April 14, 2026 · Nat Resources · 22,869 words · 18 speakers · 73 segments
Thank you. Thank you everyone. The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. We're meeting here in room 113, so we'll ask all members to get here so we can establish a quorum. We do have seven bills that are proposed for consent. Five bills are double referred and will need to be heard by another Senate policy committee should they pass today. Some of these bills have recommended committee amendments. Should an author agree to committee amendments today for any of these double referred bills, the amendments will be taken in the second policy committee due to the processing time needed for amendments. Bills will generally be heard in file order. Senator Blakespeare has been waiting patiently, so we are going to start with you, Senator, for SB 1135.
Great. Thank you, Chair.
Good morning. Good morning. Good to have you here.
Happy to be here. Hello, committee members, staff. It's great to see all of you. I'm here today to present SB 1135. SB 1135 will reestablish the California Wildlife Coexistence Program to manage and promote human wildlife coexistence. This program operated for three years and was discontinued in 2024 due to a lack of funding. The coexistence program within the Department of Fish and Wildlife is focused on managing and reducing human-wildlife conflict through proactive, non-lethal strategies. It was a highly effective program. It was actually award-winning, as is demonstrated in this publication from 2023. And it allowed a coordinated, proactive approach to the inevitable conflicts that come when wild animals, particularly apex predators like wolves, mountain lions, and bears, live together near people. Human population growth, habitat loss, and the growth of industry across California inevitably leads to interactions between humans and wildlife. Recent headlines have described some of these interactions. For example, a bear living in a basement in Los Angeles and wolves predating on livestock in Northern California. As wildlife naturally migrates throughout our communities, we need a tailored approach. No two animal species are the same, and each has unique behavior patterns and territories. SB 1135 recognizes these differences and gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs. The tools can include tactics such as fladry, which is hanging flag strips that deter wolves. They can also include livestock guardian dogs noise and light devices conflict reporting and other non responses For example someone calling a hotline and asking what do I do if I see a baby deer And the person says you leave it alone because its mother will come back soon It that kind of interaction that people need to have 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 alike. With me today in support, I have Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation, a non-profit fighting for Conservation of our nation's collective national heritage. And also Pam Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife.
Thank you, you each have two minutes.
Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation, proud to co-sponsor SB 1135. As the senator said, people and wildlife are increasingly sharing landscapes and we're 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. These movements are further frustrated by barriers like roads, fences, human development, and other habitat connectivity challenges. Over the last five years, wildlife incident reports logged by the Department of Fish and Wildlife increased by 31%, and calls, emails, and field contacts rose by 58%. Science, fortunately, 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. But despite the need and demonstrated effectiveness, the successful three-year program with trained regional staff around the state was not re-upped when term-limited funds dried up in 2024. As discussed at length in an assembly informational hearing in January and acknowledged by agency and department leaders, the absence of this effort is being felt acutely across urban, suburban, and rural California. A recent example is illustrative. A statewide wildlife coexistence program, like established by SB 1135, could have saved Blondie's life. This black bear's death was preventable by deploying clear and repeated messaging to educate the community. When people came too close to Blondie and her two baby cubs, she instinctively swiped to protect them and was then proclaimed a public safety bear. CDFW decided the only way to keep the community safe was to kill her and send her two cubs to a rehab facility. That community is clearly and understandably devastated. And now, nonprofit wildlife rehabilitator, San Diego Humane Society, which strongly supports this bill, faces months of time-consuming, expensive care to raise blondies, cubs, stepping in for their mother to try to teach them how to be wild bears. When those cubs are re-released back to the San Gabriel Mountains, they run the risk of facing a fate similar to their mother. We can and must do better. Disinvesting in cost-effective, proactive efforts only increases costs to address the negative impacts of conflicts, and those get paid by the state, local governments, families, communities, nonprofits, local law enforcement, ranchers, and animals. A broad and diverse coalition of organizations support this legislation and want to see the state invest in strategies that are not just nice to have but need to have. We urge your support today.
Okay, thank you. We appreciate your handy stickers there. Okay, go ahead.
Thank you. Good morning, committee members. I'm Pamela Flick. I'm the California Program Director for Defenders of Wildlife. the other proud sponsor of SB 1135. Gray wolves are native to California and they belong here. From OR7's arrival in late 2011 after an epic journey from northeastern Oregon to our nine current packs of wolves, it remarkable that these ecologically important animals have naturally returned to our state under their own wolf power But wolves have returned to a very different state than that of the 1920s when they were driven to local extinction But wolves are adaptive critters and can survive and even 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 comes to gray wolf recovery, but the situation in Sierra Valley last year changed things for the worse. The lethal removal of the bayam seo 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, managing attractants, physical barriers, predator deterrence, and livestock husbandry practices, is more effective and cost-efficient in the long run. Such conflict mitigation efforts should have been put in place well before nearly 90 livestock losses were incurred by a single wolf pack last year. It's imperative that proactive strategies be deployed early and often and at the landscape scale. If one ranch uses conflict deterrence and their neighbors don't, the entire effort can unravel. And 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 proper and documented use of practicable, proactive coexistence measures. We are working collaboratively with our counterparts at the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association and are optimistic that we are on a path to amendments that reflect a shared vision for this program. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, we will now have others in support. Anyone else in support who would like to comment?
They're in the hall. Oh, in the hall.
Okay.
Just buying some time, Mr. Chair. There are several folks outside.
I'm Matt Robinson with Shawgetter, Antwoosh, Melser, and Lang. Today I'm here on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor and Tomcat Ranch, both in support.
Thank you. All right.
Hi, Jenny Berg, California State Director for Humane World for Animals in support.
Anjali Ranadeve, founder of Women for Wolves. We've lost our connection to wildlife and nature by 60%, so it's more important now than ever to make sure that we safeguard our wild spaces and our wildlife, so we are in support of SB 1135. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members. On behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, Audubon, California, California Wolf Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, Endangered Habitats League, Environmental Protection Information Center, In Defense of Animals, Promise I'm Almost Done, Mountain Lion Foundation, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Resource Renewal, and Wild Futures. We are in very strong support. Thank you.
Tracy Iser with Women for Wolves. With the dismantling of the US Forest Service, it's more important now than ever to protect our wildlife and fund those who are purposes to here protect it in strong support.
Thank you. Hi, my name is Rena Hashemi, I'm the co-founder of Women for Wolves. SB 1135 is about responsible wildlife management rooted in coexistence, not crisis management. Let invest in prevention protect our wildlife and choose coexistence please Thank you Thank you Good morning Chair and members Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund Strong support Thank you Good morning, Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Kim Delfino on behalf of the California Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the California Native Plant Society in support. Okay. Thank you. We will now turn to opposition. Do we have any lead opposition witness? We do. Let's see. Do you want to make room? Sure. That would be great. Okay. Excellent. You each have two minutes. Apologies. Legislation in support. Okay. Okay. Just under the wire, you made it. Okay. Good morning, Chair Becker and members. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association. We are currently opposed to this measure unless it is amended. I do want to start out by saying that we are broadly supportive of the two programs at CDFW that this bill proposes to govern, the Human Wildlife Coexistence Program and the California Wolf Program. That said, we are currently opposed to this bill because we're not quite there yet on elements of the Wolf Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program under this bill. We have proposed amendments to the author and the sponsors that would do a few things. First of all, we are supportive of the 50% set aside for nonlethal deterrence in this bill because there is demand out there for it. But when the fund condition of the compensation program gets particularly low, we want to set aside that set aside. Additionally, we want to make sure the funds for nonlethal deterrence are used judiciously. So we have proposed amendments that propose to only require this where it's foreseeable that there would be wolf conflict. Finally, we have proposed, as Ms. Flick mentioned, a practicability element to this legislation, and that would have some factors for CDFW to consider in determining whether or not nonlethal deterrence is practicable, including, for instance, the availability of state funding. We are negotiating with the author's office and with the sponsors. Those have been optimistic conversations. in the spirit of this bill. They have been collaborative and not confrontational. We are hopeful that we will get to a place where CCA can at least remove our opposition, if not support this bill down the road, but we are not there yet on elements of the Wolf Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Very helpful. Please go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Stephen Fenneroli with the California Farm Bureau. Again, same here with an opposed and less amended position. and I'd reiterate Cattleman's comments around practicability and reality. I'm optimistic, again, about the progress we've made with the supporters of the bill, and I would just mention that in a best-case scenario, this bill, along with our joint budget ask, which Senator Blakespear has graciously put forward, and with the work from the sponsors and our two groups, will hopefully find a framework that is successful for this program going forward. I do just want to pause kind of on the comments there and just say a big thanks to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, who in the last two weeks have rolled out frameworks for hazing, for county liaisons, and better information sharing and options to reduce attractants on the land, which are all things that we've been asking for, all things that make this program better, all things that help our ranchers going forward. So for that, I'm tremendously thankful to the department and Director Hartle for her work. Thank you. Okay, well thank you. Do we have others in opposition? Add on. I think we do have a few outside. Hi, sorry. I'm actually in support of SB 1135. I'm tired to die. I'm from women for wolves and I just want to say- Great. Okay. Okay. Great. All right. We're going to bring it back to the committee. I know we'll have some discussion here. Senator Grove.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, number one, thank you for working with the opposition. We had a mountain lion bill last year that was something that Senator Alvarado-Gill wanted to do, which is basically some of the language that you have in this bill on deterrence. and making sure that the wildlife doesn't come into the neighboring where kids play, right, where kids play. We have the same situation with wolves, but you have been an author who has, even from coastal San Diego, you have worked with the North State and our law enforcement partners, our cattlemen, like especially in Sierra View, that have lost hundreds of livestock, baby calves. And I think that you've just worked really well, and I appreciate that very much. I do want to reiterate what the opposition said, that we're not there yet. I signed on to the letter of support based on your request because I thought we would get to a place where the ranchers felt like that they really had a chance to have cattle survive. And it is a dollars and cents thing, but it's also a legacy thing. You know, when these baby calves drop on the ground and then two wolves start ripping them apart, it's not the prettiest thing you've ever witnessed. And when you live in that area, and I wish I could have put this in a picture that would be better. Permission to just show a photograph, Mr. Chair?
Granted.
