June 30, 2026 · Water Parks And Wildlife · 20,259 words · 3 speakers · 160 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good morning.
Good morning.
Welcome everyone. Of course, we'll start as a subcommittee as much as I would like it to be just solely based on my vote. It's not the way things work around here. So I got a few remarks here. Give me a second and I will. It's OK. Go ahead and. Open with some of these things. Well, I was going to welcome Assemblymember Hadwick, but she's just not here yet. So I'll do it when she gets here. I also want to thank our this is our last regularly scheduled hearing so we've had the pleasure of having Sean Clare seated over here stand up Sean Sean's been a great addition to our team this past year he dove right in at the beginning of the year and led can you all hear me okay good and led on the committee's informational hearing on data centers learned about hunting and fishing regulation and defined an agency boundary, and statute, among many other contributions. So Sean hopes to continue working in the legislature, if anybody's looking out there. When his fellowship wraps up at the end of October, he'll be available. Thank you for your hard work, Sean, and we look forward to seeing you in and about the building affecting policy on a daily basis, much as you have done here on the committee. So with that, let's start as a subcommittee. And well, lo and behold, Senator McInerney, you're number one. Come on up. You got a witness or two? I'm going to put some things on the record as you make your way up, just so that we're all clear. And I know my colleagues are not here, but I may have to announce this again once they get up here. So I thank you, Senator, for working with the committee on the amendments to this bill. We've got some late-breaking amendments. That's what I want to talk about. So that everyone's clear that my colleagues, when they get here, they'll know what they're voting on The author and I have agreed on two changes to Amendment 3 described in the analysis that deals with changes to Water Code 12986A2 subparagraph 2 lowercase i I should say We're going to change the may to shall and strike the word imminent.
And if there are any questions, I'm sure you'll address them in your remarks, and you will be accepting those amendments as well as the others, correct?
That's correct. Okay, good. All righty. Please take it away, Senator.
Well, I'd like to say good morning, Chair Pepin and Vice Chair Gonzalez and distinguished members of the committee, but you're the only one here, so I'll—
I'll take the good morning for all of them and relay your good wishes once they arrive.
Well, I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments, as you indicated, and I thank you for working with us on that. It was some negotiations that were a little delicate, and I think we made it through that. So I certainly appreciate your attention and consideration and the staff for working with us on that as well. And I just want to say this is a rare moment in California. Traditionally, as you know, California's water wars have been north against south, Dodgers against the Giants. And I see the L.A. Dodgers are out there, and I'm not going to say anything bad about it because this is a moment of kumbaya between north and south. And not only that, but the water contractors and the environmentalists, we're all working together for the future of California's water. We want to make sure that California has a reliable water supply into the rest of this century. So this is the first step in that direction. This bill, SB 872, brings traditional adversaries together, and it's bringing the two together because it addressed two major problems facing California's primary water system. First of all, the levees in the Delta, which supplies a lot of the water to California, have been built. Some of those in the 1800s, and they're not that reliable anymore. Even the Corps of Engineers doesn't meet their standards. So we have a huge challenge ahead of us. And not only that, but the aqueducts that bring water to Southern California are subsiding due to overdrafting of valley water. And I think the subsidence threatens to reduce water carrying capacity of the state water project by 87 percent by 2040. Now, that would be catastrophic for much of Southern California. We don't want to see that. SB 872 protects California's primary water delivery system for years to come by creating the Delta Levies and Canal Subsidants Fund for essential repairs and allowing waiver of local cost sharing for Delta levy repair projects. Both of those are absolutely critical to this bill. SB 872 is backed by more than 60 organizations. With us today, I have Gil Casio of the River Delta Consulting and Glenn Farrell of the State Water Contractors. And I'll turn it over to Glenn and Gil.
Good morning, Chair Pappen and members of the committee. My name is Gilbert Cosio. I'm with River Delta Consulting. I've been working on Delta levies for 42 years. During that time, I was a district engineer for 45 reclamation districts, which is about half of the active reclamation districts in the Delta. So I've got a long history of working on these levies. I'm here today to provide testimony in support of SB 872, a crucial step towards fully funding both levy subventions and special projects programs. I want to share my perspective on an amendment we are grateful to Senator McNerney for spearheading a waiver of the existing cost share requirement for subventions I also want to thank Chair Pappen for considering the importance of this amendment and I'm here to answer any questions on the topic if you have any. So as district engineer our job is to assist reclamation districts with their flood control drainage responsibilities. In other words, we help them maintain and rehabilitate their levees, drain ditches and pumping plants. Without the subventions program, multiple levy breaches would impact local reclamation districts with millions of dollars of damages, and the state would potentially billion dollars of damages, which has been shown in several studies, due to all the public infrastructure protected by levies, including the state and federal water supply projects and all the highways and the river railroads in the Delta. The benefits of the program cannot be denied. In fact, the subventions program has been praised among agency and academic representatives for many years as a true benefit to the Delta and levies. And at the same time, it's been very easy to implement because the districts are so interested in getting this work done. So the program got a shot in the arm by the 1988 passage of SB 34. SB 34 kind of kicked up the money for subventions and included the special projects program. And just like SB 872, it was actually a joint bill because we knew in the Delta, you know, it could be adversarial to Southern California. On the other hand, we both need the levees. We both need the water. And so is there something we can do to kind of preserve both? And SB 34 did that. The subventions program was mostly for maintaining levees. Special Projects was geared towards DWR directing some of that Special Projects money to some of the important islands in the Delta that protected their water quality. And the work under SB 34 took place and really helped the Delta out by preserving and preventing overtopping of levees during the floods of 95, 97, 98, 2006, 2017, and 2023. So without subventions, we would have had reaches all over the place. So the limiting factor of the subventions program has always been the local cost share. Although the program has been described as paying 75% of costs, in reality, with the inclusion of the $1,000 per mile deductible and interest charges, cost to borrow funds, and delayed reimbursements, sometimes these reimbursements take 12 to 24 months after the work is made.
I'll need you to start to wrap up as soon as you could.
Please. The actual percentage is closer to 50 to 60%. Energy costs for drain pumps now exceed 50% of an annual agricultural reclamation district assessments. PG&E bills have skyrocketed, and that's what they have to pay first to preserve their farming. Fully funding Delta levy investments and improvements is essential to protect communities, state assets, water supply, and the Delta economy as a whole. Senator McNerney's bill would open the opportunity for consistent funding, desperately needed to see real improvements across the Delta, and would bring important stakeholders to the table to ensure we are protecting communities, economies, and water supply. Thank you so much.
And urge an eye for that.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. Thank you.
We usually keep it to about two to three minutes.
Please. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Glenn Farrell with GF Advocacy on behalf of the state water contractors. Together the state water contractors public water agencies deliver water to about 27 million people in Solano Napa Santa Clara Alameda San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Kings Kern Ventura Los Angeles Riverside and San Diego counties Two of every Californian gets about 30 of their water supply from the State Water Project The State Water Project supports an economy that provides 8 million jobs full-time jobs, contains 800,000 businesses, and employs 160,000 farmers. It plays a critical role in California's agricultural economy, supplying water to 750,000 acres of farmland that produces $19 billion in crops each year. Given the scale and statewide importance of the State Water Project, protecting its infrastructure is essential to maintaining water reliability and affordability. The aqueducts that move the water throughout the state have subsided, due largely to groundwater pumping that was unregulated until 2014 when the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was enacted. While SGMA will ensure that future damages are mitigated, historical damages, if not repaired, will eventually result in the complete cessation of state water project deliveries. Senator McNerney mentioned the 87% delivery capability reduction by 2040, but actually gets to zero in about 25 years from now without repair. The cost and risk to California is high. The Department of Water Resources estimates the cost to repair the state water project, Oculex, is over $3 billion. Our ability to adapt to climate change is reliant on our ability to move and store water when it's wet, for use when it's dry. a functioning delivery system essential to that goal. Additionally, a fully functional state water project provides significant opportunity to support the electrification of the California grid because it can be operated to increase or decrease significant loads and produce hydroelectric power. As you all know well, California's water infrastructure is interconnected. All of its components, whether it be delta levees or state water project canals, must be functional to ensure clean, affordable water delivery continues. And with that, we urge your aye vote on SB 872 this morning. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Okay. Any members of the audience wishing to come forward to express their support? Name, organization, and position.
Good morning, Jonathan Clay, on behalf of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Danny Merkley with the Guaco Group on behalf of Crohn County Water Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District in support. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Taylor Trifo on behalf of Tulare Lake Water Storage District and a variety of agricultural associations in support. Good morning, Kyle Jones on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and Sierra Club California in support. Thank you. Jack Wurston from Nossman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support. Good morning, Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Morning, Jamie Miner on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, and West Basin Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Good morning, Beth Alasso on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Municipal Water District of Orange County in support. Thank you. Christy Foy on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support. Good morning. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you. Good morning. Adam Quinones, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support. Good morning. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support. Good morning. Mark Smith on behalf of Zone 7 Water Agency in support. Good morning. Good morning, Nico Molina on behalf of the Rancho California Water District in support. Thank you. Good morning, Pamela Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in support. Thank you. Good morning, Bill Gaines on behalf of the Sassoon Resource Conservation District in support. Madam Chair and members, Michelle Rolgava with Nielsen Merckxmer on behalf of the counties of Yolo and Contra Costa in support. Good morning, Madam Chair. Karen Lang on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition, including Contra Costa and YOLO, but in addition, San Joaquin County and Solano and Sacramento Counties all in support. Thank you. Good morning. Morgan Snyder on behalf of Resources Renewables Institute and Restore the Delta in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Richard Filgus with the California Farm Bureau. support. Good morning Marissa, Roger goes with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Morning Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, pleased to be in support. Good morning Deanna Latour Keane on behalf of San Diego County Water Authority and Irvine Ranch Water District in support. Thank you.
Did you get enough water agencies here? Not only water agencies, but environmentalists. What more could you ask for? Well, there I asked you. Do we have anybody to testify in opposition? Come one, come all. Seeing none, any member of the audience just want to express their opposition? Okay. No witnesses, no one to express their opposition. We'll bring it back to the committee. Questions? Okay, thank you. We'll have a motion in a second. We don't have a quorum, so we'll keep that on tap. Any questions?
Nope.
Okay. Would you like to close, Senator?
Sure, I'll take about another 15 or 20 minutes here. I don't know if Senator Cavillero will be your biggest fan, but I'm willing to listen. Well, water is awfully important to California, to our prosperity, prosperity and we have a tremendous amount of support and I hope the committee supports it as well. And I thank the chair again and the committee for the work. Here's to getting funding.
We'll take that up when we get a quorum. Thank you, sir. With the
amendments.
Okay, Senator Caballero, do join us. While you're setting up, I'd like to welcome Assemblymember Hadwick to the committee. We've worked together on some wildlife interaction bills. It was a pleasure to have you then and pleasure to have you, I'm sure, on the committee. Welcome.
Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. First, let me thank the committee and accept the amendments. I really appreciate the opportunity to work together. I'm pleased to present SB1108, which establishes the Grasslands Ecological Area Conservancy, or GIAC, within the California Natural Resources Agency to protect, conserve, and restore the resources of the grasslands ecological area and nearby wildlife corridors. The existing grasslands ecological area located on the west side of Merced County within the Central Valley is the largest remaining wetland grasslands and working land complex west of the Mississippi and is of statewide and international significance for the conservation of wildlife habitat biological diversity and ecological processes. The area provides critical habitat for numerous migratory bird species that depend on the managed wetlands for the Pacific flyway migration, and it connects to a key remaining wildlife corridor that provides a route for wildlife to travel between the Sierra Nevada foothills and the coast range. It provides essential local opportunities for wildlife education and recreation, such as public hiking, birding, and duck hunting. If you drive along Highway 5, there's not a whole lot to see. But if you come to Santanella, which you wouldn't notice very much, except for there's an Anderson Peace Soup restaurant there, the ecological area is off towards the east. It is the largest wetlands remaining west of the Mississippi, and that's why it's so critically important. And some of the agricultural and urban uses in the area have significantly constrained it. And the bottom line is that it's a really critical flyway, as I said, for the birds that are migrating. Yet the wetlands and associated grasslands habitat have been substantially reduced and fragmented. This threatens to harm the migratory population and evaporates the substantial community benefits that the wetlands provide locally and statewide. Little pun there. The ecological health and sustainability of the area will depend on increased resources, coordinated land, water, and conservation management efforts among the public entities, NGO, and private landowners in order to remain healthy. It involves federal lands, state lands, and then private bird hunting property that's been put into an easement for recreational activities and part of the birding activities that are there. The proposed conservancy will strategically channel resources into the region governed by a board of local leaders, and it will serve as a tool for generating voluntary state conservation easements to protect the land in the area and complement more geographically limited federal easements. Furthermore, it's estimated that at least 60,000 acres of irrigated farmland must be taken out of production within the proposed conservancy boundaries to achieve groundwater sustainability over the next 10 years. Through voluntary conservation easements with willing landowners, the Conservancy can provide alternatives to land following. The other part of the proposal involves an education center. There currently exists a really modest center where the local students can participate and learn about nature and why it's important to preserve. So by providing a coordinated framework for channeling resources, The conservancy created by SB 1108 will serve as a valuable tool for conserving and restoring the wetlands area and nearby wildlife corridors. With me to testify in support of the bill is Rick Ortega from the Grasslands Water District and Michael Chen from the Audubon Society.
Great. Thank you, Chair Papin.
Good morning. My name is Rick Ortega, and I'm the general manager of the Grassland Water District. We deliver the federal surface water out to the wetland complex to the state wildlife areas national wildlife refuges and private wetlands SB 1108 would establish the ecological area conservancy under CNRA and bring coordination to an area of the San Joaquin Valley that lacks comprehensive land protection framework The proposed conservancy includes land within the boundaries of five different groundwater sustainability agencies, eight water and irrigation districts, two resource conservation districts, and a large amount of non-districted land without surface water. There are two state wildlife area complexes consisting of six units, one state park, and six units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. No single entity has a jurisdiction, authority, or resources to develop and implement a broad strategy for maintaining wildlife corridor connectivity, agricultural land retirement mitigation, incentives on working lands, and public open space access. A conservancy is also very timely to achieve these state goals. As the senator mentioned, it's estimated that at least 60,000 acres, the equivalent of 100 square miles of irrigated farmland must be taken out of production within the proposed conservancy boundaries to achieve groundwater sustainability over the next 10 years. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans, Merced Subbasin, GSA, multi-benefit land repurposing program have identified the proposed conservancy area as the key remaining wildlife corridor in the San Joaquin Valley between the Sierra Nevada foothills and the coast range. The conservancy will help accomplish the anticipated land use transition in an ecological beneficial way while providing economic incentives, incentives, restoring projects and habitat and wildlife beneficial agricultural easements, bringing more stability to and opportunities to ranches, farms, uplands and wetlands in the area that face dramatic land use conversions over the course of the next decade. The unique nature of the proposed conservancy encompasses the largest freshwater wetland remaining in California and hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife beneficial rangeland and farms. This conservancy will help preserve the critical area from both the biodiversity and economic perspective. For these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair and members.
My name is Michael Chan, Senior Manager of Governor Relations for Audubon, California. I'm here to express our support for SB1108. The grassland ecological area and surrounding areas are essential parts of the Pacific Flyway, one of North America's major migratory routes for birds. Since the 1970s, North America has lost approximately 3 billion birds, approximately one-third of its total bird population due to habitat loss and other human activities. To continue conserving the species we have left, California needs to manage valuable habitats in places like the grassland ecological area and surrounding lands that were collaborative with landowners. The creation of this conservancy is an idea long past due. The ecological area is already home to approximately 200 bird species each year and provides essential habitat in the valley where we have lost 95% of our historic wetlands and riparian areas. A conservancy will allow stakeholders to build on and scale up successes we've already seen in the area. The conservancy will improve conservation outcomes, expand public access and recreation opportunities where appropriate and benefit local economies. It will also lead to more cost-effective conservation efforts that will have real buy-in from local residents, creating more durable conservation efforts. for birds and communities. Thank you, and I strongly ask for a vote.
Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the audience that would like to come down and express their support? Thank you.
Kyle Jones with the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and Environmental Defense Fund in support. Thank you. Michael Jarrett with the Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you. Hi there, Mark Henley with California Waterfowl in strong support. Bill Gaines on behalf of the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association and the Black Brant Group in support Good morning again Pamela Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in support Thank you
Okay. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? There you have it. No witnesses. Any members of the audience? Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee.
Some of them are friends. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I've had the pleasure of visiting this area multiple times. And it's, I think, a really valuable bill, a really valuable area to support. So I'd be happy to second the motion.
Thank you. Assemblymember Hart.
I just want to echo my colleagues' comments. This is really a wonderful opportunity for your leadership to bring together all this complex and related land management issues and really set this future planning effort on a really great start. And it's just an incredible legacy and the tremendous resource for the whole state of California. And glad to be supporting it. Glad that you're leading this charge. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. Well, thank you for bringing the bill. On behalf of the birds, I thank you as well.
And would you like to close, Senator?
Thank you for your work.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Well, speaking of the birds, I was going to invite you to come down anytime and go through the wetlands. It's really special to be able to walk in an area where it looks very much like it probably looked when the first settlers from wherever they came entered the area. It's beautiful. It's quiet. But come during the time of the year where there are not a lot of bugs. The reason we have a lot of birds is there's a lot of bugs out there during certain parts of the year. But it's beautiful. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Excellent. When the time is right, we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you so much for being here.
Thank you.
OK, Senator Blakespear, good morning. Come on down. Thank you. You have a staffer? That's good.
I feel very far away.
Come close. Whenever you're ready.
Welcome. Well, thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm here today to present SB 1135. SB 1135 reestablishes and strengthens the statewide wildlife coexistence program within the Department of Fish and Wildlife. This program focuses on managing and reducing human wildlife conflict through proactive non-lethal strategies. We're seeing a growing number of wild animals entering urban areas. This is due to many factors, including loss of habitat being driven by climate change, suburban sprawl, and industrial land use. It's also due to humans' approach to interacting with wildlife. There have been recent headlines about bears living in basements in Los Angeles, wolves attacking livestock in Northern California, and coyote and mountain lion conflicts in my district. When wildlife comes into our communities, they can damage property, threaten livestock, and create safety concerns for residents. Over the last five years, wildlife incident reports to the Department of Fish and Wildlife have increased by 31%, and overall contacts have risen by 58%. 58%. No two animal species are the same, and each has unique behavior patterns, territories, and comfort levels around humans. In agricultural areas, wolves and other wildlife cause significant economic losses for ranchers and farmers. In 2025 alone, between March and October, there were over 127 confirmed or probable livestock losses to wolves, including more than 90 in the Sierra Valley region. SB 1135 gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs. These tools can include tactics such as fladry, which is hanging flag strips to deter wolves. They can also include livestock guardian dogs, hazing, conflict reporting, and other non-lethal responses like helping people understand how they should be interacting or not interacting with wildlife, keeping wild wild. Prevention is a tried and true strategy and has been successfully utilized by the department in the past. When the state implemented its black bear policy in 2022, black bear killings decreased 84% from 100 in 2017 down to just 14 in 2023. I also want to acknowledge that after months of work and good faith negotiations on all sides, we took amendments in the Senate that moved the cattlemen and the Farm Bureau from opposed to neutral. These amendments clarify the non-lethal deterrence funding structure. They narrow compensation eligibility requirements to account for practicality, and they strengthen agriculture producer protections for those who are operating outside of wolf activity area. By emphasizing proactive non-lethal measures aimed at reducing the harm associated with human and wildlife confrontations, we can create a safe environment for humans and wildlife to share the state of California. With me today in support, I have Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation and Pam Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. And should they begin when ready, Chair? Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Jennifer Fearing for the National Wildlife Federation, proud to co-sponsor SB 1135. As this committee is acutely aware, thanks to the informational hearing you held in January, people and wildlife are increasingly sharing landscapes and are under growing pressures and cumulative threats like extreme heat, frequent drought, and intense wildfires that animals respond to by moving in search of resources to survive. Those movements are frustrated by barriers like roads, fences, human development, and other habitat connectivity challenges. Fortunately, science has produced a consensus that coexistence programs work to reduce conflicts, to keep people and animals safe, to protect property, and to promote biodiversity. Such programs educate and support community and property owner efforts to reduce and remove attractants like trash and food, shore up access to property and pets, keep a safe distance, implement methods proven to actively deter conflicts, and promote wild animals' instincts to stay wild. Despite the need and demonstrated effectiveness, a successful three-year program with trained regional staff around the state was not re-upped when term-limited funds dried up in 2024. As acknowledged by agency and department leaders at your January hearing and in subsequent budget subcommittee hearings throughout the spring, the absence of this effort is being felt in urban, suburban, and rural California. Recent examples are illustrative. A statewide wildlife coexistence program established by this bill could have saved Blondie's life. The Monrovia area of Black Bear's death was preventable if we had deployed clear and repeated messaging to educate the community. When people came too close to Blondie and her two cubs, she instinctively swiped to protect them and was then proclaimed a public safety bear. CDFW decided the only way to keep people safe was to kill her and send her two cubs to a rehab facility. The community was understandably devastated. And now nonprofit wildlife rehabilitator San Diego Humane Society, which supports this bill, faces months of time-consuming, expensive care to raise Blondie's cubs, stepping in for their mother to try to teach them how to be wild bears. and when these cubs are re-released back into the San Gabriel Mountains, they will run the risk of a similar fate as their mother. We can and must do better In just the past month mountain lions were tranquilized and relocated from Santa Monica and Pasadena Cougars and bears have been cited on or near the UC Davis campus A man fought off a black bear near Mammoth Lakes when it attacked his dog How many more incidences do we need to prove that disinvesting in cost-effective proactive measures increases the cost to address negative impacts of conflicts? These are paid by the state, local governments, families, communities, nonprofits, local law enforcement, ranchers, and animals. A broad and diverse coalition of organizations support this bill, want to see the state invest in these strategies. They are not just nice to have, but need to have. Thank you. Good morning, committee members. Pamela Flick, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the other proud co-sponsor of SB 1135. Gray wolves are native to California and belong here. From OR7's epic journey in late 2011 to our 12 current wolf packs, it is remarkable that these ecologically important animals have naturally returned to our stay under their own wolf power. However, wolves have returned to a very different landscape than that of the 1920s when they were driven to local extinction. But wolves are adaptive critters and can survive and thrive in challenging conditions as long as humans are willing to share the landscape with them. That social tolerance is key to successful coexistence, as is direct support to ranchers and information sharing about best practices to reduce wolf-livestock interactions. California had the opportunity to do things differently when it came to gray wolf recovery, but the situation in Sierra Valley last year changed things for the worse. The lethal removal of the Bamseo pack after they'd grown habituated to preying on livestock for over a year is a failure in our efforts to coexist peacefully with these wild animals. The use of non-lethal strategies to reduce wolf-livestock interactions, including human presence, physical barriers, predator deterrence, removing attractants, and livestock husbandry practices is more effective and cost-efficient in the long run. It's imperative that proactive strategies be deployed early, often, and at the landscape scale. If one ranch uses conflict deterrence and their neighbor doesn't, the entire effort can unravel. That's why we support community-wide adoption of proven practices. We must also ensure that when the state provides compensation funds, ranchers are all doing their part through the proper and documented use of practical and proactive coexistence measures. I want to echo Senator Blake Spears' comments that we worked very closely with our colleagues at Cattlemen's Association and Farm Bureau over the course of several weeks to address their concerns, such as triggers for when the program funds fall under certain thresholds, as well as eligibility surrounding practicability, including cost of proactive measures, sufficient time to implement such measures, terrain conditions, and the extent that routine agricultural and husbandry practices may represent adequate proactive conflict reduction measures. We thank them for negotiating with us in good faith and removing their opposition and strengthening the bill. Thank you. We urge your support.
