process. We were around a table to propose a pathway to implement the water board's update. So one thing is very clear. The water board sits as the regulator. The water board will decide if it's this program of implementation or a purely regulatory approach. Water agencies were very much part of the creation of this plan to understand how much flow could they put back in the river.

Yeah, thank you. Senator. Thank you. So James Newcomb, Deputy Director for Natural Infrastructure, Department of Water Resources. I'm going to cover for my colleague on the State Water Project who's not here today. And subsidence, yes, is a permanent condition that cannot be recovered, but we can restore the elevations in certain areas of the aqueduct that have subsided to recover the flow that's needed to provide a reliable system for delivering water. But we can stop further subsidence. We can stop further subsidence through the SGMA policies and programs.

Thank you. And I appreciate that the Secretary is here because we can ask all our questions of the Secretary before moving on to everybody else in the room. So first, I just really appreciate the framing of the opportunities that we have that come along and the Golden Gate Fields acquisition being one of those opportunities, because this isn't part of the state that I represent, and this wasn't on my radar, but I do recognize that $2.1 billion in Prop 4 is a lot of money. And so hearing what is the opportunity here and why we need to strike now to me that is persuasive as we looking at what are the best ways statewide that we can be investing in our ecosystems and making sure that we rehabilitating places that have had certain uses and need to have different uses into the future So I am generally supportive of that and I think the way that you described it made it a very compelling use of that money My question had been why this wasn't going to go through the regular competition process for other coastal resilience and habitat projects statewide, because there are many very valuable projects. But it seems to me like your answer was that this needs to happen more quickly and it's a larger sum. Is that basically?

Well, I guess one thing I would add is there were grant applications submitted for the project. We have, as I said, reviewed, and the project does address a lot of the objectives in our strategic plan and in our project selection criteria. But we don't have $75 million or $125 million to put to the project. So I think having that amount in the budget allows us to take advantage of this option agreement, which has to be exercised by December. And, yes, the State Coastal Conservancy is conducting restoration, sea level rise adaptation, land acquisitions, trails up and down the state of California. The climate package, the general fund, a number of years ago, we were able to put three $30 million grants into Southern California wetlands restoration projects. And Los Cerritos Wetlands started construction very recently, and hopefully Ormond Beach and the Tijuana Estuary will follow quickly. We have, you know, the Santa Ana River Conservancy, where we've invested $70 million in the last five to ten years for the Santa Ana River Trail and restoration work. So, you know, we've got projects going on throughout coastal California, and this is just a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fill this really significant gap in East Shore State Park.

Well, first, at the highest level, I'll say thank you for your engagement and your leadership on this issue. It's an issue that many in California aren't fully aware of. But depending on where you live in California, this is a crisis. Mountain lion, as Director Hurdle can share, mountain lions are in, you know, across California, including in suburban areas. bears likewise, wolves in certain parts of California, but having a huge impact on ranching communities and local rural economies. This is sort of a challenge that has grown into a crisis in some parts of the state. The biggest challenge is building awareness and helping connect the dots on this topic. So I can tell you, I share your concern. And we have been wanting, we've wanted to try to support the Department of Fish and Wildlife however we can to expand capacity. We were able to expand capacity during those budget year surpluses just a few years ago, and it mattered. So this proposal, while modest, I can tell you is our agency's recognition of this problem and creative use of funding to try to get resources to fish and wildlife. Can I turn to one of my colleagues for the sort of the technical information around how we're doing that?

I appreciate that. I mean, one of my concerns is that the last time we had one-time funding, people were hired and the program got off the ground and then we had to lay them off or reassign them. And, you know, that kind of turnover makes it difficult for communities to be able to manage when there's a really inconsistent staffing at the state. And we see that, of course, when capacity falls out, then the whole thing can collapse. So what is the thinking behind it being one-time funding?

Yeah. Okay. And, I mean, this is really not new funding. It's really supporting the existing programming that we have, right? It's sort of backfilling. is really not new because you're not creating new.

Okay. Yeah, I guess I just want to emphasize that I think we've seen, to the Secretary's point, of this is a crisis in certain parts of the state. And as apex predators make their way into more suburban communities and communities that they haven't been in before, and communities are unprepared for this because we don't have on-the-ground education and we don't have a way to communicate, what happens is that there's a reactive response that then leads to proposed legislation that can be really barbaric and not the kinds of deterrence and coexistence that we want. So I think the point behind this whole idea, coexisting with wildlife, is to recognize that we share the state with wildlife. We want to have diverse ecosystems. We want both the habitat and the animals that live in it. And we need humans to be safe. And so we need to be able to have the state have the capacity to run a program. And so making sure that there's no question that we've already started to see things that are going in the direction that we don't want. Last year we had some introductions of some bills And so you know this really I think is a a much more comprehensive approach to getting in front of it So you know one I was really happy to see something in the May revise because at least it called out as a priority and that progress But certainly, you know, $1 million is just not enough. And so I'm hoping that through the negotiations that we have, the administration can prioritize it and the legislature can prioritize it so that we can have this working. And I want to give Director Hurdle an opportunity just to share any comments she has. But I will say this, which is the added capacity works. We know what works. We know how to engage communities. We know education matters. And, you know, a lot of the human-wildlife conflict is caused by careless human behavior. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Think about bears and trash, et cetera. So we know that if we can actually get out there and expand education and awareness, it will reduce conflict. It's been demonstrated in other states in the West and even in California when we had these resources. Thank you, Secretary.

Yeah, that's a good example. I mean, there are certain communities like in Lake Tahoe that understand that you need to have bear-safe containers and trash management, and there's more of an education around not feeding wildlife. But, you know, even I was recently at the Wolf Center, which is in Julian, just right in my district in Southern California, and just the realities of the way people sometimes see something, a little baby animal, and they want to help it. So then they go and disrupt it, and, of course, then the mom won't come back to it. And it's all types of animals. It's not just, of course, the apex predators. But, you know, helping a little baby bear and a mother then swiping at the person who's getting close to that. You know, these are the types of things that if we don't have a way to communicate with the public and have, you know, the hotline that people call receives hundreds of calls. And I know this because my husband was volunteering at the Department of Fish and Wildlife taking these calls because he's a former national park ranger. And so he, you know, was – and in Southern California, it's more coyotes and mountain lions. But just the types of conversations that people – and the lack of awareness of it because we don't grow up with animals that are really close to us when we have a suburban lifestyle. So I do see this as something that we really could make a big difference if we were able to fund this appropriately and even just at a somewhat more modest, you know, not going crazy, but just a somewhat more modest level. So this, you know, does remain something that I think is a priority. And thank you for working on it and identifying it. I did have a couple of one or two other things I just wanted to mention, though. So, you know, in the same area of health and safety, I think the Annenberg Crossing, you know, the statistics on that, we have had 12 mountain lions and one black bear that have been killed on the freeway, along with countless other animals. And I was in the last recess I went to Jackson Wyoming as part of the CSG conference which is the Council of State Governments And so and I went to this wildlife crossing specific tour in Wyoming of how are they managing And it was really interesting to see the frequency of crossings. You know, what we've done here is this massive crossing, which we have to start with something, of course. And it's probably in some ways easier to create habitat for animals to go across these major freeways in Southern California. But I really am hopeful of this being able to really work. I mean, but it has to get itself open. So, and I think it's built. The governor announced that. I saw that on social media several months back. But it's not actually, like, actually open, right?