When you live in that area, you wake up to things like this. This is, I don't know if you can see it, but it's a doorstep and there's a bloody mess outside the door. These people live rural, and they have to keep their outside working dogs that chase cows, that bring the cows off the hill so you don't have to take horses up. They have to keep them indoors 90% of the time because the wolves will attack them. This is a 700-pound elk that was drug onto this porch by a wolf that killed that elk on the front porch. This family has children that plays out in their front yard that they can't play out in their front yard because you never know when a wolf is going to show up. So I realize these wolves don't show up in South Beach area in San Diego, but they do show up in my district and in Senator Dolly's district. I track the calves. The ranchers send me information and photographs. And I do think that we'll get to a place where, because I do think you're being balanced. And I'm not making fun of you if you're in San Diego, but I just think you're balanced. And if we could get you up there to where you can really see how the livestock operate in these wolves. and they're not puppies. They're probably as tall or taller than that table right there. These wolves are not puppies. They run in packs and they are very vicious when they go after, like I said, a baby calf on the ground. The cow gives birth and they just start ripping that cow apart or they'll chase it down to complete exhaustion and then rip it apart. So there has to be some compassion for that as well. I realize it's a dollar and cents thing for the but it has to, we have to have some. I appreciate the fact on the funding letter to the budget request I appreciate that California Department of Fish and Wildlife Chuck Bonham is gone I think Megan is the new director I haven had an opportunity to spend time with her but I did spend a significant amount of time with Chuck Bonham and Secretary Crofit on the wolf situation up there And, you know, we do need to keep them out of the residential areas. It's just a fact. You can't have wolves running on the playground at a schoolyard either where toddlers and TK people, TK kids are there. It's just not safe. I do have a couple of questions just to ask. How does 1135 ensure ranchers are fully compensated for both direct losses and indirect impacts for fence damage and herd disruption? And I think that's what they're looking for, right?
Thank you, Senator Grove. What was the last part of the question?
It was about full compensation for direct and indirect losses. Indirect losses that impacts like fence damage and herd disruption.
Sure.
These wolves will go after a herd and they'll plow through a fence just to get away from them.
Yes, sure. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for the question. I do want to note, as Mr. Wilbur and others have noted, including myself, that we're in communications with both the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association. Yeah, and I do too. Yeah, we have a good working relationship to say the least. I do want to note also that in parallel right now, California Department of Fish and Wildlife is conducting an evaluation of the Wolf Livestock Compensation Program. So there's two things that are happening kind of in parallel right now. We just completed the fourth or fifth series of workshops just yesterday in West Sacramento in CDFW's office. And we are talking about all three prongs of the program. So if you're not familiar, prong one is the direct losses for confirmed or probable livestock losses. Prong two is the reimbursement for non-lethal tools and strategies to reduce wolf-livestock interactions. And then prong three is the indirect losses. We haven't yet got to the indirect losses. That is quite literally the next thing on our agenda for our workshop that is going to be on May 4th. And we just scheduled that yesterday. So I have suggested to CCA, Cattlemen's, and Farm Bureau that we hold off on trying to get into the nitty-gritty of the details on suggested amendments on 1135, because I don't want to get out in front of that collaborative and public process that CDFW is doing. So we are talking about it not just between our organizations, but a much larger working group, including ranchers, cooperative extension, the California Wolf Project that's being run at California UC Berkeley. And then CDFW is also committed to go out to the communities and hold public meetings. We're also working on a survey that's going to go out to both folks that have already participated in the compensation program and get their feedback on what's working and what hasn't been working on that program. program as well as potential participants that are in Wolf Country and the general public because we're talking about taxpayer money, right? So we're trying to cast a very wide net to get feedback on the program and then integrate that into a set of recommendations to the department for what that program will look like going forward should funding become available. I appreciate it.
You said CDFW would go out there.
They have been out there.
They have been out there and Wade Crowfoot has been out.
secretary has been out there to really get it kind of get a grasp on this because I think that what we try to implement in this building and if you have no idea what's happening out there it doesn't work like I know that one of the that one of the things that you mentioned in your opening testimony was dogs like dogs is a deterrent the wolves eat the dogs no matter what kind of dogs they are They could be king corsets They could be German shepherds They could be pit bulls
And the wolf wins. And some of these animals are family pets, too, not just, you know, border collies and things like that that run the cattle operation, or that participate in the cattle operation. So what we think, you know, you guys might think, somebody in this room might think, oh, a dog will scare a wolf. A dog will not scare a wolf. It doesn't work. That deterrent doesn't work. But you can respond if you'd like.
Before we do that, let's just take a moment and establish a quorum, if we may. Senators Becker? Here. Becker here. Sarato? Allen? Cabaldon? Here. Cabaldon here. Cortese? Grove? Here. Grove here. Stern? Stern here. Okay, a quorum has been established. Please continue with your questioning.
So I'll stop with my commentary and I'll just go on to the next question. I just want you guys to know that what you guys think works here in this building, and it sounds like a great idea, it doesn't work on the ground to the people who have to deal with this. So including mountain lions, it's not just the wolf situation, it's the mountain lion situation as well. But how do we ensure that 50% of the allocation for non-lethal deterrence does not diminish available resources for compensating verified livestock losses? Like how do we make sure that even though they're doing everything they can to deter it, based on what the law is going to say when this bill passes, is what I'm assuming is going to happen. How do we make sure that there's still reimbursement for the loss of revenues and a dollar and cents thing to the livestock?
Yeah, that's a great question. Thank you. And Mr. Wilbur actually spoke to this, and I made one word in my comment that talked about practicability. So we're talking right now about practicability of these nonlethal deterrents. So that is an ongoing conversation. We haven't landed, just as they've said, but we are working hard to make sure that we come to alignment on that. I also wanted to mention you mentioned that you haven't spent any time with the new director, Megan Hurdle. I do want to note that she also just recently went on, I think, a seven-county tour of Northern California and spoke with ranchers and sheriffs and other county officials and really went on a listening tour. and we've heard really excellent feedback from the communities up there that just having her presence there and her listening ear has been really helpful. I urge you to reach out to her and spend some time with her as well.
We've had a couple of meetings that we haven't been able to secure. One was my fault. You're busy people, I'm sure. It just didn't work out. And that was based on the rules committee confirmation. But so I guess I appreciate that very much. What we want to make sure is that there's dollars or resources set aside for that livestock loss. How's it? And I guess, is there something in the bill or are you willing to put something in the bill that allows the local elected sheriff in that county to issue degradation permits like they do sometimes in other places where there is a public safety issue? If you have a wolf, like for instance, there was a degradation issued, permit issued, I believe, I believe, for the mountain lion that drug a kid off a path and took him out in the woods, killed him, buried him, and came back later to eat him. So once that mountain lion attacked a human and then attacked another human, that mountain lion is not safe. You can't scare it away. They tried tree and free. They tried all these things, and it doesn't work, and it's still coming back after human taste. like and then they were able to eliminate that threat for public safety is there anything that's going to address the issue for sheriffs to issue degradation permits for public safety? Not at this time because wolves have a
different legal status than mountain lions in California you know they are protected under CESA so a depredation permit is not allowable at this time Okay How does the bill account for situations where nonlethal deference is not practical or feasible
due to cost, terrain, or land use restrictions?
Yeah, that's the practicality thing that we're working on right now.
It's going to be the next step.
Yep.
So I appreciate, I mean, like I said, I signed on the letter for the request because I think the author has really acted in really good faith. And Chuck Bonham was going out to those communities. I'm glad to know that Megan is doing it as well. So I do know that everybody's trying to figure out a way to solve this problem. And, but we do have, you know, the wolf is an apex predator. And I know that it's protected. But it's, if you had this livestock in this, if you had this wildlife in your schools, in your communities, in those communities that you guys represent, your constituents would be all over you to stop it. They don't feel safe. I mean, like that was a 700-pound elk that a wolf drug on their doorstep. And those aren't outlier things. Those are things that happen almost on a daily basis. Not so much the elk, but the dead cattle and the dead calves, absolutely. So, sure. Through the chair.
Go ahead. Oh, sorry, sir. Go ahead. I just wanted to say that your description is making the case, and I think you know, for this program. When this program existed for the several years it did, there were dedicated staff in the region who were working not just on wolves but on all the different species and engaging directly with the community and providing that advice and technical assistance that they need. And it is the results of disinvesting in that is the experience that we're now having not just in your community in Monrovia, in downtown San Francisco. I mean, that's why we're so passionate about trying to put this program forward so that we're being proactive on a species-specific, kind of risk-specific approach up front to avoid, then mitigate, keep conflicts from happening and escalating to these kinds of situations.
You have wolves in downtown San Francisco?
No, they had mountain lions and coyotes on occasion. Coyotes fairly frequently, mountain lions on occasion. I thought you said wolves. Sorry. Okay.