Thank you so much. Any members of the audience in support, please come forward.
Hi, good morning. Michael Chan on behalf of Audubon California and Support. Good morning. Kim Delfino speaking on behalf of, in support with Center for Biological Diversity, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Wildlife Crossing Fund, San Diego Humane Society, the California Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Wildlife Conservation Network, and the Resource Renewal Institute. Thank you. Good morning Chloe Shay on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support Thank you Good morning Chair and members Kirk Wilber with the California Cattlemen Association We are neutral on the bill but want to thank the author and the sponsors for taking amendments that did remove our opposition Thank you Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support. Michael Jair with the Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support. Good morning, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of Humane World for Animals, as well as the office of Cat Taylor, Tomcat Ranch, and I was also asked to convey the support of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Thank you. Chair, Stephen Feneroli with the California Farm Bureau. We're also in the neutral column, strong neutral for what it's worth, and just, you know, totally okay with people supporting this bill today. And again, appreciate the author for moving us to that position. So thank you.
Strong neutral.
Good morning, Chair. Nicholas Hackett for social compassion in legislation and strong support. Jake Schultz on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you. Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.
Great. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, any members of the audience? Okay. Let's bring it back to the committee. Questions?
Assemblymember Hadwick. I don't tend to get spicy my first committee meeting, but sadly the bills that affect my district are here. So I have a really hard time with this bill because of the negotiations that we did for so long. I would like to know why law enforcement is not on your list for the advisory council. You have an answer to that?
I'm going to ask my witness to answer.
Through the chair? Yes, Assemblymember Hadwick, we had extensive conversations initially with you and then subsequently with your staff when it was made very clear to us that your request for the bill was that it include the rural sheriffs. We had a very challenging conversation with our support coalition around that, but we returned to your office stating that we were willing to add them, but we wanted that to earn your support. It's important for us that that would be sufficient for you to support the bill. And we were told that that commitment couldn't be made. My district hates this bill. They do because they don't think it goes far enough. I knew they would hate it. But I literally get calls about coexistence every day. My phone is full of dead cows, pictures and sheep and pets and things that I don't want to look at either. But the rural sheriffs are the ones that are answering this call. And this is state responsibility to protect these animals that are protected. and the feds at this point for wolves. But we're laying all of that responsibility on the counties who are already struggling. We have many counties in my district that don't have a game warden. CDFW is running on 30% of their law enforcement right now. They don't have people to
respond to this. And those are the people that are trusted in the county as well. My district, I have 11 rural counties. They do not trust government, and for good reason. A lot of times we're left behind. I do want law enforcement on there. I don't think it's fair to leave them out. I think their voice is important in this, and I think they would be a good advocate for you guys. I was never going to be able to be a yes on this but I do think that all of our negotiations that they deserve to be at the table too because coexistence is both sides And this bill is very very one It has a lot of things that the ranchers have to do a lot of things that the landowners have to do It does not have a lot of things that the state has to do. And I just don't think that's fair. Also, Farm Bureau and Cattlemen members text me every day about this. So I think their membership is very split, hence the neutral. and I just, I think coexistence is both sides and I don't think that this bill hits that mark and I'm really, really disappointed that law enforcement is not included in that because they are the ones that are having to make that decision every day and they're the ones having to explain to their constituents why the state is doing what they're doing and this is an everyday occurrence. I had three mountain lion things in one week that were in people's houses taking goats over a six-foot fence with a roof, and they're not allowed to do anything because we're told to coexist, which is fine. We live where we live because we love wildlife. We want to coexist, and we are coexisting. This bill just is very one-sided, and it's frankly unfair. Madam Chair, may I also address that very briefly? Well, there's not a question pending. Okay. Did you have a question? Okay.
Okay. Vice Chair Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to clarify something that you had stated. In your conversations with the member and their office, you said that you needed her support in order to get law enforcement. If you got her support, then you would put law enforcement on the board or commission. Is that correct?
Correct.
Okay. So I was leaning one way on this bill, and now I am not. Because what you said was we didn't get our way, so we don't want to add people on there. And for me, that is a huge issue. especially if we're talking about including everyone in the community because we're talking about coexistence. To not have them on there because you didn't get her support is a huge challenge to me. I totally believe that in community, in every community, you need all sides for the diversity, for equity, for an inclusion. You need all voices, even the ones that we don't agree with. And this is very challenging when you say, we'll let them on as long as we get your support. That doesn't seem very inclusive to me.
Chair, may I respond to that? Yes, please. I just wanted to... question, but please, you're the author. You should. Thank you. I just wanted to kind of reframe what it is that's happening with this bill. So we're reestablishing the Wolf Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program, and then it's being renamed as the Wolf Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program. And that is being run by the state. And then there's an advisory, a technical advisory committee, which is fairly broad in who's represented on it. So the idea of having a diversity of interests, they're really not being excluded. So there are agriculture interests on here, rural community interests, conservation and environmental science, tribal natural resources management, human wildlife conflict mitigation practices, wildlife biology, urban community, animal behavior, and veterinary science. So there are no fewer than 11, no more than 15 members appointed by the director representing expertise or experience in the following areas. So I think, you know, we are all legislators who go through the process of trying to create consensus, which we were able to do with the Cattlemen's Association and with others who were initially opposed by working very closely. But it is the nature of this, that when you are negotiating, you ask for, we will make that change, which maybe the coalition partners don't think is additive, if it will bring someone on in support or at least neutrality. But if that doesn't happen, then there's no good reason to add something in that the rest of the coalition doesn't believe is additive. So just to state that I appreciate the honesty of my witness being willing to honestly answer why that is not the case in here. And I think the reality also of whether rural sheriffs wanted to be included, whether the Sheriff's Association wanted to be included, there's a lot of nuance in that. So it's not as if everybody was clamoring at the door to say, we want to be part of this. But, you know, so just to provide a bit more context. I'm going to interrupt you for one second so I can get a quorum. I'm going to come back to that. Madam Secretary, please take roll. All right. Pappin? Here. Pappin here. Jeff Gonzalez? Here. Jeff Gonzalez here. Alanis? Here. Alanis here. Alvarez? Here. Alvarez here. Avila Farias? Baines? Bennett? Here. Bennett here. Berner? Coloza? Hadwick? Here. Hadwick here. Hart? Here. Hart here. Rodriguez? Rogers? Okay, great. We've got a forum, a quorum, and a forum. Did you want to continue, Senator? Well, just to the point of this is not exclusive. So they could be a representative from a rural community. It could be a rural sheriff. So it's not suggesting that they're excluded from this.
Understood.
Can I respond to that? Sure. Absolutely.
Thank you. I was just looking at that and I appreciate the could and the list of folks that are on there. Absolutely valuable, absolutely valuable to have every single aspect of that because it's a complex issue, right? It's across the board. I'm not going to get into it, but it is a complex board. What I would like to see from my perspective is that we are including a public safety representative within this because, again, it's very complex. They're the ones that are answering this call of this encounter. So I'd like to see that a public safety person is on there as one of those listed, because to me, again, the 911 call is going to them. And all of those others are great. But the could, the maze, they could be excluded. And I don't want them to be excluded because we depend on them every single one of us And we want them to be a part of the conversation and have that nuance of what they seeing on the ground So I encourage the author to look at that and potentially change that. Thank you.
Yes, we're absolutely happy to take that into consideration. A broader public safety type of category. Yeah. So Member Hart.
Yeah, I just want to appreciate the bill and the fact that this is not easy and that you've been working really hard to bring a diverse group of stakeholders together and to work through these complicated issues and really celebrate the fact that, you know, the recognition of there was a problem that was being managed and the program went away and the problem got worse. And so it is so obvious that it needs to be reinstituted. And this is doing that and is going to make things better because we realize you can't just leave things alone. and you have to intervene and you have to coexist and you have to figure out a way to manage wildlife and take actions specifically with all the stakeholders involved to accomplish a result that benefits everybody. And so I don't want us to be lost in the details when we're really focusing on the big picture here today with this bill, with the words that we have in front of us, and appreciate the comments that it could be better. Everything could always be better, but this is a really good bill, And this is a really important moment to have support for the idea that we're going to have a coexistence program in the state of California that's going to reduce conflicts and improve public safety and improve agricultural viability in places where wildlife interacts all the time, every day. And that's really important to keep foremost in our minds.
Some of our Alanis.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry I'm late to this and I missed the testimony. But to my colleague's point, with the coexistence, as I see here for coexisting act, I think we need to coexist together ourselves. So I heard the points that our vice chair just made about law enforcement. So it sounds like law enforcement is not part of this at all.
They're not excluded, but it's not a category that is called out.
At what point was that maybe a decision where that wasn't a good idea to have them included?