Okay, December 2nd. That's great, yeah. And when you see these wildlife cams at night that show the number of animals that go across these of all types, you know, it's just incredible. So we sometimes think only of the bear that's hit or the mountain lion that's famous. But there are just countless other species that really benefit from this. So, you know, figuring out how to get that funded in all the various many ways, you know, is something that I do support as well. And I would just add, too, it's not only about protecting the animals, it's about protecting the motorists. And so when we do this and we let these animals cross safely, we protect motorists. So there are projects actually across the state, and I would imagine in each of our districts. And we're working to strengthen the partnership with Caltrans so that wildlife connectivity and motorist safety is actually considered part of the infrastructure. When you update a freeway, you ensure the safe crossage and reduce motorist safety. That's a good bill that's been proposed, yeah. Yeah, and I think it's important. I'm so glad you refocused that because the truth is when we talk about health and safety, we're talking usually about humans' health and safety. And human health and safety is the thing that everybody's mind prioritizes around. And so, you know, when animals are running across the road and creating traffic collisions, it's obviously a health and safety problem. So I appreciate you refocusing on the human health and safety. Okay, anything else you'd like to say about those two? I think so. Okay. I wanted to talk also about transit and GGRF. So it's maybe a different team here. But wait, yeah, do you want to talk? Let me just ask you. Yeah, since you're all sitting. Yeah. Yes, yes. On the Golden Gate Fields project, we're considering this so late in the budget process, which for me is a concern. One of the questions that I have is what is the minimum amount that the state could provide for this real estate transaction to happen, as opposed to the entire $125 million?

Absolutely. It's clear from the members that we recognize how important that is. You've talked about the Time frame, December 26, 2026. They expect to close and escrow to close by the beginning of 27.

Thank you. That's it on that one. On healthy rivers and landscape program, there's been a question about exactly how much the state has put into this. Initially, in the initial draft, it was identified $2.9 billion as the amount necessary to implement the program over an eight-year term. I know you mentioned seven years. In terms of support, the funding plan indicates that $1.5 billion has already been secured for the program. In the governor's current May revision, proposal notes shows that $560 million has already been directly appropriated for this program, and an additional $569 million has gone to support multi-benefit projects such as flood risk reduction projects and others. there seems to be a discrepancy regarding just how much the state support has provided so far. How much have we provided?

Good morning. Andrew March with the Department of Finance. So that's what we've been tracking. So there's been $560 million that was appropriated several years ago that the Department of Water Resources and the California Natural Resources Agency had to spend directly on meeting the state's goals, the flow goals and the acre goals for healthy rivers and landscapes. DWR has also been able to leverage additional funding to help meet the habitat restoration goal. So collectively, the state is – we are counting around $1.1 billion that the state has committed or spent to meet our goals. And I'll share, and then I can provide a little bit of color.

Before you do that, excuse me, Secretary. No, it's okay. How much more funding is expected from the state?

So this sounds like a lot of money, and of course it is a lot of money. There's no more consequential decision on water supply for many of your water agencies across the state. than this regulatory action by the Water Board. Period. Full stop. Why? Because the largest portion of water that most of our water agencies in the state get is from these two huge water systems that drain the Sierra and the Cascade Mountains. And what the Water Board did, and we can totally understand that, because they had one regulatory lever eight years ago, and that was keeping a certain amount of water in the river. That was going to be catastrophic to the water supply of water agencies across the state which is why our agency and CalEPA partnered to establish this third way this different way I have spent more time on this project than simply any other in the last eight years because of its importance. The idea is, yes, we restore flows in tributaries and in the main stem and through the delta, very important for the environment. But we also invest in the habitat, and the water board could not compel that. So it was a one-dimensional solution. We know that fish recovery requires both more flow but also habitat because we've lost that. We've channelized our rivers through the Central Valley and the Delta. So this is a big program. And in order for it to succeed, we engaged in years of science. And actually, it was reviewed by what was called blind, double-blind scientific peer review to understand it could actually have a meaningful impact on the recovery of these fish. The waterboard is holding us to a very high standard of environmental recovery for these fish, hence the significant investment in flows and in habitat. We anticipated when we started early implementation, why have we spent $1.1 billion? because we don't have time to waste. We're on borrowed time. These fish have been crashing, and we know our water security is in danger. Six million Californians were under water rationing three years ago, and we're basically a couple of dry years away from that happening again. So we decided it was important to make these flow restoration investments and these habitat investments, and that early implementation has resulted in that when this program starts, the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program starts, We have already fulfilled certain obligations for habitat restorations and certain obligations for flow purchases. The challenge is this is unprecedented in scale and costs have escalated. So we actually anticipated five years ago that we could, you know, candidly achieve these required habitat restoration and flow restoration with the funding that we've already invested. But we haven't. We can't. And so that's why we're seeking more funding. We know more funding is needed over the eight-year period, but we also know that this is not the budget year to try to complete that request. So this $25 million we think is modest but important for a couple reasons. One, the three of the 25 establishes the scientific monitoring program, and when this program starts on January 1st, we need the scientific monitoring to be accountable to the water board. We also need to demonstrate to the Water Board, while this is an unprecedented investment, that we continue to be committed on purchasing flows and making these habitat investments. So I can say candidly that future funding is needed in future years. This funding is really important. And if we don't secure this funding, I'm worried that this program essentially fails before it can succeed. And I can tell you that the consequence won't fall to our administration because we're coming to the end of our term. It will come to the Water Board and the legislature when water agencies are subjected to this unimpaired flow and those untenable impacts on their water supply. So that's why I'm here, you know, as earnestly as possible trying to explain that this is really important for our environmental balance. Yes, we need to improve our environmental conditions, and we need to securitize our water supply. And this is the best path forward that does both.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sonia Peddick with the Legislative Analyst's Office. The funding plan that the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program parties put out, the latest draft was in late 2024, I believe, indicated that the total cost of the program was about $2.9 billion. And in that funding plan, it indicated what the state's share was and had indicated that roughly $1.49 billion had already been secured. So it was our understanding that that funding had already been provided. So one of the reasons that our office recommended rejecting this proposal at this time was given the state the constraints on general fund resources. We didn't see this as meeting an urgent health and safety need. And in addition, because the State Water Resources Control Board has not formally adopted their update to the Bay Delta plan, we thought perhaps that this additional request was premature and that the legislature could take action once the plan had been adopted. One of the points that we would also make this hearing this morning has actually been quite helpful in clarifying some of the issues around funding, what's been provided already, what is expected of the state. The legislature really, this is a largely regulatory process. So the legislature really only has a couple of levers for sort of understanding what's going on and sort of exercising its authority over this program. One is how it appropriates funding, and two is how it conducts oversight. So there have been sort of some mixed messages about the funding and what will be needed to meet the state's commitments in terms of flows and habitat. So it was our recommendation that the legislature seek out additional clarity, and it's quite helpful that Mr. Crowfoot has provided at least a sense of the magnitude of what will be expected of the state over the course of the eight-year program. So that was why we had made our recommendation, and this line of questioning has been quite helpful in having some greater transparency around the total costs of the program.