Well, I appreciate the author working with the opposition. I hope we get there. I really do hope we get there because it's something that desperately needs to be addressed, not only for wildlife. And I'm not against the wildlife, just something for wildlife, but we have to protect human population as well. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to ask those questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I want to agree pretty much with the whole line of discussion, maybe not all the specific requests, but everything that Senator Groves said. I represent the, I think I'm the most northern state legislator on this committee. And livestock and the human, and the WUI and all those things, they're very real conflicts in my district. And obviously if this were, if Senator DeRosa were running this, we would insist on a binding agreement. If we're going to coexist with wolves and grizzly bears and mountain lions, they should have to sign on, they should sign an MOU with us. They can't. And so that's what makes this hard, is that there's nobody on the other side of the table to agree. So we have to figure out how to coexist from our perspective and from the perspective of the various species that we cohabitate with in the state. So I appreciate the incredible complexity. I do think the cattlemen and Farm Bureau, the issues that they've raised are reasonable and we should be addressing. I'm encouraged by both the author's comments and the sponsors. in terms of the progress on that work, because I think that is very important. The other thing I just want to observe that because we've typically framed this and I think even in the opening we frame this principally as this is happening because of kind of humans us consuming habitat and so we're forcing species into smaller and smaller niches that are sometimes are viable and then and so we end up with conflicts and all of that is true and has been true since these programs began but we grappled with this a lot on the statewide 30 by 30 committee as well. And as human caused climate change was identified as an issue, back then many folks in this room, many folks who are supporters of the bill and several of us sort of forecast this was gonna be a much bigger problem. That if Stockton is seven degrees hotter, if most of Senator Grove's district and half of mine are six or seven degrees hotter, then that changes the ecosystem in very fundamental ways. And so I think we've tended to think about species and land conservation as sort of fixed in space. Like, ah, they've always been here, and therefore we need to do everything possible to make sure that we're not conflicting here. But if the microbial environment and then everything up the food chain to the apex predators all depends on a climate that's six degrees cooler than it will be in Sanger or in Fairfield or elsewhere, then that's not the right framing any longer because we should expect a lot more species movement that's unexpected and it isn't caused by a housing development, but caused by our failure as a species to address our contributions to climate change. And so the need for this is going to become much, much more important than simply the traditional WUI issues, but really it is both the lack of food and the existing ecosystem, but also the fundamental ecosystem suitability for many of these species and the species underneath them on the food chain that's going to cause this to be a much bigger issue. So I'm very encouraged to see the work on it and getting ahead with it, both with the bill and with the budget proposal, and congratulate the author and the sponsors for looking at this smartly and collaboratively to make sure that it actually works. And thanks so much to Senator Grove for helping to ground truth this, because it's definitely possible. We know the strategies that will not solve it, but at least make it as solved as it can be. And I'm encouraged and hopeful that you're going to get there as well. Well, I'll just say for my part, Santa Clara County, which I represent, was actually in the top five for wildlife incidents in the recent CDFW data. And I'll echo, I want to appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I knew we'd have a robust discussion. I've heard the Senator from Bakersfield talk passionately. Well, I mean, you know, it's a very serious incident that have happened in her district. Some of this we, in Senator Richardson's Grizzly Bear bill, we had some of this discussion previously. So, but I think everyone commends you for your work and to hear the opposition speak about that collaborative work. And a bill on coexistence is very heartening. Because I think we recognize, certainly I recognize, the desire for, and we talked about the kind of balance. Do we want to have some of that wildness in California? I certainly do. But we do have to make sure, of course, that we do manage it with the people whose livelihoods and families. We don't want people afraid to leave their homes, essentially, which is one of the things I've heard from the Senator from Bakersfield in the past. So we do need to take steps on this. I signed on to the complimentary budget request to fund the program opposed by the bill because of the importance Again I want to thank you So I will be supporting the bill today Would you like to close Well, I really appreciate the engagement from the committee and also from those who spoke in opposition to the bill and the sponsors. We are really working on essentially a global response to this with the state, with all the interests that are affected, with those who care about protecting wildlife. I think we will get there, and we're off on a really good start because we have identified what needs to happen, and we're working together through a series of many meetings and things to make sure that we get there. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. Do we have a motion? Okay. Senator Cabaldon has a motion to pass to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Serato? Allen? Cabaldon? Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Cortese? Grove? Stern. It's 2 to 0 on call. Okay. That is 2 to 0 for now, on call. You have another opportunity. Thank you. Your other bill is on consent. Thank you for joining us. I think we're on it. Oh, look at that. See, they're all coexisting. I love interviews of these. I love interviews of these. So who's been patiently waiting. Thank you so much. Okay, I'm going to ask for some quiet while we... Senator Tarazzo, welcome. Thank you. Go ahead. Is this on? Hello, hello. Is it on? Okay. Okay. Wow, it's noisy. Good morning, everyone. And I just want to start out by saying we have coyotes up and down the sidewalks in front of my house in northeast L.A. I know. Anyway, good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for all your work and having the discussions with the opposition. Appreciate that. And I want to thank your staff. They worked really hard on this. And so appreciation to all of you. And good morning to all the members. For over two decades, California's Show Me the Water laws have established a mechanism to help local governments understand whether large-scale developments have a reliable water supply. These assessments look at whether a development project has been accounted for in long-term water supply planning, and if not, whether sufficient supply exists to serve the project alongside existing and future uses over a 20-year period. Water supply assessments, or WSAs, apply to projects meeting certain requirements, including residential developments over 500 units or non-residential projects that demand a similar or greater amount of water. Because WSAs have been in place for more than two decades, we have largely taken them for granted. But before these safeguards existed California approved developments based on what was often called paper water Water that looked available on spreadsheets but did not exist in reality The consequences were real. Some communities were built without sufficient water to support the people living there. and residents were forced to go to grocery stores to purchase large bottles of water because the water they were promised at home was not actually available. These harms disproportionately impacted poor communities and communities of color. WSAs give local governments, developers, and water agencies the information they all need to align growth with water supply. That kind of upfront clarity helps ensure a new housing and development can actually be built and operate as intended. A WSA was triggered when a city or county determined that a certain large-scale development was subject to CEQA. In recent years, as the state has streamlined housing and exempted some types of development from CEQA, the WSA is no longer triggered, meaning some projects are no longer required to go through this important step. This bill ensures that as we continue to build much-needed housing and other development projects, we are also equipping local decision makers with the information about the water supply to serve those projects. With increasing variability in water conditions, including declining snowpack and potential drought scenarios, making sure California's growth is supported with reliable water is more important than ever. At its core, this bill is about making sure water supply planning and land use planning continue to be linked together and that the WSA can continue as a tool for these local efforts. Mr. Chair, I ask for your aye vote, members of the committee. With me today I have Debbie Michael with the sponsor of the bill, East Bay Municipal Utility District. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, thank you. I'm Debbie Michael. I'm a legislative representative with the East Bay Municipal Utility District, or EB Mudd. We are pleased to sponsor SB 1085. I'd like to thank the chair and also the committee staff for the thorough analysis. I'd also like to thank Senator Durazzo for authoring this important statewide bill. EB MUD sponsored legislation dealing with water supply planning, including the 1983 bill, which put into place the requirement for urban water management plans, which are long-term plans for water supply. There were multiple efforts in the 1990s to link water supply planning and land use planning, including SB 901 by Costa in 1995, which was the origin of the water supply assessment statute. This was at a time when paper water was common. The 2001 Show Me the Water legislation recognized the importance of these two efforts. The land use planning and water supply planning are tied together. EB Mudd was involved in those two bills as well, SB 610, Costa, and SB 221, Kuhl. The water supply assessment process focuses on identifying the water supply needed for large-scale development, as the senator indicated. Once the assessment is completed, it goes to the city or county to help inform their land use decisions on the project. What we found at EB-MUD is that early coordination with project developers through the water supply assessment or the WSA process ensures that the water supplier can discuss the infrastructure improvements and related costs that may be necessary any conservation measures in place and whether recycled water is available to serve certain projects Without the WSA, those discussions happen further along in the development process. SB 1085 allows this process to continue, even if the large scale development isn't subject to CEQA. And I would say that the legislature at the time this policy was put in place in 2001, I don't think contemplated CEQA exemptions for 500 dwelling unit projects. So this policy has important statewide implications, especially in light of the impacts of climate change and future droughts on water supply. EB Mudd respectfully request your aye vote on SB 1085. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I understand that we do have a fair amount of people who would like to add on here. So in the room and outside the room, so we will go ahead. Mr. Chair, members, Matt Broad for Unite Here International Union in support. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake Committee, also speaking for the Sierra Club of California, Clean Water Action, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and Restore the Delta. Senator. Hello, Keeley Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Good morning, Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies in strong support. Thank you. Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance in support. Thank you. Jack Worson on behalf of the Lievenheim Municipal Water District in the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support. David Quintana with the Irvine Ranch Water District in support. Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council here in support for the Senator. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Good morning, Chair and members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the Sea of Sacramento and on behalf of my colleague Ryan O'Jackene with Regional Water Authority. Good morning, Kyle Jones with Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program, Planning and Conservation League, Defenders of Wildlife, and Trout Unlimited in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman and members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of California Environmental Voters. Thanks to the author. Good morning, Chair and members. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm with Franco here on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District in support. Okay. All right, we're going to turn to opposition witnesses. Yeah, can we make room there? That would be great. Excellent. Go ahead, Murray. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors, representing the California Building Industry Association. We appreciate the time the author's staff has spent with us regarding our concerns with the bill. However, we remain opposed at this time. CBIA has no objection to planning for future water needs and verifying that housing developments have sufficient water supplies. I'd like to emphasize that under current law, even for projects that are exempt from CEQA, no housing can be built without a verified water supply. This bill, as drafted, creates unintended consequences that could slow down the very housing projects the legislature has worked hard to streamline. First, we don't believe the legislature overlooked water supply assessment when it enacted AB 130 and SB 131 last year. The decision to exempt qualifying housing projects from CEQA necessarily included a WSA requirement, which has always been embedded in the CEQA process. SB 1085 would chip away at last year's policy choices. Second, WSA is not the only safeguard water agencies already prepare urban water management plans, projecting water supply demand, and the Subdivision Map Act requires a binding water supply verification before a map with more than 500 units can be approved. The WSV, the water supply verification, like the WSA, includes a 20-year analysis, including dry years, but isn't just a forecast. It has legal teeth. Third, and the final point, extracting WSA from the secret process creates legal uncertainty. Under current law, you cannot sue over a water supply assessment by itself. You can only challenge it as part of a broader CEQA lawsuit. Under this bill, the water agencies will be required to create a document and provide it to the lead agency for review. And the review process, the CEQA process for CEQA-exempt projects doesn't exist, and the agency is not legally in charge of evaluating it. CBIA is concerned that WSA's outside of the CEQA process will become an invitation for more lawsuits undermining last year's CEQA reforms, adding costs and delays to critically needed housing projects. We don't object to providing water agencies with notice when housing projects are proposed so they can undertake water supply assessments. We do object to having them be considered as part of the project approvals that are exempt from CEQA. So as currently drafted, the bill is a step backward for housing supply. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Are there others in opposition? No. Okay. I'm going to take it back to our members for discussion. Senator Cabaldon.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I was alive. I was in and around this building when these bills were originally passed 20-something, 25 years ago. And they were in response largely to, and the reason why they applied to such large developments is we had, one, the legislature was very concerned about growth in total. Kind of the opposite orientation that we have been in the last several years, where housing development was seen as a problem to get under control. I mean, we should be very clear that that was California's orientation for quite a bit of time. And we've seen the consequences of that. I was a part of that movement, too, so I accept responsibility. It was the right thing to do in terms of trying to protect the environment and communities, but it also had consequences. But we saw, even in this county, in Sacramento County where we're sitting, we saw lots of major projects, mainly kind of sprawling subdivisions outside of existing jurisdictions coming forward with large water needs and with pretty shaky water supplies being verified for them. And so the Costa Bill and the Cule Bill were important steps forward to try to get a handle on that. Obviously now we are in a different position in terms of housing production. Housing production is not something we're trying to disincentivize. So I think the issues that the BIA has raised are important ones. I think that the and you know these these assessments don apply to folks who have private water services which is my district My district has everything I know Senator DeRazzo district is the same We have some cities and counties that depend on private water companies investor some that are municipal districts, which despite the name are not cities, like their East Bay Mud. There are other special districts. And then many where the public water system is a function of the city, sometimes the county, but definitely the city, and those are all very different circumstances. And so I think an area of concern to me is, I'm not sure without the litigation and everything else, like what's the point of these assessments in some cases, but the one area that I think is the most problematic is for those where the city and county are the same as the water system. So if I am the mayor of my own city and we have a project, a large residential project comes in, remember we're really mostly talking about infill projects because that's what AB 130 applied to. So it's no longer out in the middle of nowhere. Who knows where the water is? So it's an infill project. It's in my RHNA list. It's in my housing element that we're going to build here. I've built my general plan around it. So the project comes in. And so now I write a letter to the public water system saying, pursuant to the Cule-Costa or the Durazo bill, please provide the water assessment. And I put that in the mail, walk it downstairs in City Hall, put it in the mailbox, send the letter off. The next day I go to the mailbox and pick up the letter, and it came from the city. But now I'm the mayor in charge of the water system, and it's saying, please tell us whether there's water available. It's the same people. And that's because the city is the one that operates the water system. So, of course, the city has already had to do the urban water management plan. The city has done the water system master plan that is the basis for its impact fees and everything else. It's done the water assessment for purpose of its general plan and, therefore, its housing element in the first place. So there's no – I'm asking myself to do an assessment of what I've already assessed. So this particular situation where the public water system and the city and county are the same thing, there's no value being added. I understand, I absolutely get the East Bay Mudd example because in that case, they're different entities. And so I have cities in my district, I'm served by East Bay Mudd that are making decisions and are reviewing permits. They have no idea, they can't make commitments about the water supply or deliverability without getting an assessment from East Bay Mudd. So in that case, it makes sense, and that's very common in California. But it's equally common for the city to be the water purveyor and directing them to conduct a separate study when they already must. And particularly as the witness said, pursuant of the subdivision map act, they can't approve the project without a hard water connection already. So I think that's, I'm not totally convinced about the overall bill, but but I get where the author is trying to go and absolutely want to continue to work on it. But the area that I think is very problematic here is the creation of this extra set of layer of processes and studies that aren't needed because when the public water system is also the permitting agency for the project in the first place, they already have all the information that is necessary in order to make that decision, and doing an additional study is simply wasted time and money and delay in the project itself. So I had a brief conversation about the author but right before the hearing and so obviously there questions to be resolved and I just hope that you continue to explore some of these issues and try to assure that we getting this as precise and tight as possible so that we getting the water information that is necessary to bring that land use and water connection together without sending folks on missions to do work that is not necessary and costly and imposes delays on the housing that we need to build. Would you like to comment on that?