There's nothing in the bill that precludes them from being a representative from a rural community or agricultural interest or urban community, but as we just mentioned, we like the framing of the public safety, which could also include a state warden with CDFW as well.
And so the ones that are already included in there, did they ask or were they put on?
You want to answer? Go ahead.
I'm relatively certain. I think the agricultural interest was added at the request of the negotiations that we have with the Cattlemen and Farm Bureau. But I think there's a whole laundry list of others that are on there. Did they specifically ask also, or did you just figure they'd be good to be in coexistence? Yeah, we were looking for experience and expertise. We tried to work with those categories. Okay. So at that point, you didn't think law enforcement was a good one to ask also?
It did not spring to mind when we generated the original list, but we had meaningful conversations with the author about it. and we, again, agreed to do it, we want to coexist and want a bill that works for the member. That was the request she made of the bill. So we thought it was good, actually, to ultimately agree to it. We want to be rowing in the same direction, to your point on we all coexisting.
Okay, well, I would hope that would happen. Obviously, I'm not going to be able to support this bill because I think this should have been in the beginning, but we'll carry on. Thank you. Thank you.
Assemblymember Bennett.
I just like to echo the comments of my colleague and just add one other thing and that is from the global picture we have a real crisis in the world in terms of losing diversity and programs like this are going to be essential for us to be able to maintain sort of that ecological balance that out there And I don't think that we should interpret this particular issue of public safety as being hostility at all towards public safety or anybody else. I think there's an openness here to continue those conversations, and we've heard the author say she was open to continuing those conversations. So I'm happy to be seconding the motion and congratulate the author for good work on this. Thank you.
Anyone else? Going once, going twice. Okay. So I do want to thank the author for bringing this. given the hearing we had with Assemblymember Hadwick a few months back, clearly we had an issue. And so I appreciate you taking it on. I appreciate the further discussions as it relates to who might be delineated on the list of who to include. And thank you for being open to considering law enforcement slash public safety, you know, whatever it might be, because it is clear they I do have an outsourced role. So while ag or whomever else is on that list has a role, I do hear you, as some of you, that they're often the first in those 11 rural counties. May not be the first in my community. I got issues in my community. But I don't know that law enforcement is always the first that we call. So I appreciate your openness, Senator, to perhaps being sensitive to that and maybe giving them a delineation. I recognize we got some broad words in there and we can put some folk in there, but that doesn't necessarily perhaps include those that are on the front line in our rural counties. With that, you do enjoy a due pass, but I hope you would consider a future amendment. We don't have amendments in this committee, but with that, would you like to close? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. I'm absolutely open to that and I hear the concern about it. I just want to recognize that this is a difficult topic because what we're talking about is we're talking about when wildlife are interacting with humans or humans' pets or their livestock. And an assembly member had receiving texts about it and people upset. I mean, there's a high emotionality that can come with that. And so I just want to recognize it as a difficult area. The point is for California to, through CDFW, to establish a program. And part of one of my budget asks this year, which was not funded, was for this program to be funded. And the idea was that we want to be able to hire people who will work for a Department of Fish and Wildlife. We want to be able to compensate cattlemen when they do have loss of their cattle because of wolves. But it's really instructive to look at how well we've done with bears in that example that I gave in my opening, which is a reduction of over 80 percent of having to kill bears. Because that phrase, a fed bear is a dead bear, you know, that is happening because of the way humans are managing themselves. Are we putting out our trash cans that are easy to get into? Are we actually feeding them in our backyard so that we can post it on Instagram? Do we have a way for local law enforcement to respond to that or for CDFW or others to respond to that and say, to give counseling and guidance, this is not something you should be doing. You don't go and touch that little baby that was just born. You not helping it You habituating it to humans So we need to have money in order to do those education programs and either to be on the ground in these communities And we will be able to reduce the carnage. And the reality that Assemblymember Hadwick said, it doesn't go far enough. And part of that is that we're not going to be eliminating and eradicating wolves. Wolves came over from Oregon. They are here in California. And when you look at Secretary Crowfoot testified at the budget sub-hearing, too, that I'm on that's related to this topic. And he said, we want to get in line with other Western states. You know, Montana and Wyoming and Idaho, they've been dealing with this for longer than we have, especially around wolves. And so compensating cattlemen is part of that. They are not being compensated through insurance, and we need to have a system for that. So pushing on saying we need state resources, We need a program. This is the first step of creating this program. And then next year, hopefully, there will be another ask for money so this can be funded. And we'll be able to help everybody. This is definitely a let's help everybody, animals, wildlife, and also humans, and also humans, pets. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. So the motion is due pass to appropriations. So it's item number three, SB 1135. Pappin? Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Jeff Gonzalez abstain. Alanis? No. Alanis no. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez aye. Avila Farias? Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett aye. Berner? Paloza? Hadwick? No. Hadwick no. Hart? Aye. Hart aye. Rodriguez? Rogers? Okay, that item's on call and we will leave it open for additional votes. Thank you, Senator. Senator Richardson, I see, is here. I don't see any other senators, so please come down. Good morning, Senator Richardson. Nice to see you.
Nice to see you.
Whenever you're ready. Good morning.
Let me state for the record that I was a police cadet for the Beverly Hills Police Department, and my ex-husband was a police chief, and so I'm a great supporter of law enforcement. So we'll start off there with my comments in light of the last conversation. Madam Chair and members of this very important committee, and as I'm listening to some of the bills, it's really interesting, and I applaud your work. Let me first begin my testimony by accepting the committee amendments for Senate Bill 1305. The loss of grizzlies severed the enduring relationship between species and many California Native American tribes for whom the grizzlies remain a vital and honored relative. It is its erasure and destructive cultural teachings, spiritual traditions, and reciprocal stewardship practices deeply tied to the land and its living systems. For thousands of years before their loss, California Grizzlies coexisted with the ancestors of contemporary California Native American tribes and European immigrants and formed a longstanding ecological and cultural relationship with the environment and cultures around them. So long before we saw the beautiful flag there that represents California and the Grizzlies and the original 1846 bear flag revolt to today, the California Grizzly has been synonymous with our Golden State. Unfortunately, the last known living California Grizzly bear was driven to extinction in 1924 after several targeted persecutions and killings. Their rapid demise was not due to habitat loss. loss or lack of food, but due to the direct result of deliberate extermination efforts by a small number of settlers and government agents who hunted, trapped, and poisoned them relentlessly. For these reasons, I present to you SB 1305, a study bill that takes important steps by having the state assess the feasibility and reintroducing of the grizzly bear. SB 1305 would establish its official state policy to determine whether the reintroduction of grizzly bears is biologically feasible, advisable, and to what extent their reintroduction would restore the ecological functions they once provided. To achieve this goal, SB 1305 would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to, upon appropriation, conduct a study to develop and publish a roadmap for potential reintroduction. This roadmap would have to include scientific assessment of habitat suitability and population viability, consultation with the California American tribes, engagement with local communities, as has been discussed earlier, and recommended procedures to minimize risk of human-wildlife conflict. SB 1305 is not a bill to reintroduce grizzly bears. What it does is give us the opportunity to study, plan, and prepare for their potential reintroduction, something that they were here before all of us. Something we never forgot with the reintroduction of other predators, when we look at wolves in other situations, we can learn from those situations and how they could have been better handled. It allows us to answer if, how, when, and where the reintroduction of grizzly bears could be successful. With that, I'd like to introduce my witnesses and sponsors to the bill. We have here with us Chairman Octavio Escobedo III with the Tejon Indian Tribe, and Tiana Williams-Claassen, Director of the Yurok Tribe Wildlife Department. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Octavio Escobedo III. I'm the chairman for the Tejon Indian Tribe, one of the proud co-sponsors of SB 1305. I'd like to start off by thanking you, Madam Chair, for your engagement and that of your committee staff. We appreciate the collaboration on the thoughtful amendments to SB 1305. California calls itself the bear state, yet today the grizzly exists merely as a symbol on our flag, our seal, and our institutions, but not on our landscape. For the Tejon Indian tribe, the grizzly or Hunyat is not a symbol. It's a relative. Its loss was not just ecological, but cultural and spiritual. SB 1305 does something very simple and very responsible. It asks California to do the work before making any decision in the reintroduction of the species. This bill does not authorize reintroduction. It requires a state to evaluate whether suitable habitat exists, what impacts restoration would have, and what it would take to do it right. It also ensures that this process is grounded in science tribal consultation and with amendments we took after meeting with opposition meaningful engagement with law enforcement landowners outdoor recreational groups and important other stakeholders That last point is critical Restoration cannot be imposed It must be built with the people who will live with it The bill recognizes the realities on the ground Human-wildlife conflict is already increasing across California. Agencies like Fish and Wildlife need better tools, planning, and long-term capacity. SB 1305 creates a roadmap, not just for grizzlies, but for how California can manage coexistence moving forward. The grizzly sets the highest bar. If we can plan for that, we can strengthen our ability to manage wolves, mountain lions, and other species already reshaping our landscapes. Ultimately, this bill is about readiness. A century ago, California made a decision to eliminate the grizzling. Today, we are not being asked to reverse that decision, only to examine it honestly and prepare for the future. SB 1305 gives California the information it needs to answer a simple question. Is it possible to bring our state animal home responsibly, collaboratively, and based on science? We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good morning, Madam Chair and Assembly members. My name is Tiana Williams-Claassen. I'm a Yurok tribal member and director of the Wildlife Department for the Yurok tribe, which is co-sponsoring this bill. I want to first express my sincere admiration for the leadership of the to hone Indian tribe and Senator Richardson and co-authors in forwarding this bill and my appreciation for the time to make my address. We're here today to speak about the California grizzly or Niquich. I can see the ways in which my homeland has suffered from the loss of iconic species such as the grizzly and that this loss lingers in our heart and in the attenuation of a millennia old relationship. This resonates in my work as a restoration ecologist, recognizing the lingering imprint of the grizzly on our lands and that our management would have historically been done in partnership with such keystone species. The full scope of that loss and its impact to our health and wellness, I think, is yet to be fully understood. California is recognized as a powerful leader in conservation, overseeing and co-managing roughly 52 million acres of public lands and committing to further increasing and improving conservation. California is also a highly complex state in terms of ecological and cultural and socioeconomic diversity. I am proud of this bill because it recognizes that complexity and leans into it. This bill takes a proactive approach to assessing the potential for Grizzlies return while deliberately not committing to reintroduction, which is an entirely different process, unless or until it can be determined that this is the right decision for Grizzlies and Californians and how that balanced endpoint could be attained in explicit collaboration with tribes, local governments, law enforcement, conservation organizations, and private land managers and other communities. key stakeholders. This bill is already inspiring important conversations. If passed, the feasibility analysis will lead us through the next steps on a journey to reestablishing a relationship with the Grizzly for all Californians. Unlike when the Grizzly was locally extirpated, a decision was made by a decision made by a relative few, we have an opportunity here to bring together all those who would be impacted by or benefited by Grizzly, and we can grow our understanding of the role that Grizzly once played in our ecosystem, in turn growing in our understanding of what California truly needs to return to full ecological health, whether through the return of our relative or through our own hands. I encourage, the Uruk tribe encourages, and I vote. Thank you so much.