So, no, clearly, and that's why they're—

Well, correct. And I should say that our obligation is actually not an amount of money. And this is an important point. And this is one that our Department of Finance was asking at one point. So the great thing about this program is it's not about how much money you spend. It's about the outcome you have, which is why we're being held accountable for a certain number of acre feet that flow back into our rivers by tributary, by water year. It's also why we're being held accountable to the specific number of acres of habitat restoration. When we developed that plan initially in 2022, we gave our best estimate of what that would cost. But this is unprecedented. The amount of flows that we're talking about and the value of the flows in different water years, because you have to buy these environmental flows in perpetuity from water rights holders, there no existing market for that and sort of comparables to be able to do that So we gave our best estimate And then given the importance of getting this program moving forward and demonstrating the waterboard, we were serious about this. We made those investments. So I would I thank the LAO for its good questions. And my request would be if there is uncertainty about what we've spent or what we need to spend and what it's bought, I would ask to roll up sleeves with the LAO and budget staff now to be able to answer those questions. I know and I've joked to my colleagues that I started this job without any gray hair and look at me now. This is one of these projects that has been fraught for a very long while. And we're now just at the inception point of actually getting it as the program. And to the board's credit, they're holding us accountable in year one for these obligations. So I'm glad to clarify, to go offline and to clarify and sort of sharpen pencils and show this. But I would just ask for your consideration this budget year because I can tell you that it's quite possible that the person in my seat next year, if this funding doesn't happen, is trying to navigate a plan B with you beyond healthy rivers and landscapes. And I can tell you that that will be a suboptimal result.

If I could just add one thing. So with respect to the LAO's comments about sort of the timing, the current draft of the Bay Delta plan that the Water Board has out there has the program starting January 1 of 2027. If the legislature were to wait later, so to next year, next June, we would already be six months behind. So there would already have been six months where DWR wouldn't have been able to do any of this sort of scientific and monitoring. This $25 million is really to get DWR to be able to complete year one of the program. And as the Secretary noted, we're under no illusion that this is sort of the end of the commitment. We know that we have not met our commitment as part of the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, regardless of how much funding is provided. If we don't meet these goals, then it doesn't mean anything as far as the regulatory program goes. So we look forward to having those discussions in the future with the legislature about how much additional funding would be needed in order for the state to meet its goals.

So that's correct. There is no funding. I believe there is maybe some funding that was included last year, a small amount. But it's a difficult subject for us to wrap our heads around because our understanding is that in some cases that ranchers can purchase insurance for this type of loss. So it's difficult for us to understand in what areas of the state should be providing assistance without duplicating assistance that's already been provided through a third party that a rancher can. And do you mind if, I think the Cattlemen's Association is here, could they answer that? I can certainly, I'll suggest that Department of Fish and Wildlife come up to answer your question. It's really important, the idea of if a wolf can your calf, that you'd be compensated for that. That's really critically important. And so you all have been focused on that. And maybe you can explain where we stand with resources for compensation.

Sure. So in 24-25, you all awarded us or provided us $600,000. We use those funds to implement what we call prong one of the program, which is direct loss, like you're talking about. So this is for a wolf depredation on a livestock. You can apply for those funds. Those funds are now spent. You also allocated us another $2 million in this fiscal year, current fiscal year. We are working hard. That was a one-year encumbrance. on those funds. So we are working hard to get those dollars encumbered right now to ensure that we can continue to expend those out in the future. I mean, I think the core question, though, like, which we really need to answer so the Department of Finance understands what the perspective is, is why is insurance not adequate? You know, why? Because I think that's basically what you're asking, that there's, why do we need to compensate when there might be insurance? So does the Secretary want to answer this or the Cattlemen's Association so that we can really get that

Wilber with the California Cattlemen's Association. In terms of insurance, there's a couple of issues with that. There are a couple of private insurance providers that do, you know, provide insurance policies for loss of livestock, but most insurance providers that we've reached out to at the Cattlemen's Association and my colleagues at the Farm Bureau do not offer private insurance for livestock losses. So there's limited folks in the private market that would offer insurance for those purposes. Additionally, of course, there is a cost to obtaining that insurance policy. And we know that most ranchers in wolf territory won't suffer losses. Losses are disproportionately suffered by individual ranches to which wolves become habituated. So you'll have a number of folks operating in very thin profit margins that already have really high insurance premiums for wildfire and other issues that are expending a lot of money on insurance, not experiencing that loss, and those folks, you know, are going to really be constrained by that cost. What I think is more important for our purposes is not the direct loss issue. There, of course, is, you know, that's the most tangible loss associated with wolves for livestock producers, but there are two other prongs of the wolf livestock compensation program here in California, which would not be addressed by most insurance policies that I'm aware of. One of those is indirect loss compensation. We know folks, you know, have increased, you know, abortion of calves in wolf territory. They have decreased weight gain. Those things probably wouldn't be compensable under an insurance policy. But you have legislation on this point, Senator Blakespear. The biggest thing that we need in the state of California is funding for non-lethal deterrence of wolves to prevent that conflict from occurring, you know, in the first place. And that is probably the most expensive need under the wolf livestock compensation program. And most insurance policies aren't going to pay you for that proactive non-lethal deterrence. Does that address the question sufficiently?

No, no question.