Sure, I just want to say, obviously, our intention is to lessen, not increase. And I think that's really important because when there's coordination up front, when there's early coordination between land use and the water use, that is supposed to help the efficiency of the process not increase bureaucracy or other steps. So that's our intention. I don't know if, Deb, if you want to, Ms. Michael, want to add to that? Sure. Thank you, Senator Capaldon, for the question. I think you're right. It is very important for the special districts in California. We don't know when those projects are moving forward at the city or county level. I will say that for cities and counties, we do have some city support from various jurisdictions. But the way that the water supply assessment works and really what the senator is doing with the bill is trying to leave the water supply assessment statute intact because it has 25 years of sort of proven track record of enabling conversations at the outset of the planning process. But for a city, if a project moves forward, they can just use the urban water management plan to ensure that the precise amount is accounted for in that urban water management plan. That's written into water supply assessment law. One way they can turn around the water supply assessment more quickly is by doing that check against whether the water is included in that long-term planning document.
Yeah, I get that, but there's no conversation if the City of West Sacramento has got a project in front of it. There's no conversation that needs to be induced. So I'm curious what you're saying, but they shouldn't be doing this at all because they are the answer to their own question. There's no dialogue or negotiation that has to happen because in that case, which isn't uncommon, that they are the holder of the information and the decision maker on the housing permit in the first place, and they're already aware of that. So having them go through, even if they have an expedited way through an assessment process, they're still doing an assessment that doesn't provide any value to them, to the project, or to public engagement because the public engagement is on the project itself by the same jurisdiction that is considering the water plan.
Okay. Okay, any final thought on that? Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, Senator Stern.
Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we come from different lands, land too much water and land of not enough water, And so you sort of reflected in the orientation. It almost seems like maybe not duplicative, but sort of excessive to be studying where your water comes from when you have too much water and it's overflowing and you're actually trying to manage flood risk. And that's the trick with landing these bills of statewide impact, right, is how to tailor them to a diverse set of regions. I think from a Southern California perspective for me on this bill I desperate for it This is crucial And I really excited you brought the measure forward because I don want to have to go up north and take more of their water unless or maybe not take it buy it or borrow it Steal it. Steal it. Some would say steal it. No, no, no, no. Yes, coexist with it, with dual missions. we want to be able to be self-sustaining in Southern California, and we want to be able to have our own water security and really make those urban water management plans more and more robust. So my hope with this measure is not to sort of add new layers or have unnecessary studying, but in fact just improve the urban water management planning, which in the L.A. region, we're going hard for recycled water. I mean, we have the most aggressive vision in the West. And so precisely because we don't want to have to try to reach north and to reach to all these other places and to haul this water from the east or from lakes that are threatened. And so I think this is crucial, and I think the development community is very creative right now, and the kind of projects we're building are more and more efficient. But what we don't want is sort of just an unintended consequence of what is important streamlining maybe on the housing development side to somehow undercut our broader water security strategy. So I appreciate the sort of the northern perspective on this, but sort of wanted to bring that and thank you for the measure. I'd love to be added on at the appropriate time. I don't know if you're amending the bill today. Are there no amends today? But whenever is the appropriate time, I'd love to be added on. And just help keep working through some of these regional differences to make sure that we've got a really efficient process, but also that we're building this state in a way that's not going to leave us dry in decades to come. Thank you. That's all I got.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to thank the author for collaborating and working again. That always doesn't happen in this building, so I thank the author for working with the opposition to try to figure out solutions that will work out. And I just wanted to make that comment.
Thank you. Okay. For my own part, I just want to thank you as well. We put this bill over, you know, at my request really to keep working on it. And I will say I've had some heartburn on this bill because we did just go ahead and do streamlining. And in my view, if we're saying housing is a priority as a state, then housing needs to be a priority and then we need to figure out the water. And I appreciate the comments from Senator Stern as well. And it gives a perspective why and to some of the reasons you're doing this bill and why this bill is needed. But I do think there is additional work to do. I do appreciate you've been engaging in those conversations. I know there was conversations as late as yesterday evening. Maybe I'll ask the opposition. For the record, do you feel confident that conversations are moving in the right direction? I think the sponsors and the author staff understand where we're coming from, and we've proposed several possible avenues of reaching agreement, but I haven't gotten there yet. Okay. But having productive conversations is what I understand. That's fair to say. Okay. Well, I want to thank, again, thank the author for having those conversations and the sponsors. I do believe there is something to land here. I know we, as recently as yesterday, we talked about a number of different options in our committee and with our staff. I guess to the author, I mean, I think it's not your intention to kind of open up these projects for lots of lawsuit potential when we just went through streamlining. Is that accurate to say? Absolutely. We passed what we passed. This is different. You know, this is about making sure that, in fact, we're far more efficient. We have all the information in front of us so we could make these kinds of decisions that we didn't have to worry about maybe in the past. We do have to think about them now. And so, you know, my goal is not to bypass the efforts that we're making, whether it's for housing or any. We have a lot of big projects that, you know, some of us are involved with. So it's not to bypass that or it's not to shove those in the trash. It's about making sure that when we do build these projects that we have sufficient water. That's the goal. Yeah. Yeah. So I think, you know, what we're working towards is something to indicate, you know, this is really a planning, you know, this is for planning purposes. So I think if we're aligned there, I think we can, you know, move forward in that spirit and continue the conversations. And again, I just want to be clear, you know, nobody wants, you know, the big urban, the big sprawl projects, those would be subject to CEQA anyway, right? So I think what we're really talking about are the big, the urban infill projects. And those are the ones that I'm concerned about. That might be more than 500 units. Those are the ones that, you know, we've been concerned about. here. So, I think with that, yeah, just, you know, it's a little unclear if this bill could expose a project to increase litigation risk from a group challenging the adequacy of a WSA and I think that's what we want to work forward, work on going forward. I think we can get there with time on agreement on how to minimize that risk of litigation. So, with that, I will invite you to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members and I respect for last for your aye vote. Okay, please call the roll. We need a motion. Oh, we need a motion. Would it like to move the bill? Senator Stern will move the bill. Do pass to local government. Thank you. Senators Becker?
Aye. Becker, aye.
Serato? Allen?
Aye. Allen, aye.
Cabaldon?
Cabaldon, aye. Cortese?
Grove?
Stern? Aye.
Stern, aye.
Board one on call.
Okay, that is four to one. We'll leave it on call. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Richardson, you've been waiting very patiently.
Happy birthday.
Oh, yes, that's right. I know we had a... It's very exciting. Happy birthday. Dear Laura, happy birthday to you. And Senator Stern and Becker, too. We have a row right away. Where's your guys' pretty sash? Yeah. I'm going to borrow that. Yeah, next year. Next year. I'll use whatever resources necessary to get my stuff through. Okay. I know we're, this room gets a little noisy in transition time, but we appreciate, we'll give our full attention to Senator Richardson Go ahead No problem Good morning Chair and members I like to start off by thanking Senator Becker Edith as the consultant and all the team
I kind of believe with my legislation, no actually means maybe. So thank you for your patience and working with us, and I'm happy to accept the amendments that have been provided by the committee. I want to start off by stating that currently California has a wildfire mitigation program, And it's conducting a home-hardening pilot program only in six counties, inclusive of Lake County, Siskiyou County. I'll just pass on the others. Suffice to say that all of the counties are in Northern California and one in San Diego. And it's not ironic by that that our leadership has been in the last few years in Northern California and San Diego. So today what we're hoping to do is put aside boundaries of state representatives and actually look at what is the need in the community. In January 2025, Los Angeles County experienced extremely dry conditions and high winds. These factors, long recognized as key catalysts for wildfire outbreaks, resulted in two of the most destructive wildfires in California history. The Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire consumed more than 38,000 acres of land and destroyed over 16,000 structures and displaced just under 13,000 households. Following the fires, the Office of Emergency Services, Cal OES, and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection highlighted 10 counties with the highest wildfire risk and social vulnerability. Los Angeles ranked ninth out of all 58 counties. In light of the Palisades and Eaton fires, SB 1270 formally codifies that the legislature's intent to expand the California wildfire mitigation program to include the top 10 counties, irregardless of members and leadership and so on, that those counties with the highest wildfire risk would be identified by Cal OES and Cal Fire. The four additional counties that would be included are Riverside County, Calvary County, Los Angeles County, and Tahami. I probably said that wrong. I apologize. Thank you for you wonderful people who represent it. This bill also directs that any unspent pilot program funds remaining after July 1, 2029 would be returned to the state for redistribution to the counties ranked 7 through 10 and requires that financial assistance prior to being prioritized for these counties upon future legislative appropriations or additional federal funding. More plainly stated, if additional funds are available and this legislation goes through, those 7 through 10 counties would be prioritized. And then once we pass 2029, it would fall in the regular order and all counties would participate. We're doing this because the funds that were currently allocated have been completely allocated to all the counties, and so we want to make sure that the plans that they have taken, they have an opportunity to bring them to fruition. As we continue to rebuild and fortify our communities that were ravaged by the Palisades and Eaton fires, home hardening assistance is a critical component that must be considered to provide a sense of relief to homeowners, centers, cities, counties, and insurance companies. SB 1270 will help to ensure residents living in high risk communities are able to benefit from the state wildfire mitigation program With that I respectfully ask for your aye vote And I promised Mr. Wiener I would be fast. So it's up to you from here on out.
Okay. And no lead witnesses. So I think we do have some Me Too add-on testimony.
We appreciate Senator Richardson and her staff's work on this bill. We had some slight but very important concerns, and I believe those amendments will alleviate those. So we stand in support today. Thank you.