Do we have any members of the audience that would wish to express their support?
Good morning, Chair and members. Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in legislation and support Good morning Tasha Newman on behalf of the Wildlands Conservancy in support Good morning. Devlin Gandy, California Grizzly Alliance in strong support. Good morning. Rocky Rushing for Alt-C in support. Thank you. Hello. Peter Alagona, faculty member at UC Santa Barbara, founder of the California Grizzly Research Network. We're in support. Shannon Labouchain on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity in strong support. Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?
Madam Chair, members of the committee, my name is Bill Gaines, and I'm here today on
behalf of the California Deer Association and several other wildlife conservation nonprofits. I'd like to begin with one simple question. The California Grizzly Alliance's own study largely concluded that this proposal is likely not feasible. So why would we ask California taxpayers to spend years and millions of dollars studying what we already know? Proponents describe SB 1305 as just a study. It is not. It directs the Department of Fish and Wildlife to begin developing a roadmap toward the possible reintroduction of grizzly bears into California. That means years of taxpayer funding, staff time, public outreach, regulatory planning, conflict response planning, and agency resources devoted to the proposal whose biological, logistical, fiscal, and social obstacles are already well understood. We already know enough. We know that California's wildlife professionals are struggling to keep pace with increasing conflicts involving black bears, mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, livestock depredation, and growing public safety concerns. We already know our deer herds continue to decline while predator populations continue to expand. And we already know that today's California has little resemblance to the landscape where grizzlies once lived. We also know grizzly bears are not simply larger black bears. They require different management strategies, specialized training, additional personnel, new safety protocols, and significantly greater long-term costs. So why exactly are we hoping another study will tell us what we don't already know? There's a profound difference between managing wildlife that is naturally persistent on our landscape and deliberately reintroducing North America's largest terrestrial apex predator into modern human-used landscapes. This proposal asks the legislature to intentionally create a wildlife management problem that does not exist today. That is not simply managing risk. It is creating new risk through public policy. Public opinion certainly has a place in this discussion, but good wildlife policy cannot be based solely on the views of people, many of whom will never directly experience the consequences of the decisions that are made here today. Most Californians live in urban areas. They will not be the ones dealing with grizzly bears near their homes, around their children, threatening their pets or livestock, or affecting their livelihoods. Those consequences will fall primarily on rural families, ranchers, farmers, outdoor recreationists, and communities that live and work where these conflicts would occur. Their voices deserve to matter. California already has overabundant black bear populations in many regions. As a result, we are experiencing increasing human bear conflicts, property damage, livestock depredation, and dangerous encounters in communities across our state. Introducing busy bears into that same system will not occur in isolation. When two large bear species compete for the same limit of habitat and food resources, displacement is a predictable ecological response. Black bears will be pushed into more marginal habitat much of it along California urban and suburban interface where people live work and recreate Instead of solving a wildlife management problem we will create two more black bear conflicts where California live and new grizzly bear conflicts across that same landscape We believe it is irresponsible to reintroduce grizzly bears into a system where existing management policies and landscape and social realities make failure and conflict nearly certain from the outset. Good public policy should reduce human-wildlife conflict, not knowingly create conditions that make those conflicts more frequent, more dangerous, and far more difficult to manage. And when those conflicts occur, California will not only have practical management tools necessary to respond effectively. Regulatory constraints often delay action. Suitable relocation sites are extremely limited. Qualified facilities rarely have space for grizzly bears, particularly problem animals. In many cases, wildlife managers are left with few realist confidence other than euthanasia. Good wildlife management is about solving problems, not creating new ones. The question before us today isn't whether grizzly bears once lived in California. The question is whether California, as it exists today, can responsibly manage their return based on the evidence before us. We believe the answer is no. We are in your no vote. Thank you so much.
Okay, statements of opposition from the audience.
Greg Herner on behalf of SCI and the SCI California coalition. I think Senator Blake Spear presented it most appropriately that we can't even fund the conflicts we have now. So we're opposed.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members.
Karen Lang on behalf of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. This is absolutely a massive concern for Assemblymember Hadwick's district. Every Wednesday morning, we speak to the Siskiyou County Board, and every Wednesday morning, there's been another issue with wolves. They don't want to double it with grizzlies, and we ask for your no vote. Thank you. Stacey Heaton, rural county representatives of California, representing 40 rural counties statewide that are strongly opposed respectfully to this bill. Thank you. Kirk Wilber with California Cattlemen's Association, also strongly opposed. Thank you. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in opposition. Richard Filgus, California Farm Bureau, representing over 20,000 farming and ranching members, respectfully, and strong opposition. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments. Assemblymember Hadwick?
I want to start off with just thanking the author and the chair and the sponsors of the bill. I don't know where she's at. And because they really worked this bill the way bills are supposed to be worked. And they immediately came to us. And then knowing that it was going to affect my district and met with us and had great conversations and included us along the way, which I truly appreciate. It's no secret that I'm opposed to this bill. My district is very, very scared, honestly, for what could happen for this bill. I just have a couple questions. We just talked about that we can't fully fund CDFW. We can't fund the coexistence program, wolf depredation, wildfire mitigation projects. CDFW is running with 30% of their law enforcement right now. Why should the statewide... focus on this and fund a study to bring another apex predator in? Like, what is the need? Why? Because I have the study, the book that says what we're supposed to do.
Like, what are you looking for in this bill that's different than what's already here?
Permission to answer through the chair?
Oh, absolutely. Yes.
Of course, please. Thank you. So let me state a couple of things. First of all, you can count on my unequivocal support to support additional funding for the Fish and Game and Wildlife Enforcement, not only regarding—sir, excuse me, could you—so I can speak to her. Could you either move forward or move back? Thank you. I unequivocally support funding whether this bill is passed or not passed. I had an opportunity to come to your community just about a month ago, and it was simply beautiful. Coming from a girl who's from L.A. who lives in pretty much all concrete, it was pretty amazing. And so I support the concern that you have and of the community of coexistence of various species, whether they're wolves, black bears, whatever they are. Um, given the fact that, um, animals do exist, um, in our state, people do exist in our state. We certainly need a program to protect families, their property and our community. So you can count on my support of that regardless of what happens. Why is now to answer your question of the study, why is this study different? because that study does not authorize or give the state the opportunity to then take those words and say, okay, should we consider doing something? That study is helpful to build upon a study, but that study was not authorized and would not give us the ability to actually do something with it. So that's why we need to take this next step.
But as you heard from the author, I hope the author, with his expertise and the knowledge that he has, would be able to assist us in avoiding and making sure we're hitting all the key points that we should. So that's the difference of why we need a new study or an additional study is so that we could use it to be able to move forward. In terms of moving forward, though, I really want to state for the record that, and I guess at this point would be a good time to address some of the comments that were made. The opposing witness said bears having animals that have naturally persisted have stayed in California. The reason why the grizzly bear has not persisted and stayed is because it has been killed. That's why. The grizzly bear has not benefited like deers. Deers have been able to come up to people's neighborhoods. My family is from New York, And so that's the only place really I've seen a lot of deers. And so when deers come, people put up the little fences to keep them from eating your flowers and eating your food and all that. And I've seen that. Bears are different. Grizzly bears are different. And the point really today isn't to debate that a grizzly bear could cause harm. A grizzly bear could, just like a black bear could, just like a wolf could. The issue is that we talking about today is in California are we open enough to actually ask the question is there a role for animals in California that have been here And my point is that the grizzly bear certainly apparently had a role because out of all of the animals imagine I almost feel like Noah you know out of all the animals that Californians pick the grizzly bear to say that that what we symbolize that the strength of it the life of it the history of it And so that's what this bill is about. This bill is about us as a state saying, are there dangers? Yes. Do we need to take precautions? Yes. And that's why the bill actually says within it, it needs to study the actual feasibility of whether a grizzly bear is habitable in the current California. And so I'm open enough to have that answer be heard, and I'm open enough to accept that answer that would be heard. But it is certainly not the chairman's intention, the California Native American tribes' intention to have grizzly bears everywhere throughout California. It would be my hope that they would be monitored, would be safely introduced. Grizzly bears are different than wolves. They only have a pup every couple of years versus wolves that can have four per year. There's many differences. But the bottom line is today's discussion, SB 1305, is about whether we're willing to ask the question, not implement, ask the question of what was the role of the grizzly bears. And yes, we are suggesting to have a roadmap. We are suggesting to understand what would it mean? Because how could you then take a final answer on whether we should implement grizzly bears if you don't even know what would that entail? Where would they go? How would that be impacted? How would we monitor them? If they came into communities, what would be done? We have to answer those questions responsibly in order to ultimately determine whether this is feasible. So that's the difference between the study of what you have and what we're proposing. We're simply, not simply, I always hate, you know, we always use that word a lot. And what we do isn't simply. It's actually quite extensive. What we're asking to do here today is ask the question that if the grizzly bear, in fact, is our state symbol, let's determine why and whether they really have a role here. But the bigger picture of your concern, and I respect your community, I am all in to support funding regardless of this bill. We should not be having various animals coming in. People can't have their dogs out. I have a dog named Pauline who was attacked and mauled and ran a mile that I was chasing down into the reserve, lost her paw pads, had to have a toe amputated. I understand the conflicts of coexistence, but it doesn't mean if we can coexist and figure it out. Certainly, I think a grizzly bear might be able to. Where, in my final comment, I'll say unless a question is asked, let's not forget they were actually here first. And they learned to coexist with us, which unfortunately was their existence. And I'm simply saying that there is a role for, for what has been here. And in my mind and in the chairman's, um, has a role of California. Thank you. Thank you Um I temporarily taken over the seat of as the chair here So I just uh uh we we at we at the point where we taking questions and comments from the members I think probably that was as much your close, but we will, I just want to make sure that we have all the questions and comments from members here before we move on. I have a couple. Yes, right. So I'll be briefer in my answer. Yeah, I will too. So it's funny that bear bills are like the most controversial thing. Last year I had one too, and it's unbearable. Yes, the dad jokes are just keep coming. We get the most calls, the highest number of surveys filled out for this. It's very touchy in California right now. I have spoken with other states, Canada, Alaska, everywhere that has grizzly bears and tried to learn more just so that if this study does come to the fact that this is going to happen, we're ready and to just know more in general. I've talked to tribes. It feels like the tribes are a little split as well, even just within the membership of whether they want this. And I try to be a voice for the tribes. My family is Native. I truly try to represent. I have 13 in my district. Some of my tribes, they're not revered as like they're to be feared. And so I just want to