Well, you know, it's really a partnership approach with ranching communities in rural counties. And, you know, these folks have been making their livelihoods for a century without wolves. And now wolves are back. And in other Western states where there has been wolves and conflict, government has stepped up to address this and to minimize conflict. So we do feel like we have a responsibility on this. And we are thankful for the patience of our rural counties, the boards of supervisors, the county sheriffs, because it is really it's a it's a deeply concerning issue to to these counties. And so what we're working to do is demonstrate partnership, and we've made progress. I mean, where we've gotten nonlethal deterrence out in the field effectively and early enough, we can deter wolves. I mean, coexistence can exist. But right now, we're really challenged with capacity and wolves, as Kirkwood explained from cattlemen, that are habituating, meaning they've become, you know, it's a habit forming to go after these calves. So it's priority 1A, I know, for the department and the agency to get our hands around this, and resources help.

Well, just my appreciation back to you, Chair, personally. And I have to say that the workshop that you led with Senator Cervantes is now a model that's going to other places around how can we help communities understand opportunities for Proposition 4. And just big thanks to all of you. We understand that the work that we do is simply possible because of what you do both on the budget and policy. So it's a great partnership, and we deeply appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

No.

and the May revision assumes a modest decrease based on lower actual revenues. The May revision reduces projected allocations for the Transit and Inner City Rail Capital Program, which is known as TERSIP, by $32 million for the 2025-26 fiscal year, and $74 million for the 26-27 fiscal year. TERSIP is important for long-term capital projects that improve service quality and reliability. The May revision also reduced project allocations for the low-carbon transit operations program, which is called LCTOP, by $16 million for the 25-26 fiscal year and $37 million for the year after. LCTOP funds reduced fare programs and zero-emission equipment purchases. And then also the May revision does not account for CARB's proposed rulemaking, which CARB is expected to adopt next week, which could further reduce the amount of money. And I'm very concerned that all of the Tier 3 priorities under the current Cap and Invest framework may not receive any funding. So this involves, of course, affordable housing and clean water and transit. And I'm focusing my remarks on transit, but I do think we need to really be seriously looking at reopening our negotiations over where the revenue from cap and invest goes. Because when we negotiated this last year, the focus on high-speed rail and Cal Fire, the governor's top two priorities, and then having the legislature's priorities be at the end, and now having a changed landscape where the total amount of money is so substantially less and all of the legislature's priorities, which are also the governor's priorities, but are not funded. These are really important things that we fund in the state of California.

Thanks for the question. So we don't have our transit colleagues here today, but I can speak sort of around GGRF. One thing that I would like to clarify is that the May revision isn't proposing to reduce the funding. It's just reflecting an estimate of what the funding is that we would receive next year. So there was an auction yesterday, which was the final auction for 2526. So until we receive those results, which will probably be early June, we won't know how much funding we've actually collected in 2526. So that's one part of the estimate. So for actually 26-27, we similarly won't know how much funding we've actually collected until around that same time, June of 2027. So there will be other updates. So, again, in January, we'll be able to check in with the legislature of what the estimated revenues are for GGRF and then again at May next year. So that one thing that I would like to highlight And then with regard to sort of the fluctuation of the funding that was similarly a characteristic of the previous structure for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is sort of the percentages where depending on the revenues, you would see reduced funding for some of these priorities for affordable housing and transit operations and capital projects. So like, for example, during the pandemic where GGRF revenues plummeted, we similarly saw the allocations to those programs plummet as well because, as you know, the function of GGRF is a market which we can't control. So that's just the one thing that I would like to highlight there. But obviously transit has been a priority this day, has provided a significant amount of money for transit throughout the years. And I think with regard to there was previously the 2024 sort of framework for discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds. And so we've heard a lot of conversation about sort of the remaining commitment that's in there, which I think overall for 26-27 was sort of around $250 million for that funding and then sort of another tranche in 27-28. But there is also a lot of other funding that was agreed to in that 2024 plan that's not funded. So there is a significant amount of funding for zero-emission vehicles that also remains unfunded because of some of the decisions that we had to make last year with regard to being able to offset general fund costs with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to ensure that we didn't have to make as deep cuts in the health and human services space. So the mayor revision continues that agreement that was made last year in order to use the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to offset general fund costs so that we are not faced to make some of the cuts to some of the most vulnerable populations.

I think it just underscores our recommendation to you that given the uncertainty in these revenues, the existing framework that was adopted last year based on different revenue assumptions may not reflect your updated prioritization with different expectations. So when the budget is going to be passed, you still won't know a lot of these things. And even next year, as Mr. March noted, we plan for revenues, and then they come in over the course of the year, and they may come in differently. So I think our strong recommendation is that you plan for a number of different scenarios and ensure that however that iterates over the course of the year, it's reflecting what you want it to reflect, even in a much lower revenue scenario. And absolutely agree with, oh, Helen Kirstein, sorry, of the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Yeah I think we should do that I glad that you brought that up Yeah Yes One note I would make about that is it not necessary that that funding is continuously appropriated

Okay. Well, the sooner the better so that there's, you know, high-speed rail is relying on certain expectations, and so are all the other projects basically funding buckets. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Very specifically on GGRF, I know transit is something that is extremely important. There's also been discussion about the clean water. CalMatters just had a really important article. And just to read one of the quotes, this is Sherry Hunter, who has long battled the arsenic leaching into the water supply in the historic Tulare County town of Allensworth. She said, if this funding goes away, oh my God, I can't even imagine. These are the sorts of things that people relied on. They relied on this kind of money coming in. And because they fall under Tier 3, if we assume that the auctions came in lower, that assumption is now fact. If we assume that next week CARB is going to issue their ruling based upon what they said in April, then we know we're going to have, we can assume we're going to have $2 billion less in GGRF. And if indeed we have $2 billion less in GGRF, all that will be funded is Tier 1, high-speed rail, and maybe a little bit left over. Tier 3 gets zero. And under Tier 3 are transit, the clean water program, and we still have 600,000 people in the state of California, the fourth largest economy, 600,000 people who still do not have access to clean drinking water. And I know this is important to the governor. He has worked hard in making sure that those numbers came down from the high number that it was before. But we still have 600,000 people who don't have access to clean drinking water. AB 617 had been funded under GGRF, and in fact, in the negotiations, it was going to be $250 million ongoing for AB 617 communities, which are the communities the most disadvantaged, the most polluted communities in the state of California. Many of them already have plans that were put together, and a lot of money was spent to put together those plans, and now we have to implement them. We're not able to, and we're not going to be able to include the other communities that are also so polluted that should be included in this program. So the clean air, we have HFIP for the medium and heavy duty, which are the biggest polluters in the state of California. It's not the light duty vehicles, and I want to transition those into electric vehicles without a doubt. But transitioning and providing funding for the medium and heavy duty those are the biggest polluters and many of those are those truck drivers This is their business. They have invested all of their life savings into these trucks, and we had programs that were available to them. We need to be able to bring that back because that will have the greatest impact. I have a little flea here. That is what is going to provide the greatest impact directly into the community. The fact that there were negotiations, those were extensive negotiations, as my colleague has mentioned, perhaps if we're going to be dealing with so much less, less than half of what we had anticipated, because if we were looking at 3.7, now we're down to 3.3, maybe 3.4, and then we take out $2 billion, we're down to 1.3, 1.4. We absolutely will have nothing for Tier 3. There will be zero for Tier 3. And so as Senator Blakespear has mentioned, reopening negotiations on how to spend this money, what are our priorities? Initially, Tier 1, that's such a small amount. But in Tier 2, it was supposed to be high-speed rail, $1 billion, legislative priorities, $1 billion. And then we get the January proposed budget, and $750 billion of that is going to Cal Fire, which is very important to all of us here. but we're backfilling the general budget with what would have been legislative priorities. And that was part of negotiations, part of the discussion. But now, not even that would be taken care of. What is happening to GRF is something that should concern all of us. I would like to hear from both Department of Finance and LAO on that.

May I interrupt you for just a second? That all the parties negotiated in good faith. That is my assumption. But there is a big difference in what was being negotiated with, and that is $3.7 billion. It could have been $3.4 billion because that part we don't have any control over because that's the auction. But when you remove $2 billion from that $3.7 or $3.4, that's a big difference in what was being negotiated in good faith. And now we're told, well, that 3.4 or 3.7 or 3.9, it's now 1.7. I appreciate that.

I have no doubt. GGRF is it. I know the governor. These are important things to the governor. I recognize that. But here we are. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

May I ask a question, however, that if we're going to give 118 million free allowances as being proposed to be voted on next week, if we're giving away 118 million free allowances, then whatever we have left to sell at auction, who's going to want to buy those if they're going to get them free? I'm not saying that they would all get them free, but these are all factors that we have to consider.

our shared priorities. Would you agree that if the negotiations anticipated, we know that the market is such that we could never say this is exactly what it's going to be, but we had anticipated 3.7, we may end up with 3.4, which is still understandable. Would you agree that if, in the end, because of a ruling next week, that we end up with 1.7 as a result of the ruling, that that would be a basis for negotiations, for negotiation?

So I would say that, yes, if there was revenue below $2.4 billion, we would have to come up with additional clarification on how the funding would be spent. Thank you. Elio?

Thank you. Are there any other questions on GGRF? Yes, Dr. Choi.