make sure that moving forward that that is also brought into the conversation because I don't think that's fair to the smaller tribes that don't have the lobbyists and the groups and the people to help push their interests up. I'm very nervous for this pill. I can't I you would not believe the phone calls and letters and emails we've gotten on this bill. And it's not the fight I thought I was coming here for. Truly, I did not think Predators was going to be my every day all day. And it has become that because that's what my district's facing. And this is going to be in my district. It's they're going to live there. That's where the forest is. and it's cold and I don't see them wanting to live where 37 million more people live than when they were here originally. You know, we have a different California now. And I just don't think that our California today is ready for a grizzly bear. I think it's a very scary, scary option to even look into more than this. And I think there's a lot of other things that we need to fix before because we are so out of balance in our wildlife management right now that I fear for all those other species, the deer, the elk, the antelope. I have now seen wolves more driving. I drive a lot, a six-hour commute every week. I have seen wolves eight times. I have seen a bear off the highway twice in my entire life. I've seen elk off the highway four times. And now I've seen wolves more than any of those. I can go now where I don't see a deer my entire way home and our deer herds are just plummeting because that's what they're eating besides cows. And that makes me nervous. We have one of the biggest migratory herds in the in the nation or used to. And and I just I don't think there's enough for them to eat. And that means they're going to move into town. And my district, unfortunately, has had people killed from mountain lions, had people killed from black bears. You know this is going to be another thing that we have to fear walking out our front door And that that very scary to me But um I am so thankful about the way that you guys did this bill though I want to reiterate that that the conversations and the meetings and checking in to see asking us what we could do to fix it. Unfortunately, none of them knew how to fix it because the idea just is scary to them. So I am respectfully opposed today, but do want to thank you for, all the meetings and conversations and hope to look forward to working with you in the future, too. Thank you very much. Assemblymember. Thank you. I'll keep my name real brief because I know we need to get a BMP and get our votes in, but for the sponsors, I'll be honest with you. I didn't know until today there was already a study. I don't know if you guys are aware that there was a study or not. I did the forward. Okay. So, and it sounds like this study is saying no. If there's a new study and it still says no. It doesn't say no. It doesn't say no. Okay. Well, then let's say, hold on. So if it does say no, will you guys be okay with that? Absolutely. Okay. The other thing is, you have a wonderful Senator carrying this bill and we all cherish her. But unfortunately the bills prior to this with the wolves and stuff and the way that the government is handling with the ranchers and everybody else does not set a good stage for you guys, unfortunately. Our cattlemen, our ranchers, they're the victims throughout the state, and we're bringing back the wolves, or we're bringing back what other predator we're doing. And it's unfortunate that they're losing lots of money. They're losing herds. They're losing pets. And I know California's not stepping up. We're not providing the funds that they need for that. And so I don't know if they would be able to provide all the funds for yours as well, since we're not doing it on the other. So I also can't support this right now, but I get why you guys are doing it. And I just wish we did a better job with that, making sure that we take care of our ranchers and everybody else who, unfortunately, are the ones that are going to have to endure this problem, unlike others. That's it. Thank you. Other members with comments or questions? Assembly member. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thanks to all who have contributed to the conversation. To the point of the concern, which I think is a universal concern, you've acknowledged it in one of your responses, and I think has been a theme today. I was trying to look through the language of what's being asked in the study. Is there a section of this that is going to be requiring that as part of the feasibility, if we can call it that, that we identify also or that the study must identify where the funding will come to ensure that the plan or whatever the recommendations are, if there are recommendations to proceed in one way or another, that that be identified as well? The bill does state that the study would not go forward unless it was appropriated. The study or the actual results of the study? The study. Regarding the results, I would be certainly open to that. I don't, it doesn't, it's not included in the bill because the bill you can't assume that there is going to be a reintroduction. However, if they were, I would certainly be supportive of there would have to be adequate funding, which is why the law enforcement is included, the community. is included to understand what those impacts would be so we would know what funding would be needed. But as I stated to the Assemblymember Hadwick, I agree that in general, coexistence wildlife funding is not sufficient and it needs to be addressed. Certainly, even long before we talk about introducing bears, we're talking about, you know, these other problems as well. So I support the broader question, which is, is adequate funding needed? And yes, I would support that. And if in the event this study called for, yes, we could do a reintroduction, then certainly I would support legislation would say that it would have to be adequately funded. If that's something you'd like us to state in the bill, I'm more than happy to do so and include that in an amendment. That's no problem. Yeah, because I don't think there is anything that calls out for specifically quantifying a cost of a reintroduction as part of the bill the way it is today. So I think I'd like to definitely, I just want to be respectful of people who actually represent districts and communities where they will be impacted, acknowledging that I will likely not be one of those communities. and the fact that there seems to be just universal agreement that it's not sufficient today, and unless that gets addressed, if it comes to the point where the recommendations are reintroduction, that it won't be sufficient the way it is today, that at minimum we should identify what those costs would be as part of this plan and that we should identify where the funding would come from, I think would be appropriate as a part of the ultimate product that you receive at the end of the work that's going to be done. Because the worst that can happen is you come forward and there's this recommendation, okay, well now how much is that going to cost and how are we going to pay for it? Definitely seems to be something we've gotten wrong. And I think I know you well enough and highly respect that. I don't think you want to put us in that position whatsoever. and I think it'd be unfair to do that to a future legislature if those are the results. And so I would ask that you consider that as you proceed with this proposal to try and identify how to do that in a way that's fiscally responsible, in addition to obviously the other ways that you're hoping to be responsible with the way you're doing this work. So permission to respond? Back to our chair. Yeah, please, because I think there are things in the bill that address your concerns. So go ahead. Well, go ahead, Madam Chair. Did you want to answer, Senator? I can certainly come in later. Okay, no problem. Assembly member, as I stated in the beginning, we accepted the committee's amendments. I'm prepared to accept right now. I have no problems with that. If there is not sufficient clarity in terms of identifying the cost and that funds would have to be appropriated if in the event a reintroduction would be recommended, I have no problems with that being added. Regarding your point of respecting, you know, the areas, again, with all, and I think you heard pretty clearly, I've been respectful. So what I would hope though is that you would consider what this bill is asking which is SB 1305 And what that is saying is to have a study to determine if So we not at the stage yet frankly of these other concerns you know that have been mentioned and I have not minimized them In fact, again, I've made a commitment that I'm wholeheartedly supportive of helping to address the existing problems that exist, and certainly would want to continue to build on that if other species were introduced. So please clarify for me then, I understand it's a study, but the way that I've read this is that it's a study and then it will evaluate and will propose under which conditions reintroduction would be. So do you believe it'll just be a study and then someone else would have to make a decision of reintroducing? Yes, there would have to be a subsequent decision and work with the legislature and with the agency. And it, I'm just glancing at it right here. This bill would also require the department by June 30th, 3030 to submit the roadmap document to a relevant budget and policy committees of the legislature. this bill would prohibit, I'm looking on page in this introduction here, that this bill would actually prohibit the reintroduction of the grizzly bear in the state until the department or others have carried out various actions, including and among other things, the following things listed. So this isn't something that because there happens to be a study suddenly, you're going to see a reintroduction. Even if that study recommends that its reintroduction is possible and it recommends certain conditions. That's correct, because it absolutely says these other steps would have to be taken. Okay. And I don't believe anything should move forward that's not appropriated. I agree. Thank you. Assemblymember Bennett? We've been at this a long time, so I'm just trying to keep my comments really brief. I think it's really a financial question that I appreciate my colleague bringing up. And the financial question is twofold. One, do we have enough money to do the study, which I think is what the opponents are partially bringing up. And then do we have enough money to do the planning for a roadmap, which that's the conundrum for me, is that we might have enough money to do the study, but it's hard to do the study unless you have the roadmap all the way done. But should we do the spending for the whole roadmap side of it if the study doesn't indicate that it's hopeful? So my only request is I'm going to support this. I appreciate that the chair has an IRECO as amended to support this. But I think it would be appropriate to have some intermediate step here that deals with what is the realistic feasibility of just whether it's – I mean, almost anything is possible with enough money. So the question isn't, is it possible? The question is, is it realistically where California should go, given budget constraints are part of that? So I just hope you can find a way to get that clarified so that we could have a study about realistic possibilities right before we spend a lot of money on planning something that only is barely possible I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. Well, the bill does state, if appropriated, and as the chair of Sub-Vive and the assistant majority leader, and I've still got six and a half years in my boat at least, a legal opinion will have to determine if I actually have 10, but I know I have at least six and a half. So I am more than willing to work with the committee before the bill comes to the floor to maybe add a step in there to ensure, you know, maybe after the initial that, you know, more, you know, or at the point when we appropriate money for the study, let me strike that. I would probably suggest that we would say that appropriated funds would need to be able to cover the study and the roadmap so that that would be covered. And, you know, when we say, do we have the money? I mean, we're all sitting here passing bills all day long and we have that same question, right? Which is why it has to be appropriated. So I'm committed enough that I believe that the discussion about the introduction of species that were here prior and reflect what we are as a state. I'm not just talking about a butterfly or a bat or who knows what. We're literally talking about what's right in front of you that represents who we are. We're simply asking the question, is that something that is feasible for us to consider? It's not saying it will happen, but I am certainly willing to take the comments that have been here in the committee. the questions about making sure the clarification on appropriations is, is absolutely correct. And we will make sure that's addressed. And I thank you for those, for making the bill better. Absolutely. That's what we always want to do. And I'll be very short, just in answer to the question that you just posed is it, you know, should we ask the question? I'm an enthusiastic yes. Thank you. Thank you. I missed a little bit of the discussion. I do want to comment that there are some provisions in the bill that do relate to trying to create an estimate of what it would take to actually implement a plan should one become feasible and advisable. So I think the inquiry was a good one by my colleague from San Diego. And if this bill goes forward and the analysis is done, there is something to be said for how much it would actually cost. And everything would have to be upon appropriation, including how one would ever even carry out a reintroduction. And so I appreciate that there's an attempt to quantify, and I'm sure by the time it comes, it will be from today. It'll probably have some inflationary costs or whatever it might be involved with how we estimate it. But in any event, I thank you for bringing the bill forward. My apologies for not hearing all of the discussion. And it does enjoy due passes amended at this point, which included the verbiage that related to whether or not it would also be advisable to do this. So I thank you for accepting those amendments. And with that, would you like to close, Senator? I respectfully ask each and every one of your I vote. Give us a chance to at least know. Can she be here? He or she be here. Thank you. Thank you. With that do we have a motion and a second I was not here Okay Anyone make a motion Bennett Hart With that let take a vote Okay Item number six, SB 1305. Motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations. Pappen? Aye. Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Alanis? Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berner? Colosa? Hadwick? Hart? Hart. Hart. Aye. Rodriguez. Rogers. Aye. Rogers. Aye. Thank you. Okay. That's on call. We'll leave it open for future Senate, future assembly members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I see Alvarado Gil is here. Oh no. Excuse me. Senator Cortese. Thank you. habitats making it harder for wild wildlife to find food, reach breeding grounds and adapt to changing conditions. Over time this weakens populations, reduces genetic diversity and increases risk of local extinction. As we invest in our transportation system, we must also consider its impact on the landscapes it crosses. Wildlife connectivity is about protecting healthy ecosystems, not just individual species. This is even more important as climate change forces wildlife to move in search of a suitable habitat. California has invested heavily in habitat conservation through efforts like our 30 by 30 goals, but these investments only succeed if landscapes remain connected. SB 1250 makes wildlife connectivity a core part of how Caltrans plans and manages the state highway system. It requires Caltrans to include wildlife connectivity in its transportation asset management plan, otherwise known as TAMP, to establish performance measures and coordinate with the Department efficient wildlife in the public. The bill recognizes wildlife crossings, culverts, and fencing, essential transportation assets, not just optional extras. Today, these projects are often planned separately, leading to a disjointed effect and leading to missed opportunities and higher costs. SB 1250 integrates connectivity into routine transportation planning, allowing solutions to be built as highway projects move forward. This approach also improves public safety by reducing wildlife vehicle collisions. And that's a very, very important part of the bill. We know these investments work. Crossings paired with fencing can reduce wildlife collisions by up to 90% while reconnecting habitat. Sometimes the fencing is already there, and it's just a matter of pre-planning so that it can be cut or used properly for wildlife purposes. This is a practical, common-sense approach that delivers healthier ecosystems, safer roads, and better use of taxpayer dollars. Here with us today to testify in support of the bill are the sponsor, Michael Jarrett on behalf of the Nature Conservancy, and Kelsey Seamer from the Honey Lake Valley Resource Conservation District. I'll turn it over back to you, Madam Chair, and to them, but at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote. Excellent. Please. Thank you. Good morning, Chair. Michael Jare with the Nature Conservancy, and we are proud to sponsor SB 1250, which would support better planning and agency coordination for wildlife connectivity. TNC thanks Senator Cortese for his leadership on this important issue. At its core, SB 1250 is about protecting California's natural resources while improving public safety and recognizing that those two goals are interconnected. Our highways cut through landscapes that wildlife have been moving across for hundreds of years. When we build roads through these natural corridors, we don't just get animal vehicle collisions, we create barriers. Those barriers limit animal access to food, water, habitat, and mates. Wildlife vehicle collisions are a preventable safety problem on California's roads. Analysis by the UC Davis Road Ecology Center documented an annual statewide cost of above $200 million, with collisions concentrated in predictable hotspots. Studies show that wildlife crossings paired with continuous fencing typically cut large mammal collisions by 80 to 97 percent. SB 1250 will add wildlife connectivity to the Transportation Asset Management Plan, which will change a piecemeal approach to wildlife connectivity to one that is systematic and consistent with other aspects of transportation planning. According to Caltrans, the TAMP represents an investment philosophy of prioritizing preservation activities seeking progress towards broad goal areas. We believe integrating wildlife connectivity into that prioritization will ensure that Caltrans is not just looking at the condition of culverts, bridges, and drainages in a narrow sense, but finding ways to improve the condition of these select number of assets for wildlife connectivity. This can mean a bigger culvert is replaced or a ledge is placed in an underpass. These are simple and cost-effective solutions. Many of these projects are eligible for funding through the Wildlife Conservation Board, federal funds, and private funds. With the right planning, there is a huge opportunity to leverage funds to make our roads safer, reduce traffic congestion, and benefit our wildlife. For all these reasons, TNC urges your support on SB 1250. Thank you. Thank you so much. Please. Good morning, Chair Poppin and members of the committee. My name is Kelsey Seamer, and I'm the district manager of the Honey Lake Valley Resource Conservation District and a proud resident of Lassen County, California. Our district covers more than 2.2 million acres across the greater Lassen-Modoc region, where we work with landowners, partners, and agencies to advance conservation and natural resources and sustainable agriculture. I'm here today to speak in support of SB 1250 because of what it means for both public safety and for wildlife connectivity. Anyone who regularly travels Highway 395 between Reno, Nevada and Susanville, California, knows how dangerous it can be for drivers and for wildlife. When people visit who aren't familiar with the area, I always give them the same two pieces of advice. Only pass in designated passing lanes and don't drive at dawn or at dusk when wildlife are most active. My commute is 11 miles each way. Yet, if not every day, at least every week, I witness the aftermath of a wildlife vehicle collision. This is a reoccurring reality for our region that affects the safety of our residents, our visitors, and our wildlife. More than 830 wildlife vehicle collisions have been documented along this specific stretch of 395. And Caltrans District 2 has the highest number of deer vehicle collisions in California. These collisions are preventable with the right investment in crossing infrastructure. Our district has been fortunate to work with state and local partners to identify solutions that make Highway 395 safer for both wildlife and for people. But too often, these efforts depend on one-time funding and the capacity of local entities to identify priorities, secure grants, and move projects forward. That places the burden on rural communities like ours to protect the people that travel our highways and the wildlife that cross them instead of making wildlife connectivity a routine part of transportation planning SB 1250 could change that It could create a statewide network and framework to integrate wildlife connectivity into transportation investments, ensuring these projects are planned proactively, not just where and when local communities have the resources to make them happen. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you so much. Do we have members of the audience that wish to express their support? Good morning, Kim Delfino in support on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, and the Trust for Public Land. Jeannie Ward-Waller for the Wildlife Conservation Network, Pew, and Climate Plan in support. Rick Ortega, Grassland Water District, Grassland Resource Conservation District in strong support. Jeanne Hurst here today on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz in support. Tasha Newman on behalf of Peninsula Open Space Trust, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, and the California Council of Land Trust in support. Jake Schultz on behalf of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Park District, and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in support. Thank you. Hi there. Mark Henley, California Waterfowl Association in support. Good morning. Jennifer Fearing in support of SB 1250 on behalf of National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Crossing Fund, Wildlands Network, and San Diego Humane Society. Good morning again. Matt Robinson on behalf of Humane World for Animals as well as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, both in support. Thank you. Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support. Thank you. Good morning. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you. Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you. Good morning, Bill Gaines, on behalf of the California Deer Association and the California Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation in support. Okay, thank you so much. I know there's no opposition on file. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Yeah, Doug Houston, representing the Sierra Consortium and Save Mount Diablo, also in support. Sorry about that. Excellent. No opposition on file. Is there anyone wishes to testify in opposition and or express opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Do we have any questions, comments, or a motion? Assemblymember Hadwick. I like it better when I get to support things. I just want to thank you, and well played, bringing a constituent. We actually just finished the first wildlife crossing in the state in my district in Siskiyou County. long time coming and it is unfortunately an everyday occurrence for us and very dangerous and I've seen some of the wreckage and people killed from hitting wildlife in our district so I'm happy to support this and happy that the state and that the author and the state is willing to look into it because it really does every other state that has wildlife like us has these frequently. So they really do save both the people and the cars, which will in turn, hopefully keep our insurance lower and, and the animals. So it's a, it's a good, well-balanced approach. So thank you. And I'm happy to support today. Okay. Anyone else? Assemblymember Hart. Yeah, I'll move the bill. And I just want to thank the author for the really thoughtful approach to understanding how the transportation anset management program is the way to really make sure that this is deeply embedded in the culture of CalTrans so that there thoughtfulness about wildlife connectivity when making improvements to the state highway system It really the way to go Thank you Thank you so much Anyone else? Senator Bennett? Do we have a second? Oh, I knew that. Okay, anybody else? Anybody else? Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you to the committee. Thank you, Senator. With that, we'll go ahead. The motion is a do pass to approves. Item number four, SB 1250. Pappen? Aye. Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Nope. Jeff Gonzalez, no. Alanis? Never. Alanis, not voting. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berner? Colosa? Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Rogers? Rodriquez Rogers. Aye. Rogers, aye. Okay, that's out. We'll leave it open for co-authors. Senator Alvarado-Gill. Please, whenever you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. First, I'd like to say that I will be taking the committee's amendments, and thank you to our chair and committee staff for allowing us that opportunity to improve our bill. I'm here to present Senate Bill 1397, which will require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to maintain, enhance, and expand a statewide human-mountain lion conflicts program in a specified region of the state to be determined by the department. The bill further requires the department to continue and expand scientific research efforts to develop and evaluate non-lethal methods to detour mountain lions from entering our communities. Mountain lions have the widest range of any terrestrial land mammal in the Western Hemisphere, and they have the ability to adapt to various environments. Proposition 117, which was passed by voters in 1990, enacted the California Protections Act, which classified our mountain lion population as specially protected mammals. Since its passing, there has been an increase in mountain lion population, which has led to competition for food sources, not for humans, but for mountain lions. This has led to lions moving into lower elevations in more populated areas, which has led to more frequent encounters with humans, oftentimes in metropolitan and suburban areas. This behavior by a mountain lion is unusual since they are more elusive by nature and prefer to be out during dusk or dawn hours. The pattern of behavior has become more and more common over the past few years with lions being sighted in populated areas across the state, including San Francisco, Sebastopol, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and most recently in the city of Davis. El Dorado County is in my district and has been deemed a hotspot for mountain lion activity, where in 2024 alone, there were over 200 livestock kills. And between 2019 and 2024, there were over 150 depredation permits issued for problem lions. In El Dorado County, El Dorado County is also where we mourn the loss of Taylor Taylor Brooks. He lost his life in 2024 to an unprovoked mountain lion attack while he was hiking with his brother Given the increase in population of both California residents and mountain lions it imperative that the department be more proactive in these efforts to move mountain lions to higher elevations within less populated areas and to make public safety a priority for all California residents. This will not only keep California safe, but will also keep mountain Lions safe from depredation for their own poor behavior. Senate bill 1397 has enjoyed unanimous support so far. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this much needed Senate bill. Thank you. No witnesses in support. No, no. Any members of the audience in support? Hi, Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels, rural Californian in support. Bill Gaines on behalf of the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association, the Black Brat Group, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, the San Diego County Wildlife Federation, California Rifle and Pistol Association, San Francisco Bay Area Safari Club International, and Missouri Safari Club in support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition? I don't believe there are any. Okay. No members of the audience. We'll bring it back to the committee. Questions? Motion? Oh, we already had a motion in a second, did we not? We did. Great. Any questions, concerns? Assemblymember Hadwick. I'm trying not to talk so much. It's my first day on the committee, and I've talked about every bill, I think. I just want to thank you for your work on this, and I know how important it is to you and our district that overlaps, and really appreciate you moving forward with smart legislation that we can try to get some help, especially for the Brooks family. Thank you. To give them some peace. So thank you for the fight. Thank you. Okay. The motion is due pass to appropriations. Well, so we'll go ahead and take a vote. Thank you. Did you want to close? I just respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you so much for the time. This is item number eight, SB 1397. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alanis? Alvarez? Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett? Berner? Colosa? Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Rodriguez? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Thank you. Okay, that's on call, and we'll leave it open for additional votes. Aye. Okay, let's go ahead and do some cleanup voting. And with that, Madam Secretary, we will start with item one. Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you. This is item number one, SB 872. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alanis, Alvarez, Avila-Farias? Aye. Avila-Farias, aye. Baines, Bennett, Berner, Coloza, Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Rodriguez, Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Okay. Okay, that's on call and we'll leave it open and that was due pass as amended. I believe we already had a motion and a second for Caballero. We didn't. We do not have a quorum, so we'll need the motion in a second. We have a motion from Assemblymember Hadwick, a second from Vice Chair Gonzalez, and this is due pass as amended to appropriations. We'll go ahead and take a vote. Okay, so this is item number two, SB 1108. Pappen? Aye. Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzalez? Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alaniz? Alvarez? Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berner? Colosa? Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Rodriguez? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Okay, great. That has enough to get out. Did you say, Madam Secretary? Thank you. All right. We'll take item number three, Blake Spear for add-ons. This is due pass to approves. Let's see. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Berner? Coloza? Rodriguez? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. That's still on call. We'll leave it open. And then we have item number four with Senator Cortese, due pass to approves. Okay. Baines? I think we got everybody that was here, actually. Okay. We'll need a motion on this one, which is layered, which is on the consent calendar. Thank you. Gonzalez, then Hadwick. And this is on the consent. Do you pass to a probes? We'll go ahead and take a vote. Okay. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez. Aye. Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alanis. Alvarez. Avila Farias. Aye. Avila Farias, aye. Baines. Bennett. Aye. Bennett, aye. Berner, Coloza, Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Hart? Aye. Hart, aye. Rodriguez? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. That's out. And we'll go ahead and add on to Alvarado Gill, although I think everybody was in the room for that. Excuse me, I skipped over Richardson. Pardon me. This is due pass as two apropes. I'm going to go ahead and have add-ons. Thank you. Do pass as amended to approves. Jeff Gonzalez, Alanis, Baines, Berner, Colosa, Hadwick? No. Hadwick, no. Rodriguez? That's still on call. And finally, item number eight, which is do pass as amended to approves. Okay. Alanis, Alvarez, Baines, Bennett. Bennett, aye. Berner, Coloza, Rodriguez. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Item number one, SB 872, Bennett. Bennett, aye. Thank you. Senator McGuire, come on in. Good morning. Good morning. How are you doing? Thank you so much, Madam Chair. First of all, to the chair and to the committee, Madam Vice Chair, I do apologize about the delay. Thank you so much for your patience, Mr. Vice Chair. I apologize. It is an honor to be before the committee. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for your work on this critical piece of legislation. Thank you to your staff's work. And of course, we accept the committee's amendments. California's commercial fishing fleet is the lifeblood of rural coastal communities. Many of you know, and we're grateful to work with Assemblymember Rogers on this. The coastal fleet supports more than 100,000 jobs here in California each and every year, hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity. And the Dungeness crab fishery alone is a top tier. It remains one of the most vital commercial fisheries on the West Coast. Here's the bottom line. This bill advances three key reforms. Number one, it strengthens the steelhead trout report card program. Number two, it extends the Dungeness crab fishery management program and it establishes clear rules for vessel transit through closed crab fishing areas This bill has passed the Senate with bipartisan support which we grateful for. And we have two amazing leaders who are with us today, the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, which I am so grateful to Lisa, my goodness, and Annalise Rivero, who is the Director of Policy at Cal Trout, and would respectfully ask for an I vote at the appropriate time. And again, Chair Pappin, thank you for your patience, and I'm sorry to be a little late. And we're not talking about bears. So there we go. Or mountain lions. So we got a motion. Was that a second or something? Okay. Okay. Hi. Thank you, Chair Pappin, committee members. My name is Lisa Damrosch. Speaking for commercial fishermen is more than a job for me. My son is now the fifth generation of my family to fish commercially full-time from our home port of Hathamu Bay. I'm also the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, which is an organization that has advocated for commercial fishing for 50 years this year. Today, PCFFA represents active commercial fishermen in every working port in California, including the Dungeness Crab fleet responsible for 90% of the commercial landings of Dungeness Crab. We strongly support this bill because this bill reflects the process working exactly as it should. The Dungeness Crab fishery is unique. It is the only fishery in California managed directly through statute. It's guided by the legislatively established Dungeness Crab Task Force, which brings together active fishermen elected by their peers alongside CDFW and other stakeholders in a public process to develop practical recommendations grounded in the realities of the fishery. Everything in the crab section of this bill has been recommended by the task force for multiple years. PCFFA has been working alongside the fleet and partners like the Nature Conservancy to help move these recommendations forward. I would like to thank Senator McGuire for carrying this bill and for so many other related fisheries bills that have become law and for being a champion for the commercial fleet for all these years. We will miss him and hopefully be working with someone new to champion for the fleet. I also want to thank his staff, Nicole and Emily, and the committee staff with a shout out to Stephanie for all the hard work on the language of the bill. We respectfully ask for your yes vote today. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Annalise Cervero with California Trout, and I'm here to offer our strong support of this bill. Steelhead are one of the most important recreational fisheries in the state. Unfortunately, populations have declined significantly from historic levels, and now California's six populations are ESA listed. Four are threatened, and two are endangered under both state and federal law. The steelhead report card is the only dedicated angler-funded mechanism the state has for both collecting angling data and funding steelhead restoration. It has been in continuous operation for over 30 years. Anglers buy a report card annually before fishing for steelhead and report their encounters at the end of the season. The fee increased from $9.50 to $15 is modest in context and was developed with input from the California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead. We believe this modest increase will improve the benefits anglers receive from the program, which also funds restoration of the fishery. This program provides some of the only data to state and federal agencies, scientists, and the public on steelhead fishing in California. We believe it is critical for this program to continue. We urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any members of the audience wish to voice their support? Kim Delfina on behalf of Trout Unlimited in support. Thank you. I'm with the Nature Conservancy in support and really appreciate the staff's work on this as well. Thank you. Jennifer Williams East Bay Municipal Utility District in support Tara Thornton Freedom Angels in strong support Great Are there any witnesses in opposition Any members of the audience wishing to express opposition? Nope? Okay, great. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Assemblymember Rogers. Thanks so much, Chair. Senator, I'm glad you got here before the chair got too crabby. I have a couple questions. Ouch. We did not want to let this bill flounder. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. That was a better comment. Specifically for the sub account, there's been a lot of talk about fraud. Is there ability to claw back that money if you need to? Was this another pun? Yes, it was. Look, I think we're able to crack this. but the sincerity is that this sub-account for Dungeon Scrap is really important to the fishery. And there is a spiny lobster sub-account that the fishery oversees. It is the holy grail for the fishery, and we continue to work through that sub-account, if I could just be so candid, with CDFW. Know that CDFW would like to be able to have that under their own administrative rulemaking. We have a bit of a different view with all due respect to CDFW, and we're going to continue having those conversations about the sub-account. We really do believe that the fishery should have the authority over that sub-account, and we will have more to report here in the coming few weeks. Thank you. I'm glad to hear they can use the money in a pinch, though. Oh, yeah, Casey, there we go. And the report cards, can they drop them off anywhere, or is it a designated crustacean that they have to go to? Oh, dear Lord. Casey, there we go, Madam Chair. My goodness. Casey, watch out. That's right, exactly. The words no shame come to mind. That's right. Thank you so much. I love the bill. And thank you for your partnership on this. Thank you so much. Great. Do we have any other questions from any of the members? Okay, we've got a motion and a second. Thank you so much, Senator, for bringing the bill forward. Thank you to your lifelong families, multi-generational contributions. I have imbibed in a crab or two in my day, so I appreciate it. Just over the hill from you. That's right. Anyway, would you like to close?
Would respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much.
Again, I'm sorry for the delay. Great. Excellent. Okay. So this is a motion that is due pass as amended to approach. With that, we'll go ahead and take a vote. Okay. Item number seven, SB 1393. Pappin?
Aye.
Pappin, aye. Jeff Gonzalez?
Aye.
Jeff Gonzalez, aye. Alanis?
Aye.
Alanis, aye. Alvarez?
Aye.
Alvarez, aye. Avila Farias?
Aye.
Avila Farias, aye. Baines? Bennett?
Bennett, aye.
Berner?
Aye.
Berner, aye. Coloza? Hadwick?
Aye.
Hadwick, aye. Hart?
Aye.
Hart, aye. Rodriguez? Rogers?
Aye.
Rogers, aye. Okay, that fills out, and we'll leave it open for a few more add-ons.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator. Have a good day. Thank you.
Okay. Assembly members who happen to have the privilege of serving on water parks and wildlife, please get here to vote if you have not already voted. With that, we're going to do add-ons to get through those folks that are in the room and need to add-on. Item number one, SB 872. Alanis?
Aye.
Alanis, aye. Alvarez?
Alvarez, aye.
Baines? Berner?
Aye.
Berner, aye. Colosa? Rodriguez? Okay. Item number two, add-ons. Alanis? Oh, sorry. Item number two, SB 1108. Okay. Alanis, aye. Alvarez? Aye. Alvarez, aye. Baines, Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Colosa, Rodriguez? Continues to be out. Okay, that one will be out. Item number three, SB 1135. Baines, Berner? Aye. Berner, aye. Colosa, Rodriguez? So that is out. That's out. And item number four, Cortese SB1250. Baines, Berner. Aye. Berner, aye. Coloza, Rodriguez. That's out. We'll leave it open. Okay. Item number five, Laird, which is on consent. Alainese. Consent calendar. Alainese, aye. Alvarez.
Aye.
Alvarez, aye. Baines, Berner.
Aye.
Berner, aye. Colosa, Rodriguez. Great. Item number six, SB 1305, Richardson. Alainese.
Alainese, no.
Baines, Berner.
Aye.
Berner, aye. Colosa, Rodriguez. Okay that out Item number seven McGuire I think everyone in the room has voted on that And then item number eight SB1397 Alvarado Alvarez
Aye.
Alvarez.
Aye.
Alvarez, aye. Bain. Berner.
Aye.
Berner, aye. Salosa. Rodriguez. Okay, that's out. Remains out. I think everyone in this room has completed their voting. I understand that Assemblymember Salosa is on the way. and I have not heard from Assembly Mayor Rodriguez.
Thank you Thank you
We're going to go ahead and add Summit Member Coloza on to the votes. Item number one. Item number one, SB 872. Coloza?
Aye.
Coloza, aye. Item number two, SB 1108. Coloza?
Aye.
Coloza, aye. Item number three, SB 1135. Coloza?
Aye.
Coloza, aye. Item number four, SB 1250, Coloza?
Aye.
Coloza, aye. Item number five, the consent SB 1253, Coloza?
Aye.
Coloza, aye. Item number six, SB 1305, Coloza?
Aye.
Coloza, aye. Item number seven SB 1393 Coloza Aye Coloza aye Item number eight SB 1397 Coloza
Aye.
Coloza, aye. Excellent.
Thank you so much.
With that, we are adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.