Senator Choi, two questions, if I may. If it is related to GGRF, absolutely, this is where we're going to talk about it. But it sounds like it may be more related. Fund funding funding funding because it's not going to be definitely. Senator Choi? Yeah. If I may. If I may. If it is related to transportation in general, then I think that we should defer that to the subcommittee five on transportation. But if this is something that is being considered for GGRF, absolutely would you respond? Whether the funding will be coming from that because obviously bullet train is purposed for low emission and speed. But obviously the bus, to my knowledge, is not going to be based upon electricity. I don't know whether that will be EV will allow that kind of long distance and one charge and fly that 140 miles. And so that means whether the funding will be coming from GGRF or something else, I think that definitely related issue and then also the emission issue because to my knowledge that the current technology EVs, bus is not going to run that one charge and with a large bus and the rate that will fly that fast from LA to San Francisco. MR. Yeah, thank you for the question, Senator Choi. I'm not familiar with that project, and we don't have my colleagues from the transportation unit here. I'm not familiar with what the source of funding with that project would be. I would just note that the funding that is included in GGRF for the Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program and the Low Carbon Transit Operation Program traditionally go to local governments. But I'm happy to follow up with my colleagues and see if they have any more details on sort of that project that you mentioned and what the funding source would be. So my understanding is that right now that the project is the initial planning stage by the Caltran. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Choi. Thank you. Senator McNerney. Well, thank you. I'm going to ask about GGRF. The intent in my mind about the GGRF is to help the transition, reduce carbon emissions, make California meet our goals to have zero emissions in the future. Some of the programs that I've advocated for, like the farmer program, very effective, FPIP, manure management, and others. I have a large ag constituency, and these are very effective programs. how are these going to be affected by what we're seeing as a large reduction in GGRF revenue? So those programs that you mentioned have historically been funded by discretionary funding, so they don't receive a direct allocation in statute. So if there's excess revenue, then they would receive funding. So under the January budget and the May revision, there's limited discretionary funding. As previously mentioned, a large portion of the discretionary funding is being allocated to offset general fund costs for CAL FIRE. And then there's specific funding that's called out in SB 840, around $250 million. dollars. But going forward, I think as Senator Reyes noted, that if there's reduced revenues, there may not be additional funding, depending on sort of how the program is structured, for discretionary programs like former FPIP. Okay, that's not the answer I wanted to hear. I'm going to yield back. Welcome to tier... Yeah, thank you. I guess I'll just kind of make the big picture comments that I recognize that GGRF is something that's an unstable fund. And I think some of our programs that we fund through GGRF are not maybe as directly related to emissions reductions as what CARB is proposing to do with its new proposal that we just heard about and had a whole hearing on. And I think that the program as described to me seemed like if we thought of it as the legislature it would be something that we would be very proud of and we would want to move forward with because it does seem like it requires polluting industries It allows them to access government money if they putting private money into reducing the amount of emissions And they only get the money if they showing that they doing it So to me, it seems like it is much more closely related to the goals that GGRF, that our Cap and Invest program has. But, you know, it puts us in the difficult position of having to figure out how to fund all of our priorities, which is always the zero-sum game of whatever the pot is, how do we divide it? And so I think there's just an enormous pressure on us to say these programs are important to us. They have been funded by GGRF. Is it CARV's responsibility to figure out how to fund those things? I mean, to me it does seem like it's not necessarily directly their responsibility because that's the legislature's responsibility. And I know there are different opinions about this because it makes our job harder, basically. But recognizing that these are important. This is why my position and feeling is that we do need to reopen the negotiation to say, GGRF funding is going to look different than it did last year. And we need to reassess what amounts of money go to what things based on what's important to us. And so there was a different game last year and different expectations. And so we need to proceed with where we are right now in the same way we do with our budget. If it's bigger or smaller, we have a renegotiation of what things we're spending where. So I think there are still the things that GGRF is funding that are important to us, like the transit and clean water and affordable housing. And we have to find a way to incorporate those in some way. And so if it maybe it's the general fund or maybe it's a different place, I don't know exactly where, but to me it seems like we should be seriously having that conversation because the landscape really has changed, as the LAO said. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for turning on my mic. I turned it off so that I wouldn't be going back and forth. I do want to thank you for your input. This is extremely important, especially after having received the May revise, to be able to review that in light of our structural deficit, in light of our priorities, and making sure that we remember that we do have priorities and that we do get to share those priorities. Today's comments are extremely important to us, as we make our recommendations. And again, thank you for your input. Now we're going to move on to public comment. Anyone who would like to present public comment? We are going to provide 30 seconds for each of you. And I thank you so much. We'll have a timer on in just a moment. and when you hear the beep, just wrap it up. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. Three quick items. First, on the wildfire coexistence, it was nice to see that mentioned in the May revise. The amount of funding there feels homeopathic compared to the need, so we urge the legislature to round that up appropriately. On the proposal for additional staffing over at CNRA to deal with the permit streamlining for vegetation management projects that's been happening in the executive order. That makes a lot of sense, but I'll note that that executive order sunset, that streamlining sunset at the beginning of this month, so there will need to be a whole statutory process to create an ongoing system There will be an important part of the conversation the next few months. Lastly on the GGRF appropriation I'll just highlight that previously wildfire funding, the only ongoing funding for wildfire prevention, that $200 million came off the top that got moved to Tier 3. So now there is no ongoing funding for wildfire prevention from the state. It all falls to the utilities which is part of our affordability challenge there. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm here on behalf of Citizens for East Shore Parks. We're a 40-year-old organization created by other environmental organizations to address the derelict and industrial and dumping uses along the east shore of San Francisco Bay. And we've been working 40 years to green that area. The biggest, the Mount Everest of that problem and that project has been Golden Gate Fields. and now we have the opportunity to do something about it. And if I could paraphrase the governor, this is a big idea. And California is not afraid of big ideas. We lead the country in big ideas. And so this bay belongs to all of us, from our friends in Costa Mesa and our friends in the Inland Valley, San Diego. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to do this. It's a big idea, takes a big commitment, and we know you'll provide the leadership. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation and others. I want to thank particularly you, Senator Blake Spear, the Secretary Crowfoot, and you, Madam Chair, for the ongoing discussions that you've been having about the significant importance of investing further in proactive wildlife coexistence across the state. And a million dollars of existing funds is wholly insufficient for a department that is only funded at a third of its mission. And we're at the same time, we're proposing sweeping 164 of their positions, including 45 wildlife officers. So we're really counting on the Senate and the Assembly to prevail in negotiations with the governor to make sure that we're adequately investing in this very successful program that will save us more money on the back end when we spend a lot on response and where people in communities and animals are harmed instead of being able to deal with it up front. So we hope the governor is listening as well and encourages his team to weigh in with you all and do something meaningful here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Cliff Berg here for the Museum of Tolerance. Since the question was raised, why should that be a priority this year? I would just urge you to stop and think. intolerance in our society, hate, anti-Semitism, violence, hate crimes directed at every ethnic group that you can imagine is surging in our state and in our country. The governor's proposal is to provide leadership for California in addressing those issues, which cost us like a cancer for a patient and eroding our society and costing our society much more. Some numbers just to make the case, 8 million visitors to the Museum of Tolerance, 3.5 million middle and high school students, 175,000 criminal justice professionals, 75,000 teachers. The museum provides law enforcement training, teacher training, a resource to all the schools. Part of this funding is for a second mobile Museum of Tolerance to take the museum to to Central and Northern California and those parts of the state where the students can get to the museum located in Los Angeles So urge your support We in a critical time in our society and this funding is urgently needed in the cost of not addressing these issues and reaching out to our children when they are in school is going to be much more immense than the money that the governor has put in the May revise So thank you Urge your support I did notice the mobile unit that was being used and the students that are benefiting from that. And this is providing a second. Funding provides a second mobile museum of tolerance to visit schools all over northern and central California, which is critical. The current mobile museum is booked up completely. The demand from the schools is just amazing. People want their students to understand, to learn, not to be biased, not to drown in intolerance and what they're inundated with from social media. So having the mobile museum go to the schools is a huge, huge solution to the problem. Thank you. I did see the students' reactions. It was very good. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. We were disappointed to see there wasn't any funding in the May revision for the very cost-effective farmer program and urge you to consider that in the final budget, prioritizing that. We also want to say, as you're thinking about heavy-duty funding, incentive funding, that you should consider requiring that projects meet Carl Moyer guidelines because then that way you can ensure that they are state implementation plan creditable. And that's important, especially important now with all the federal rollbacks. And the last thing is we're deeply concerned about the cap and invest regulation and what that means for programs like the farmer program, but very much so the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program that have made significant gains in getting public health benefits for disadvantaged communities. So thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Kirk Wilber with the California Cattlemen's Association wanted to speak specifically about the Wildlife Coexistence Program and the wolf program at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Like you, Senator Blake Spear, we're thrilled to see some mention of wildlife coexistence in the May revise. We're dismayed to see $1 million and absolutely no funding proposed for the wolf program. A lot of discussion today about health and safety. I think there's a clear health and safety nexus when it comes to the wildlife coexistence program as we see increased bear and mountain lion conflicts in our suburban and urban areas. Also want to mention that with the wolf program, particularly with my northern northeastern California members in wolf territory, clear human health and safety nexus there. There's a real physical and mental health impact of cohabitating with wolves on ranchers and other rural residents in that area. So we'd like to see robust funding for the Wildlife Coexistence Program, for the Wolf Program at CDFW, and it's about much more than compensation. It's about staffing at CDFW. It's about research. It's about education. It's about prevention of conflicts. So hoping to see additional funding for those programs. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Charles Watson on behalf of BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. I just want to thank the committee for your comments on, on the transit piece within GGRF and express our strong support for the state's prior commitments to transit through SB 125 and our significant concerns with the impacts on tier three programs, including transit and affordable housing. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Madam chair and members I Alison Brooks I the assistant general Manager for External Affairs at the East Bay Regional Park District And we are the largest park district and the oldest park district in the country We manage 127,000 acres of land to serve East Bay residents and beyond and are truly excited and have been working with the Trust for Public Land on the acquisition of Golden Gate Fields. This is a truly generational opportunity to open up what is currently a privately owned property along our wonderful shoreline, open it up to the public, what will truly be a phenomenal resource for generations to come. We are so excited to have a truly awesome public process with the cities and with our partners to create something magnificent, not just for East Bay residents, but for really, you know, the entire region and for so many people that traverse that highway and look out there and see the incredible opportunity we have. So really appreciate your consideration and the excellent questions you had today about this really truly Amazing opportunity and would encourage you to reach out if you have any questions. Thank you so much Good morning, madam chair members of committee Brandon Garcia with Advanced Energy United We were disappointed that the May revision maintains the proposal to transfer the participants of DSGS over to the CPC I think this committee and other subcommittees in the legislature have indicated how successful the program has been at scaling up megawatts and truly still have a lot of concerns with moving over that participants over to the program and don't feel that the program would perform as well as it would be with the funding it has now and the position that it has now. will say that we do appreciate the governor is still maintaining to transfer the DEBA funds over to DSGS, and we think that maintaining that for 2026 is not just critical, but we would encourage that to be a part of the earlier budget negotiations because we really do need to see that market signal to show that that program will continue throughout the rest of the year. If there are still concerns about how to use the CalShip interest money, we would encourage the legislature, again, adopt the DEBA funding and spend the rest of the year to see how well we could use this interest funding on where the program would be appropriate for summers 27 and 28. I'll just reiterate, OTC plants are expiring. There is a very real concern that in the future we might not be able to have a reliability. So it's clean energy. Let's do it. I agree. Buenos dias. Juan Altamirano with the Trust Public Land. We are very thankful to the governor for the proposed $125 million in the budget. And we're thankful for this committee in raising all the questions that you all have. This is a once-in-a-lifetime generation opportunity to be able to purchase, have the option to purchase this property that would expand access to the outdoors for millions of Californians. We're thrilled to be part of this acquisition, and I know we spent some time with committee staff over the last couple days talking about this project, and we're certainly still open to continue having our conversations and answering any questions that you all may have. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Kyle Jones on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program today. I just wanted to express disappointment that there's not more urgency around moving Prop 4 groundwater recharge funding out the door. DWR indicated that they likely won't get guidelines done until fall this year and won't get funding out until late 2027 or 2028. We know that there very limited wet years between now and the end of when basins need to be in compliance under SGMA so we hoping the legislature consider increasing that allocation to all the funding and also putting some language in the budget bill to include priorities to support disadvantaged communities critically overdrafted basins, and ask DWR to move in a faster manner. We also just want to urge the legislature to find ways to fully support the safer program. That $130 million is intended to keep making sure that there's progress being made on long-term solutions and that families Please don't go without bottled water or emergency access in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mariela Racho with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Senator Reyes, we appreciate your comments on the GGRF Tier 3. We are even more concerned when it comes to the Governor's May revise in which he makes even more significant cuts to GGRF Tier 3 programs, especially critical programs like SAFER and AB 617. We urge you and the legislature to ensure that SAFER has a general fund backfill and urge the legislature to fight for these priorities in light of the major changes to the cap and invest programs in which it cuts significant funding for affordable housing and transit and SAFER and AB 617. Thank you. Thank you. Good day. My name is Anthony Wright from Albany Berkeley Soccer Club. We represent approximately 1,750 families. We are a club that's been in existence for 50 years, and we are in the Bay Area, have families from Albany, Berkeley, Richmond, El Cerrito, and Emerville. We support the Golden Gate project. It's really important for kids, especially kids who don't have an opportunity to have more outdoor space. I think this is a really good investment for the generation coming up. It helps us get kids off the phone, get kids out, and I think it would be a great investment for our future. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Hello, my name is Amaya Williams-Segovia, and I'm speaking on behalf of Citizens for East Shore Parks. I just want to express my strong support for Governor Newsom's recommendation for $125 million in state funding for the acquisition of Goldgate Fields. I think it's a great opportunity for a really deserving community, and yeah, thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Gabriela Fasio with Sierra Club California. I wanted to express strong support for the acquisition of Golden Gate Fields and would like to see similar robust investments in the park access in underserved communities. We also support increased investments in active and clean transportation and building D-CARB, which are woefully underfunded right now. Thank you. And we strongly oppose CARB's proposed weakening of the cap and invest program and the continued general fund backfill from GGRF believe that this funding should be reserved for critical climate and equity programs. And we are in line with LAO's recommendation. We oppose the proposed $25 million for the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program, which would allow state agencies to avoid strong, enforceable, and science-based water flow standards in the Bay Delta region and the gutting of vacant positions at so many environmental agencies. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, speaking on behalf of the Climate Center and Environmental Defense Fund. We'd like to echo the comments of Mr. Garcia with Advanced Energy United. We support the DSGS program staying at the CEC and, of course, support the DEBA funds coming over to support it this summer. In addition, on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, we'd like to voice our strong support for the light-duty zero-emission vehicle proposal. Thank you. Good morning, Lizzy Guansona here today on behalf of the Humane World for Animals, Tomcat Ranch LLC, The Office of Cat Taylor, very similar to many of my colleagues, appreciate the administration's inclusion of wildlife coexistence resources, but want to echo the need for additional resources to really match the need at hand. Additionally, on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor and Tomcat Ranch, very concerned with the proposed cap and invest amendments and the impact on Tier 3 GGRF programs, including the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program, which protects California's farmland and advances our climate goals. Thanks so much. Thank you. livestock conflict that we're seeing. So hoping that we can see some more funding in that department. And that's from a joint budget request that both agriculture and conservation folks are in favor of. So thank you. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Rina Hatchmey. I'm the co-founder of Women for Wolves. Continued funding for wildlife coexistence efforts is critical, especially as wolves return to California. And non-lethal coexistence tools help prevent conflict before it even happens. And if California is serious about coexistence, we must continue investing in it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Still good morning. Kim Delfina with Earth Advocacy on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. Just want to say thank you to Senator Blakespear for all the questions and comments around the wolf program and as well as the wildlife coexistence. When do you see the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen's Association, Defenders of Wildlife, and a litany of other animal welfare and conservation organizations agreeing on one thing, which is our state really needs to invest in wildlife coexistence. It is the preventative health care that we need to avoid conflicts and more expenditures later on down the road. Also appreciate the comments that Jennifer Fearing made about the need to increase investments and save the open positions at our wildlife agency. And then finally, Defenders of Wildlife Resources, Renewal Institute, and Golden State Salmon Association. We oppose the $25 million of general fund for the voluntary agreements. We do not believe this is a good use of general fund. We've already invested $1.5 billion into the voluntary agreements, and frankly that money could go to clean water, such as the SAFER program, where we're seeing a reduction to disadvantaged communities. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Marge Atkinson. I was a former mayor in Albany, and I'm also a board member of Citizens for East Shore Parks, which was founded by Sylvia McLaughlin, as you know, the Save the Bay founder, one of them. And as you can tell, we've been working for over 50 years to protect the shoreline along the bay, the East Shore Bay, first with McLaughlin Park, and our group has just been able to get Point Maladie. And now this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have a park that actually looks at the Golden Gate fields. Golden Gate, plus we have hundreds and hundreds of people who come from all over the Bay Area now, even with the small area we have, to enjoy our shoreline. I was actually elected almost 20 years ago in a continuous line of people who are protecting Golden Gate fields, trying to make sure the shoreline is accessible to all people and have the opportunity to enjoy this area It if we got a string of winds now for the along the bay and we hope that Golden Gate Fields can be included in one of those winds in a lifetime opportunity Thank you so much. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee members. My name is Scott Cox. I'm here on behalf of CalSTART and the Electric Vehicle Charging Association commenting on the prioritization of greenhouse gas reduction funding. We respectfully ask that the legislature prioritize these investments into the state's existing portfolio of zero emission vehicle and infrastructure programs. These programs are proven, vetted, and successful, and they can rapidly provide stability to a sector that's under extensive pressure from federal withdrawal and provide a more affordable, equitable, and better managed clean transportation transition for all Californians. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Griselda Chavez on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation cores and we'd like to offer a strong support for under item 3340 the appropriation of 229 000 in prop 68 funds as grants to the local cores these funds will enable the expansion of eight of our existing prop 60 projects from right here in sacramento all the way down to san diego providing more ecological benefits and job training opportunities for the young adults and play through our programs and we also wish to reiterate comments being in previous hearings and express support for the fiscal year 26 to 27 prop 4 appropriation of 12 million dollars for demonstrated job projects. We are true to prove these items when appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Anjali Ranadeva. I'm the founder of Women for Wolves here on behalf of 189,000 supporters in favor of funding wildlife coexistence. While it was encouraging to see the mention of a need to invest in wildlife coexistence by the governor, it's just not nearly enough. When we exhausted our our wolf and wildlife, sorry, when we exhausted our wolf and livestock compensation program, we saw four endangered wolves get killed, and we saw ranchers suffer more losses. So it's essential that we invest. We've lost over 70% of our wildlife in the past 50 years. So really investing in wildlife coexistence isn't an option. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Reyes and members. Michaela Byrd with the Nature Conservancy. TNC appreciates the inclusion of the $23.5 million to CNRA in the May revise for projects that improve conditions on wildlife refuges and wetland habitat areas and respectfully request the legislature support for this appropriation. Thank you. Thank you. Morning, Chair members. Kendi Ojekre with the Weidemann Group on behalf of NextGen California. I'm here to express first our significant concerns with CARB's cap and invest proposed regulation and asked to remove the manufacturing decarbonization incentive, which would gut the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, risking funding for community air protection programs. Two, to request restored funding for the demand-side grid support program and maintain CEC program oversight, and three, request passage of the $200 million debt incentive program and expansion of funds to also support medium and heavy duties or omission vehicles. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Ayes and members. Alana Hitchcock with 2-in-1 California. Slightly different topic. As you know, 2-in-1 is overseen by the CPUC, and we are here to ask for the members' support for the 2-1-1 budget request to provide emergency funding to ensure that we have 2-1-1 service not closed down in close to 20 counties around the state. The CPUC has established the goal of having statewide service for full-time 24-7, 2-1-1 end disasters, and right now that is at risk of falling apart across the state. We ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, committee members. My name is Claire Margerson and I the director of 2 with United Way Bay Area So we cover two services in the counties of Marin Napa Solano San Francisco San Mateo and Santa Clara counties As my colleague Alana said we are at risk of either shutting down 2-1-1 or drastically cutting services in those six counties. And to really bring this home, I want to share a story with you from one of our callers who's also one of my colleagues. So this is from Juan. I recently called 2-1-1 when I was struggling to help to find help paying rent. I'm a student at UC Berkeley and a formerly incarcerated person who's trying to rebuild my life through education. I'd fallen behind on rent in university housing and because I had a balance on my account, I couldn't enroll in classes. When I called 2-1-1, they connected me to a program that had a grant that could cover months of back rent specifically for people who are formerly incarcerated. Even though I work in this community and know a lot of resources, I had never heard of this program. This program completely changed my life and now I'm an advocate and I work with United Way Bay Area's Ambassador Council, so I can regularly refer friends and community members to 1-1 because I've seen firsthand how effective it is. A relatively small investment from the state can help thousands of people stay housed, access mental health support, and stabilize their lives. For people like me who are working hard to rebuild and contribute to our communities, 2-1-1 can make a difference between falling through the cracks and getting back on track. So I'll let my colleague Juan, his words speak for themselves, but 2-1-1 is more than a three-digit number. It is a lifeline, and it does save lives. Thank you. It has been a lifeline for many in our communities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. It seems it should be $21.1, right? $21.1 million instead of $20 million? I'm just saying because that would be the 2-1-1.

Thank you.

Buenos dias, Madam Chair. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the

anymore. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Madam Chair, members Mark Murray with the Environmental Group Californians Against Waste. Number one, thank you so much for sticking around and listening to us all. Very important part of all of this. Yeah, no, I really appreciate the other member of your committee being here as well.

Doesn't always happen. So we're in the odd position of opposing an authorization for CalRecycle. We love the work that they do. However, we think that the proposal for the plastic market development payments that's in a bill before your committee is a better way of funding the plastic recycling infrastructure than the language that's in the May revision. Secondarily, CalRecycle has their hands full with grants already. They can't get money that's been authorized three and four years ago out the door. And it's not because of a lack of PYs. They just aren't able to close the deal with the award recipients. There's not agreement on terms and conditions. So there's almost $100 million of money that you've previously authorized that they haven't been able to get out. It doesn't make sense to add to that with additional grant authority until we have kind of a clear picture of what they've been able to do with previous authorizations. So thanks for your attention.

Morning, Madam Chair. Member Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the California Renewable Transportation Alliance. We urge the legislature to prioritize funding for low-nox vehicles to address emissions today. today while the California Zev truck market matures. We believe we could do a minimum of 1,300 diesel trucks off the roads, perhaps as high as 1,800 to 2,000 with about a hundred million dollars in funding. As you pointed out earlier, Madam Chair, in the hearing that this is the most polluting of the vehicle classes and that's why we think we need to address this interim period in reducing

Thank you. Welcome back. Good morning again, Grisela. Well, if you're speaking for two different organizations, two different points, you're welcome to say you want to be able to speak twice. I don't want you to have to stand in line twice.

Thank you.

Well, I want to thank you all for the testimony that was provided from LAO and from the Department of Finance and for the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or 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. We appreciate your participation. Thank you again to the panelists for participating in today's discussion. Again, thanks to everyone for your patience and your cooperation. We've concluded today's agenda for today's hearing. Senate Budget Subcommittee 2 is adjourned. Thank you.