Good morning. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support. Okay. Okay. Juliana Voris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support with the amendments. Very appreciate the willingness to work on this bill with the author. Thank you. David Quintana with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We have an interim support, but we'll have a full support in May when the board meets. Okay. Okay. Opposition. Anyone in opposition? No opposition witnesses? Any opposition me-toos? Seeing none, we'll bring up. Yeah, bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Senator Stern. Just briefly, I know this bill involves Cal OES, so in my emergency management chair hat on, I appreciate the author's work to rectify some of these historic inequities in the wildfire community hardening framework. We have state funds also beyond just the FEMA HMA dollars that are also really critical here. I think my biggest, I think the challenge we've all got to sort of overcome going forward is how do we harden? Do we try to go for big dollar projects? The 11.5 million we've pushed out the door have sort of been for larger retrofits that are very expensive, and your money is going to burn up quick if you do that. I'd rather cover more ground and I appreciate that you're trying to expand the aperture. I think frankly the ten counties aren't enough. I think that whether you're in Napa or Sonoma or in Ventura, that they're going to want a piece of this. And the problem is that when we're spending it in very, very large chunks, the money goes away quickly. So what I'm hoping is through your legislation and your leadership here, but also through the budget process, and through our bond funds and some of the other funds we're going to be pushing out in this arena through OES, that we find better ways to scale this money. And so, in other words, rather than doing, say, for example, a $200,000 project to retrofit someone's deck, that it's wood and you turn it into composite, to instead make sure that 500 homeowners have mesh on their vents so that embers don't get in, you're going to be able to scale this to a much wider range and to cover much more risk if we allow and push for those sort of smaller dollars for more people as opposed to bigger dollars for a limited tranche of people. So I think by expanding the aperture here with the bill, you're already pushing in that direction. But I just sort of want to prelude to where I hope this hardening conversation evolves to as the year goes on. So happy to move the bill at the appropriate time, and thank you for letting me make the comment. I wanted to pick up on Senator Stern comments and maybe pose it as a question so we had a pilot to learn and we expended all of the pilot now right Allocated. Allocated. Thank you. Allocated all the pilot. So we're learning from the pilot. What's the thinking about continuing to have this be geographically focused? That made sense for a learning project. but why I'm curious as to why you've chosen to do that as opposed to make it recognizing whichever approach it would take the money is going to be limited but it could be which projects are the most cost effective in the ways the Senator said some other metric other than just straight geography Permission to answer actually to both senators frankly I would have no objection if the program applied to everywhere and whoever had a project that needed it would submit their project, it would be evaluated, and the funds would be allocated. That would be my ideal. Frankly, though, since this is legislation and we're impacting six other counties, I didn't want to reach too far, frankly, because those six counties may now feel, well, okay, we thought we were going to get X amount more. Now we realize if everybody else is in, we might get a little less. And so I really didn't want to get into that fight. I felt that with what happened last year, the case was clearly made that fires can happen anywhere. They can happen in Los Angeles. They can happen in Paradise. They can happen anywhere. So our point was just to really evaluate a more reasonable number. Top 10 seemed reasonable. but I would not be opposed and I would defer to the chair in this committee. If at some point through this process you want to extend it, I have no objection to that. I frankly feel it should be based upon what is the need of the area. And if an area can demonstrate, for example, in Senator Smallwood's district, there's an old oil field in Kenneth Hahn Reserve and it butts up against homes. You know, home hardening should happen there. In my area where Palisades Conservancy, it abuts against naval housing. And when I say abut, I'm talking like 10 feet, 20 feet. I'm not talking about half a mile. So I would have no problems with, and I really believe legislation should be in this way, is that whatever needs it most should have the project. So I would respectfully ask that we would continue this bill out. However, if you would like us to reconsider it being broader, I'm okay with that, or if you want to stay where it is. But I concur that it really should be any project, any geographic area. It should be where the need is, where the risk is, that the additional vegetation could potentially cause greater harm. I very much appreciate that, and I'm going to support the bill. today on that basis. It's hard for me to go back to my community. We had fires last year also in Napa and Sonoma, just as an example, and say, hey, we're just not eligible because of a bill. Not because the needs to happen, but so I appreciate that and hope that you'll continue to look at doing that as we go forward. And also just to underscore what Senator Stearns' point, I think, which is that We will not have enough money for all the need and so thinking about because the need can be scaled into Both the scope geographically is so big, but also the need can be scaled if each, as he says, each project is a million bucks or 200. We'll never get there. So, you know, if the process for how these funds get awarded or allocated pays attention to need, but also what are the most effective, promising, efficient practices that will induce changes in the market and what have you. And also recognize that, as you know, we're not talking about, there's really not that much point in $10 million hardening my home if everybody else's home around me hasn't had the basics done. So we want to encourage through this program the cost-effective things that will reach universality faster than they will reach perfection in any single property as you're going forward. I hope you consider putting a performance basis on this so we can learn how to make the kind of market changes that Senator Assurance described as well. Yes. So, permission through the chair? Yes. If it be the will of the committee, I am, once you all decide, I'd be more than happy to accept amendments prior to going to a propes about if you chose to expand it to all counties. And I would also be more than happy to add an amendment that said that this program group would reevaluate and maybe provide a little more direction on the types of programs that they would want to consider, meaning considering a larger scale of people versus larger projects. So if that be the will of the committee, I have no problems with accepting amendments along that line because I concur with them. We have another stock in emergency management. Yes. Where we could do it then. Yes. Okay. Great. Well, first I just want to clarify where we are. I have a couple comments and then turn over for you to close. So this bill recognizes the high wildfire risk. And again, I just want to thank you so much for your passion, your leadership. We've spent a lot of time discussing this bill. And it recognizes the risk faced by Riverside, Calaveras, Los Angeles, and Tehama counties. the top 7th through 10th ranked counties for wildfire risk and social vulnerability by the Community Wildfire Mitigation Program. The amendments to this bill encourage additional state and federal funding to go towards providing home hardening retrofits to homes in Riverside, Calaveras, Los Angeles, and Tehama counties. Amendments will be taken in an Emergency Management Committee. Next week, the ones we've already agreed to due to legislative timeline. Sounds like there'll be some additional discussion. But again, I want to really thank you. I mean, this home hardening is something that cuts across actually a lot of committees. You know, the insurance committee, how do we make sure when people home harden that they actually get rewarded for that? That's a goal we've all been working towards. I had a bill around community wide mitigation, again, as Senator Cabaldon said, if just one house doesn't really help, how do we encourage the communities? There's the education component. I know I've done a couple home hardening town halls and just really there's a whole education component. people understand what's really effective. We're also waiting for the governor, a long-delayed decision on Zuno Zone Zero and defensible space, and we tried to get some money for that. So this really is a really wide-ranging discussion, but you've really focused us on areas of need beyond the first six that have gotten that initial money and how are we going to fund them how are we going to help them And I really appreciate you bringing this discussion forward and representing these counties but also speaking broader about the issue So thank you. With that, would you like to close? As a good senator, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1270. Okay. So we have a motion from Senator Stern. It's due pass to emergency management. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sayarto? Allen? Allen, aye. Cobaldon? Aye. Cobaldon, aye. Cortese? Grove? Grove, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 5-0 on call. Thank you. That is 5-0, that's on call. I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Grove for a moment. Okay, Senator Weiner, you're up with SB 895. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. Colleagues, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 895. I appreciate the committee's collaboration with us on this important legislation. I apologize. It doesn't sound like your mic's on. Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay, thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you to the committee for hearing this important legislation, which is to support scientific research in California. Can I ask you guys to take your conversations outside, please? Thank you, Senator Stern. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Colleagues, health and scientific research is an integral part of California's economy and our culture. It helps us cure disease, it improves our environment, and it bolsters and improves the lives of millions of Californians. Research in California has directly saved millions of lives around the world. It's made foundational contributions to the invention of major technologies, including the Internet, CRISPR, and AI. It's discovered which chemicals are responsible for holes in the ozone, and it has sequenced the human genome. That all happened here in California because of our commitment to science. Scientific research constitutes nearly 6% of California's GDP, and California contributes roughly one-third of all U.S. investment in research and development. One-third. The next highest state sits at 6.8%. Research and development contributes more than $200 billion annually to our economy, and the sector directly employs nearly 700 Californians In 2024 California researchers patented more new technologies than all other 49 states combined Research supports local economies. It creates strong middle class, often union jobs that benefit entire regions. For all these reasons, top research talent comes to our state from across the world to work at our leading institutions and to make homes for themselves. From biotechnology to medicine, agriculture, climate, AI, and beyond, California is the global leader. Yet despite the clear benefit and importance of research, the federal administration, this administration, has attempted to stifle what is in essence a golden goose, not just for California, but for our country. The administration under President Trump has sought to cut billions and billions of dollars in research funding, both by taking a wrecking ball to various federal science agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, NOAA, National Science Foundation, the CDC, and so forth, and also cutting scientific research at universities here and around the country. Fortunately, the courts have rejected a number of those attempts, and Congress has, in a bipartisan way at times, pushed back because scientific research is not a partisan issue. But we are still seeing cuts, we're still seeing a reduction in grants, and we're still seeing politicization of research and a broad chilling effect on scientific research. We are seeing and we are at risk of a major brain drain from this country and from California as scientists wonder if they have a future here. And we are seeing them go to Europe or Canada or other places that are happy to have them because scientists make countries stronger and better. In 2025, the NIH and National Science Foundation funded 22% and 25% fewer grants compared to the 10 years prior. Research requires a stable funding environment to manage multi-year projects. If researchers don't know year-to-year whether funding will continue, they will take their research elsewhere. If California does not retain our top tier science talent, we will lose our pipeline to life-saving research and to major industries in our state. SB 895 proposes to double and triple down on California's global leadership in science and to ensure that research continues here regardless of the ups and downs of the federal government. This bill will place a $23 billion bond on the November ballot and will create a California Foundation for Science and Health Research to oversee those monies and others, public and private, that will come into the foundation and will enable us to continue that leadership. The measure also includes very innovative provisions to ensure that California can recoup the benefits of this research happening here for our general fund and also for lower drug prices from drugs that are discovered as a result of this research for Californians I respectfully ask for your eye vote and with me today to testify is Nicole Garrido a PhD student in civil and environmental engineering at UC Berkeley and also a member of UAW Local 4811, one of our sponsors, and Hal Collard, MD, MS, at UC San Francisco. He's UC San Francisco's vice chancellor for research. UC also is a co-sponsor of this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Weiner. Your witnesses have two minutes each. Please continue. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Dr. Hal Collard. I'm happy to be here as a proud native Californian and as a longtime physician scientist and currently as the vice chancellor of research at the University of California, San Francisco. Thanks for giving me a few minutes to share why the University of California believes that SB 895 is essential to the future of California's scientific community. As the senator mentioned, the federal government has been the financial lifeblood of America's scientific research since the 1950s, a model that was made possible by a broad consensus across the country that federal investment in science improves lives. In California, this investment enabled the growth of our world-class research universities and institutes and led to the scientific breakthroughs, many of which were mentioned, that have and continue to revolutionize health and well-being. It's also provided over 50,000 good-paying California jobs, generated an estimate $15 million per year in California economic activity. It's over $2 per every dollar invested. Unfortunately, this funding is under threat, in fact, is already compromised. America's support for science is diminished. I spend a lot of time in Washington talking with members of Congress and agencies, and this is being actively discussed and questioned, and we're seeing that in some of the numbers that were just mentioned by the senator. SB 895 can change this narrative. It will ensure that California's scientific community navigates today's choppy federal waters and will provide California with an expanded opportunity to invest in the scientific priorities of the state. SB 895 will sustain and create new jobs, enrich our economy, and ensure that California remains the world's leader in cutting-edge scientific discoveries. For all the reasons noted above, the University of California is in strong support of SB 895. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next witness. Good morning to the chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Nicole Garrido and I'm here in strong support of SB 895 as a member of UAW 4811. I'm a third-year civil and environmental engineering PhD student at UC Berkeley in the lab of Professor Lisa Alvarez Cohen. I'm also a proud born and raised Californian educated entirely by our public education system. In my research, I study the fate and transport of toxic chemical contaminants, including PFAS, in the environment. The work that I and many other scientists do generates the scientific knowledge California relies on to understand and protect public health, ecosystems, and natural resources. Over the last year, California's research institutions have been destabilized by federal funding cuts and legal uncertainty. Because federal grants support a large share of university research, these cuts do not just affect individual labs. They disrupt union jobs and the technical capacity California depends on. Just a few weeks ago, my own lab felt those cuts directly when a five-year federally funded project on PFAS precursor biotransformation was cut short with two years of work and about half a million dollars lost. Federal funding instability also impacts the workforce pipeline that trains researchers. As a first-generation undergraduate at UCLA, I relied on the NIH-funded Maximizing Access to Research Careers, or MARC program, to remain in school during the severe financial strain my family faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. When that program was placed on hold last year, I saw how quickly federal cuts can close pathways into this work. SB 895 would help California stabilize research funding at a time when federal cuts are already disrupting scientific work, union jobs, and the lives of people that make it possible. This is important for this committee because California's ability to protect the environment, respond to contamination, and steward natural resources depends on sustained scientific capacity and workforce. I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you. Okay, excellent. I understand we do have a number of folks. And please bring them in. Good afternoon. Marshall, I'm Tony on behalf of the United Auto Workers Local 4811, representing now 60,000 academic and professional workers at all the UC campuses in the North American National Lab. rather than foster this session. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I want to show you your attention as a light on behalf of the nasal and animals. I was also asking you to pay the support of the public medical association. Mike's not on. Yeah. Good morning, Chair and members. AJ Mendiola on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Lenny Kunalakis in support. Hi, Emily Collin on behalf of the Public Health Institute in support. Good morning. GHN on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support. Thank you. Mark McDonald on behalf of the Consortium for Developing Leadership and Science in support. Good morning. Chloe Legall-Scoville for Student Services and Advising Professionals at the UC in support. Good morning. Erica Mustamante on behalf of Stanford in support. Good morning. Isela Bravo with Crew Strategies on behalf of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support. Mr. Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you. Hi, my name is Alicia Yaffe. I'm with CAPS, UAW Local 1115. We are the State Scientist Union and I'm here in support. Thank you. Hi, good morning. Ben Cox, assistant project scientist at the University of California Davis and UW-4811 member in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. George Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, co-sponsor in support. Nico Molina on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support. Thank you. Khaled Mahmood, UAW 4811, resident of Berkeley, California. Strong support. Hi there, Brianna McGuire, scientist at UC Davis, member of UAW 4811, resident of Berkeley and strong support. Hi there, I'm Emily Weintrell, I am a resident of Woodland and a member of UAW 4811 and a teaching assistant at UC Davis and I support. My name is Carolina Rios. I am a graduate student researcher at UC Davis a resident of Davis California a UAW 4811 member and a strong supporter Thanks Chair Becker and members of the committee Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Northeastern University in strong support. Craig Pulitzer on behalf of Quality California in strong support. Hi, Amy Fletcher, a researcher at UC Davis and statewide treasurer for UPDCWA 9119 in a strong supporter. Hi, good morning Mr. Chair, members, Janice O'Malley with AFSCME in strong support. Hello, I'm Chris Henning with UAW 4123, the CSU student workers in strong support. Hello, Justin Garcia, vice president of CAPS UAW Local 1115 on behalf of the local union in strong support. Hello everybody, Patrick Dexter, International Rep with United Auto Workers Region 6, representing the 9 Western United States in strong support. Hello, my name is Victor Quidos, Assistant Director, UAW Region 6, 9 Western States in support. Good morning, Jared Russo-Cloak with the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research in proud support. Thank you. Chair and members, Nate Solove on behalf of several organizations in support that can be here today, the Parkinson's Association of San Diego, Parkinson's Community Los Angeles, the Parkinson's Association of Northern California, Greater Fresno Parkinson's Support Group, Parkinson's Network of Mount Diablo, American Parkinson's Disease Foundation, the Parkinson's Foundation, the California Academy of Sciences, and the San Diego Natural History Museum. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. On behalf of our 29,000 members who work in the CSU system, we're in proud support. Thank you, Chair and members. Chris Morales on behalf of the CSU Office of the Chancellor in support. Chair and members, Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on California environmental voters. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone in opposition? Do we have a lead opposition witness? Anyone else who hates science? No, I'm kidding. No, anyone else in opposition? See none. Let's bring it back to the committee. Senator Stern. Yeah, thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Winter, for standing up for science. And the role of research right now is more critical than ever. I'm co-author of the measure. So I'm excited to see it come before us today. My concern is less so about the four corners of the bill and more so about sort of how the funding administration could be impacted by some of the sponsors. We've seen one of your sponsors, UAW 4811, strike in recent years over and create basically an environment where Israeli students aren't welcome in the union where they struck in favor of BDS and trying to boycott any association with that country or its right to defend itself And my concern is that if they sort of the sponsor of the bill that the kind of important PFAS research that you're doing, if it ever integrated with, say, an international consortium that's doing PFAS research, where right now there is really important PFAS work going on from a number of universities around the world, Berkeley, but also Hebrew University and others, that somehow this could be sort of end around our anti-BDS laws and somehow allow that union to wage a protest and block that kind of funding. I know that's one particular issue, but I guess I want, The rest of the world desperately needs American universities to be doing research in an open-minded way. That doesn't try to take the politics of the moment and insert them into what is supposed to be a much more open approach. And so, say, efforts on PFAS or in climate science and renewable energy, any area where it may touch, say, a university in Israel, that that wouldn't be subject to pressure or discrimination in any way. So I just want to make sure. Yeah, so I want to be clear. This, the foundation, the institute that this creates is not, this is a statewide institute, right? It's not that we have a broad coalition, and I'm proud that UAW, UC, CSU, Stanford, We have an amazing coalition. And I wanted to say, for the record, not just specific to this bond, but about science funding in general. Last summer, I literally had leadership from UAW and UC together in my office to lock arms and say we're going to fight back together. And obviously, there have been, you know, it's a union that's employer. There are times when there's organizing efforts or even disagreements. That's normal in labor management relations. But we all came together to do that, and I'm really so grateful to all of the supporters, including UC and UAW, for saying whatever disagreements anyone has, we want to protect science. And what's happening out of D.C. is not acceptable, and California needs to step up. And so California's laws and rules will apply here. People have a First Amendment right to advocate and protest in any way they think appropriate. but this institute is going to be governed by California law and it's going to collaborate with universities around the world. But first, of course, we've got to create it, which means the legislature and the voters and bonds are always hard. So the beauty of this bond is that we have really gotten this big tent of everyone together. And you can see it just in the number of, like more than a third of the legislature is co-authoring this bond. And I will use this opportunity to say that as bond discussions happen in this building, because we know how this goes, bonds compete. And it is so important that this bond get oxygen and see the light of day and get through, because I want to see a bright science future for California. Thank you. I'm just hoping, and your sponsors are welcome to comment, but I just don't want this to be, unlike how federal research funding has become politicized for this somehow to be subject to the same pressure. So I think that to elevate this in the way you talking about is I think why you designed this pretty well And I was looking at the board composition for example and it seems to be you know pretty well focused But I just, yeah, I would hate for this to be sort of pulled back down into those divisive kind of issues, simply because in the spirit of international collaboration that there may be some overlap. So sponsors welcome to comment, but I'll be keeping an eye on that going forward. Would you like to find any other comment? I could comment. I do not believe we struck about Israel. The last strike that I know of was two years ago. Recently we negotiated a contract with the UC successfully avoiding a strike. And I would say I would stand behind that, that we're ready to talk and negotiate and save science and bring money for that. but generally open to working around the world with whoever is leading science. Okay. Thank you. Any other? Senator Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, you're not wrong on a lot of the points that you're making, that science and research is. Why are you laughing at me? You're not wrong. You're not wrong on most of the points that you made. You're not. You're not wrong. science and technology and research is vitally important to our STEM programs, to health and wellness, to saving lives. Agree with those points that you made. I do want to echo the comments that my colleague just made from Calabasas, I believe is where he's from. But, you know, and it is interesting to me that the UAW, that's the United Auto Workers Union, right? Is that not what, is that what not UAW is? Yeah, but UAW... Represents UC employees. It represents around the country a lot of science researchers, and it's been sort of a leading voice in scientific research. The auto workers. Yeah, we have a lot of unions that start with their name and they grow from there. I didn't know that. That was interesting. But I guess with the UAW, there were videos of UAW employees from the UC system and students on these campuses, echoing my colleagues' comments in a little stronger way, but you were blocking Jewish students from going on campus and blocking them from going into their classrooms and blocking them. And these are taxpayer resources that, you know, we're providing you to do research and you mobilize individuals on campus. And I get there's a free speech issue, but there's also a definite hate issue against Israel, Jewish individuals, and the community at large that believes that faith. So that does concern me, just like it concerns us. And I realize that the author is Jewish and that my colleague from Calabasas is Jewish and also Mr. Allen is Jewish. So I do get that. But I do have a concern about that to voice. Listen, the last few years have been tough for many, many people here and around the world. But this is an area where everyone has locked arms, I think, in a very powerful way to understand that people are going to have differences, and that is normal. And obviously, I have had my own opinions over time, which I take fire from all sides on at times. But ultimately, this is about science in California. And I think it's a very powerful thing that we have Students and faculty and researchers and universities and unions and all of the Parkinson's world. And it's just like this huge coalition that's come together. And so whatever disagreements we may have around collective bargaining or wages or anything else, we all want to fund science. And that's the powerful thing about this bill. And I'm really proud of it. And I'm grateful to both the UC and UAW for coming together as co-sponsors of this bill. How often does that happen? Not very often. Not very often. And I think it's really, and I'm really grateful for that. No, and it doesn't happen very often. And I did start out by saying I agree with a lot of your points, both that the UAW and even your PFAS research. I did some research because of water restrictions to the Central Valley, representing the Central Valley, and a lot of our farm water to produce the food. We eat goes out into the Bay Area. And I noticed that 91% of my research, 91% of the fish in the Bay Area are contaminated with forever chemicals like PFAS. And that's because of the wastewater treatment plants in San Francisco that haven't been upgraded. And they're literally flushing their waste out into the ocean, which is contaminating the fish. So that was interesting to learn, too, and that you were someone who follows that. So I do. I do believe that you've made a lot of points. I agree with the fact that we should fund science and research. and the funding of the bill, if that makes sense. And the people of the state of California being able to vote on it is better than us making a decision that we're just going to tax them again. But I don't think Californians can afford this, to shoulder this, no matter the benefits. But we're spending $130 to $135 billion on high-speed rail that will not be built in our lifetime. And not to throw another controversial issue into this bill discussion, but it will not be built. My youngest granddaughter is two years old, and it will not be built in her lifetime. And it's $135 billion, and you're asking for $23 billion. We gave $25 billion to them over the last couple of years. I mean, there's a better way that we can spend our money. And I realize that's a controversial statement, and I realize that you have no control. Well, actually, you did. You were the budget chair when all this happened. But I do agree with you that we need to fund science and technology. I just don't agree putting it on the ballot and saddling it to California taxpayers is the answer when we have the highest affordability, non-affordability rates in the entire nation. Sorry. I appreciate that. What I will say, big picture, we are the fourth largest economy in the world here in California. And if you look at the, just, we have led the world in so many spaces over time, technology, entertainment, so many, agriculture. solar in Kern County right like so we and and we are the largest state fourth largest company in the world we should be able to fund scientific research have a good transportation system have a great health care system we should be able to do all of these things I just think we should have a can-do attitude in California I know you have a can-do attitude and I think we should as a state have a can-do attitude that we can do these things and and I agree with you but this year we're facing a $30-plus billion budget deficit. In some cases, it's even higher than that. We have companies leaving the state. Our highest income earners are leaving the state. And I know we disagree in that, that you don't think they are leaving the state, but they have announced it publicly. Rapinoe Foods, HP, go down the list. So I think that there a better way we can spend our money I agree I just don agree with saddling the California taxpayers alone for the billion But I do agree that it needs to be funded and I wish we could figure out a different way to do it But thank you for letting me make comments Thank you for the engagement, sir. Senator Cobald. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to all the folks that came to testify. I think at least 70% were constituents of mine. The impacts on UC Davis, obviously they There are impacts on our pushing back the frontiers of knowledge on so many of these key issues that the author and that the testimony has taken. But it's also had devastating impacts on the community and the infrastructure. And as has been said, we can't just turn it off and on because we're losing researchers to other institutions and to other states or folks that choose not to go into the sector. As the author said, we are the fourth largest economy in the world because of our investments in physical infrastructure, aqueducts, roads and transit, universities, but also especially because of our investments in research. So it is absolutely, this is the right, it is a righteous cause. I do, like, in design questions on this, I just want to kind of join some of the conversation that's been happening. First is on just on the, maybe you could describe, the committee analysis laid out the federal cuts to research in dollar figures. And I think maybe it was just a coincidence, but the federal cuts that are listed in the analysis added up to almost exactly the same number that's in this bill. And so I'm curious, you know, one question is like why $23 billion? If that's equivalent to the entire cut to federal that's proposed in the federal government to research, recognizing we're not going to do a bond every year, of course, but why that would be a, even for California, that's a very large bond number, and particularly given some of the capacity issues that Senator Grove has ID'd. So, as with all bonds, it's not like you do a bond that all gets issued on day one, right? This will be over years. It'll be spread out. And so it's not intended, nor would it be appropriate to issue all those bonds in Europe. And that's true with any bond. It takes years and years. And there are some bonds that, you know, even years and years later have not been fully issued. And so there's that. There's that. In terms of the amount, that was, you know, early on, we thought that that over time would not be able to compensate for everything happening from the federal government, but would be enough for us to have robust research funding in California. Of course, it's not like $23 billion is magical. If we're able to make this happen, there will be a lot of give and take, as there are with bonds in general. Yeah. A little other design question, and I guess it touches on what Senator Grove and Senator Stern were asking about. But I think more fundamentally that California's world-leading investments and success in research have been because we have, at the state level, almost entirely invested in research agnostically. We haven't had a state agency or a state department or committee or in the budget process where we said, University of California, do research on the following 17 things. And that's important both because we're not good at it, at making those determinations, and also because it subject to lots and lots of other motivations and incentives and what have you So California has been distinctive in our recognition that the basic research in particular but even applied research has to be you know it needs to be generated by the opportunities that are at the frontier of knowledge. Not just our desire of what we hope will happen, but where, you know, where is science at today? But that has to be led by scientists and NIH and other federal agencies are designed in the same way. And so the notion of a board or a committee that has something other than pure operational functions does concern me. And so I just want to, as the bill moves forward, please think about the board. It has a patient advocate and healthcare provider. You can see already that it's designed to lead to particular emphases and investments and what have you, and that's not what a board should be doing. That's not what's made California so strong in the research space. And I recognize it for the purposes of a bond measure that goes before the voters, kind of laying out welfare safety, biomed, like these are important things, and we want voters to be able to put basic research in the lens of what matters to them. But we really have to avoid state government or one of its committees kind of making, like, this is our most important need. Let's go do that without understanding that it's not just the need. It's where are we at on the frontier of the knowledge. And design matters. I mean, the voters approved the regenerative medicine bond years ago. And the theory there was a little bit different, which was that a bond was appropriate because what we were buying with the bond wasn't just the research itself. What we were doing was buying, basically, to be crass, buying world-leading market share in this space, that we were going to make California the center of regenerative medicine by making a big investment all at once, and therefore a bond that we're going to pay back for 30 years, like a mortgage, was justified because the benefits were going to keep coming. So I understand the reason why the bill is structured this way, But really, just as you go forward, please, please, please, let's not create a state mechanism where any of us or any committee is making judgments about where the research is supposed to be happening and leave that to the successful model that California has pioneered around the world of letting basic research being led by scientists in financing too. Any comments on that? All right. No, again, I am confident that if we're able to get traction, which we're hoping to do, there will be plenty of conversations about structure. And in terms of the subjects in the bill, those are not exclusive. We want this to be broad. Okay. Well, for my part, co-author of this measure as well, I appreciate you bringing it forward. I think what we've seen, many people have already commented, I won't reiterate around the cuts and how important science is to the world, but also to our California economy. I will say, of all states, Texas has sort of shown the way where they said, hey, we want to put money into a fund. And they started with $50 million. They've added $100 million a year. And I've heard reports, people say that itself has been transformative for their ability to keep researchers in the state and again shows the power of sort of state models So we are the leader in science and I think this bill will help keep us that way Appreciate all the other comments I think we can all agree that also global free collaboration with scientists around the world is important, so appreciate all those comments as well. But happy to support this. Would you like to close? Yeah, thank you so much. I want to thank both of my witnesses and our co-sponsors, and I really want to reiterate how powerful it is to have UC and UAW working hand in glove on this measure, and it shows that science is something that is unifying and can bring us together. And I will say that for me, when I look at what's happening in this country around science, and I was recently, last fall, having lunch with the daughter of a cousin of mine. I can't remember if it was that second cousin or first cousin once removed, whatever you call it, A young woman who, she's an absolute, since she was a child, like a genius on math and science. And she's about to complete her applied physics PhD at MIT. And her partner, he's finishing his physics PhD at Harvard. And they are just, and they're working on the most interesting things that are going to make humanity healthier and better. and she said to me, we might have to move to Europe because there's no funding for us here. That's what this is about. So over the last year, as I have spent so much time at the UC talking to Nobel laureates, but also even as inspiring, working with grad students, researchers, who are doing this amazing work and just starting their scientific trajectory where they are going to do brilliant things and cure diseases and just make the world better. And I want them to do that in California. I want it to be here, and I want us to continue to lead. And whatever happens with the federal government, we should take our own future in our hands. And SB 895, this science bond, is an opportunity to do that. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, do we have a motion? Senator Stern, motion is due passed to appropriations, please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Sayarto? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cobaldon? Aye. Cobaldon, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Grove? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 5-0 on call. That is 5-0, that bill will stay on call. Thank you, colleagues. Okay, Senator Allen, would you like to present SB 1297? Thank you. Thank you. Senator Allen, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you. Allow me to present this bill and I want to also thank the committee staff for their work on the bill and I accept the committee's amendments. So as proposed to be amended, this bill incentivizes regional entities or their designees under the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to begin bringing together more public entities, nonprofits and other private entities such as insurers and utilities to form regional wildfire public-private partnerships. And we've been talking about wildfire mitigation, hardening, et cetera. This is about trying to create better systems to address some of the big picture problems that we've been discussing both today and in previous hearings. The idea is that these partnerships will work together to develop wildfire mitigation projects that reduce risk and result in avoided losses from several different perspectives. that of public entities, nonprofits, insurers, utilities, fire-related folks, and other impacted private entities. As part of the planning, participants will discuss and agree upon different levels of funding. Each is willing to commit to the projects. The planned projects would be eligible to receive seed money from state revenue bonds, according to the iBank, and the partnerships will enter into a repayment plan so that the bond funds are repaid over time. As you know, as we've discussed, wildfires have become increasingly more frequent, more destructive in our state. And the most recent large fires in my district caused $30 billion in losses. In the 25-26 fiscal year, our state spent $4 billion on wildfire-related activities, the vast majority of which is going toward firefighting and suppression, with only 10% going toward prevention. but it's estimated that the annual need for mitigation alone is between $4 to $7 billion in statewide needs, according to the recently released SB254 report by the California Earthquake Authority. So, in fact, Senator Becker's SB254 aptly identified that there is a need for coordinated statewide programming for community-focused mitigation. And the report recommends creating a state-coordinated financing model that blends public revenue and private investment to stretch limited public dollars. So, you know, continued, I think the idea is a continued reliance on the current funding mechanisms through state and federal dollars is simply insufficient in terms of producing the volume of mitigation work that we really need with regards to our fire risk. And so the model in this bill is based on success that various groups such as Blue Forest have had with bringing together all of these actors, these types of actors from the public and the private sectors to fund projects and leverage additional money through bonds on the private market. So 2018, the Yuba Water Agency committed $1.5 million to help leverage a forest resiliency bond of $4.6 million to restore a 15,000-acre area in the Yuba watershed. And among others, the SAA Insurance Group was an investor. The project was completed. The investors were paid back in five years. It creates more risk reduction that benefits our utilities system, our insurance system, and the public. Another project for folks to know about is a project up in Butte County. It's underway with partnership from PG&E, from Cal Fire, and Butte County Fire Safe Council. It's in the Pluma National Forest where we've got a project that Blue Forest is coordinating with in partnership with USDA Forest Service, with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California PG the Department of Water Resources and the Sierra Nevada Conservancy So the private sector we know benefits significantly from you know whether it insurers or utilities or others that have a stake in risk reduction They benefit from risk reduction. So it's important to incentivize their involvement to not only contribute financially but also provide important feedback on what actions are needed to meaningfully reduce the risk from their perspective. because we know the stakes are getting so high, and certainly the 254 report highlights how high those stakes are. Anyhow, with me to testify in support of the bill, we have Sam Uden on behalf of Net Zero California. Yeah, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Sam Uden. I'm the co-founder and managing director of Net Zero California. We're a nonprofit that develops policies to support California's climate goals, and we're proud to support SB 1297, which would establish a new mechanism to finance wildfire mitigation, including by mobilising a blend of public and private capital. So as we know, California is facing an escalating wildfire crisis, and the only way to solve it is through wildfire mitigation. Actions like home hardening, defensible space, and vegetation management. But a key obstacle is that there's not even close to enough public money available to support these actions at the required scale. The state currently puts up about $500 million each year, which is, we estimate, about 10% of the annual need. So if we don't solve the state's wildfire mitigation financing problem, we don't solve the state's wildfire problem. The key is mobilising private capital to the cause. Utilities and insurers spend tens of billions of dollars every year on wildfire-related costs, but this is ignition reduction, liability and claims, not community wildfire mitigation. SB 1297 creates a mechanism and incentive for these entities to allocate capital towards community wildfire mitigation. These investments would be facilitated by new public-private partnerships that would have access to a new revolving fund and state-backed revenue bonds issued by iBank. Lastly, I want to mention that the SB254 report, which was released last week, a core recommendation from that report was for new, and as the Senator mentioned, new state-coordinated strategies to finance wildfire mitigation. So the overlap with this bill is substantial, and we view this bill as serving to implement that priority recommendation from the report. So I want to thank the Senator for his leadership and the committee staff for some good amendments, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thanks. Okay. Anyone else would like to add on in support? Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Doug Houston representing the Sierra Business Council. Strong support. Thank you. Hello, Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Okay, anyone in opposition to this measure? No lead witness, no add-ons, okay. I take it back to the members. Any comments? Questions? Okay. Yeah, I just want to thank you for all your work in wildfire insurance, emergency management, all this whole space. As you said, and this actually ties on to our debate on Senator Richardson's bill as well, right? We need more dollars and any way we can come up with innovative financing mechanisms is a very positive in my book and will help fund these coordinated state strategies. As you mentioned, the report calls from. So very supportive really appreciate the bill and the creativity in trying to unlock additional sources of funding with creative financing mechanisms And with that we like to close And I appreciate your recognizing what we're trying to do here. This is a massive statewide challenge, and we're trying to come up with a mechanism that's going to help and really bring the various players to the table. With that, I respect for asking for an aye vote. Okay. We have a motion for Senator Stern. Do pass to business professions and economic development. Please call the roll. Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Ciarto? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cavalden? Aye. Cavalden, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Grove? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you, member 5-0. Thank you. All right, Senator Stern, I think you have our last bill. That's still on call. That bill will still be on call. Senator Stern, you have 1404. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I just want to start out by appreciating the committee's work on the bill, and we will be accepting the committee amendments. SP 1404 addresses a deal that was struck years back before some of you were in the legislature where the good senator from Tehama, from the other side of the aisle, we were seeking a compromise around a two-thirds vote. and we decided to use the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to backfill an existing fee to address Cal Fire's firefighting needs in the state responsibility areas. That framework has persisted to the present day and has cost the state, cost that fund hundreds of millions of dollars. This measure seeks to reform that old deal and bring back some of that funding from the local areas from which it originated. I happen to represent a lot of state responsibility area. And I will just tell you, and I'm not going to throw my, well, I am going to throw my folks under the bus right now. looking at a house that, say, my parents live in or a house that my neighbors lived in growing up in Malibu and thinking about their huge needs and how much we lean on Cal Fire and their ability to pay $115 a year to make sure that they have adequate firefighting needs seems like a better source of funding than leaning on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund where there are such a range of huge needs, whether it's major transportation infrastructure, relieving ratepayers' energy bills, and the sort of wide swath of inequities that plague our state. So this bill, especially thanks to the committee amendments, will rectify that backfill. We recognize, based on the previous conversations, that there is need for more and more wildfire mitigation funding. So this bill is really not designed to sort of undercut that and we believe that whether it one funding right now through the general fund or through other kinds of mitigation measures and other kinds of tools that we can build a more robust wildfire funding framework But we believe also that the areas that are most impacted by fires have to pay their fair share And I recognize that this is difficult for some but I don't think the rest of the state should necessarily be subsidizing areas like mine for their firefighting needs. I think we are capable of handling that ourselves. What I will say, though, at the outset is that we have had really good conversations with the opposition, and we know there's some sensitivity in particular members' districts, probably including my own, where people, say, live on a fixed income and maybe they've got a $2 million property, but they have no source of income and that extra $115 would be a burden. So we're exploring with the opposition if there's a way to sort of tailor the fee backfill to address some of those inequities and those sort of disparities economically and regionally. So those will be ongoing conversations that sort of hone in on that slice of data. But I think overall we just feel like there's a sort of fairness principle that we should be abiding by when it comes to firefighting and when it comes to wildfire mitigation where the communities that are facing the greatest risk also have to have some skin in the game. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I'll turn it over to my lead witness here, Joe Guardias with NRDC, and take it from there. Good morning, Chair, or good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. I'm Joe Guardias, a fellow with NRDC, here testifying in support of SB1404, which would restore a fee on property owners within areas that Cal Fire is responsible for management and fire suppression. As climate change risk has accelerated wildfire damages, progressive sources of spending for wildfire prevention haven't kept up. As a consequence, between 2017 to 2019 through 2024 and 2025, electricity rates have increased 80%, making ratepayers the number one source for wildfire prevention in the state. This disproportionately falls on low-income households and discourages transitioning off of fossil fuels. Budget tax spending on fire suppression has increased 89%. Home insurance premiums have increased 25%. And wildfire acres burned, damages, and lives lost haven't abated in terms of their rate. SB 1404 grows the total amount of investment opportunities to counteract these costs while maintaining spending for these SRA areas. Thank you and I invite any questions. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? If anyone would like to add on. Good afternoon chair and members. Marissa Hageman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of Climate Resolve. Thanks to the author. Okay, thank you. Anyone in opposition? Anyone in opposition? Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Stacey Heaton with the Rural County Representatives of California. We represent 40 rural counties statewide, and our counties have a lot of SRA in them. I want to start by thanking Senator Cern for the meeting that we've had. We had a very nice, frank conversation about this, and I think that there is a pathway forward. However, I do want to start by saying that many folks that live in rural communities that are in the SRA or are in high fire hazard Severity zones did not create or ask for this problem. Many of them have lived in their communities for decades, and their families have been there for generations. Many are elderly on fixed incomes and are struggling with maintaining their defensible space. If we want to talk about having skin in this game, we're asking homeowners to spend thousands of dollars. Many of them are going into debt to do full home retrofits. We are also about to pass zone zero, so they'll have to do things like partial fence replacements, new landscaping within five feet around their homes, also a costly thing. And it may not sound like a big thing to get a $115 bill in the mail, but to a lot of our residents, it will be a very big thing. We were also involved when this fee was originally implemented in 2012, and it was a bit of a mess, to be honest, in the implementation, in the administration. It was costly to the state. It took a lot off the top of the revenues. I feel like Edith's analysis did a really good job of characterizing that. Thank you. And so I do believe there is a path forward. However, we talk about subsidies, and we subsidize a lot of things in the state for things that people are just having happen around them, and this is no different. We remain respectfully opposed to the bill, but we'll continue to work with the author going forward. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Are there other folks in opposition? Good afternoon, Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, also in respectful opposition. I'd like to thank the author for his time yesterday meeting with us to discuss the bill. We look forward to hopefully coming to working through some different options for a resolution here. Thank you. Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties, also in respectful opposition, but we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office on this bill. Thank you. Okay. Bringing it back to committee, Senator Cortese. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to acknowledge the conversation I had with the author. I'm coming in today to fill in for a regular member. I'm happy to be here, by the way. And I just wanted to acknowledge and appreciate the assurances that he just made on the record that what I would call the fixed income issue is going to be worked on. I don't know where it should land exactly, but we all know that whether it's school bond issues or just about anything else out there, that's become, as us boomers have populated so heavily in the senior or older adult space, these things have become a lot more of a concern in common out there. I don't think it has anything to do specifically with your bill and the good intentions of shifting the responsibility. But I think it probably just needs to be addressed so that folks don't get at odds with their own communities. We have some very, I guess everyone talks about their district in unique ways, but we have not only the situation that you described, you know, where the empty nesters really couldn afford their own home if they had to acquire it at any time in the last 30 years but they there and they on fixed income But moreover we had a lot of because we in a valley you know Santa Cruz Mountains on one side and the Diablo Range, the Coastal Range on the other side, and even though we have an urban growth boundary at the 15% slope line, right at the base of that slope line has been a really popular place to put moderate income, smaller residential units, including townhomes and things like that, and as retirement communities, literally with age restrictions, you know, 55 and older, whatever the age restrictions are. So that was a thing. That was a trend in the development of our valley. and 80% of my district contains areas like that. So, again, appreciate wherever you can get in terms of some sort of a compromise on that. And I'll be supporting it today because I know that you're trying to work on that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Senator Baldwin. So I can't support it today. I have a lot of concerns about this impact in my own district for many of the reasons that the opposition today, but also the author led with. It's just the cost of home hardening, the loss of any fire insurance coverage. I mean, even folks that aren't seniors on fixed incomes, many of them are struggling. And we in the world are creating more and more costs for them. And so that's a challenge. At the same time, I very much respect the author kind of tackling this core issue. It would be easy to say, hey, let's just like somebody else spend a bunch of money here. And this is, I mean, you've created, you've opened up a really important issue, which is that the greenhouse gas fund should be focused on its actual purpose because there are people paying that too. and for the reasons of a deal a long time ago, this isn't the right funding source for these activities. So I understand that. I appreciate that, agree with that, and know how courageous it is to kind of take this on directly. So I'm hoping we'll find ways to make that work. I mean, I think the challenge is listening to some of the support testimonies. it's especially hard to do this fee in many parts of my district when it doesn't, when we're not, the purpose here is not to add more money for wildfire mitigation or suppression. We're not adding money for that purpose. We're freeing up the money that's coming from a source that's not really appropriate for this. But it's really hard to say to folks in my district, hey, we're going to put this fee on, and we know you're struggling with your own hardening and zone zero and loss of insurance and everything else, and we will spend not a penny more on wildfire. So that's the hard part that's here. I think folks in my own communities would be more or maybe less angry about paying the state responsibility area fee if it was going to contribute to the ongoing solutions of all the issues that we've talked about today and the investments that need to get made But we not quite there yet I know that not the purpose of the bill but I hopeful with the author creativity that we will find a way to bring these issues together So can support it today but very much appreciate and respect the author courageous leadership on this and looking forward to some solutions emerging Okay. Well, for my part, again, I appreciate your efforts here. The GGRF fund is our fund to reduce greenhouse gases. That's why we created it. And unfortunately, we've tapped into it too much for other worthy priorities, whether it be clean water or other things, but not directly related to the mission. So I 100% agree with you that we do need to get back to having the GGRF focused on greenhouse gas reduction with a true bang for the buck. And I also appreciate you bringing this forward, knowing that it will raise fees on many people in your area, in your district who you represent. It's not always popular, so I appreciate you even being willing to step forward and have the conversation. But I think to your point, many of them would be happy to pay it. Again, if they know that money is going to be used effectively in their area, some will not be happy to pay it. But the point is, it is helping them in those areas. And so I appreciate you moving forward. I know there's a lot of discussions that will remain to have on this. Yeah, I think enough said. There are some amendments we've already discussed that will be taken in Revenue and Taxation Committee next week due to the timelines. The analysis incorrectly refers to this as double-referred emergency management. It's actually double-referred to revenue tax. So that will be the next step. I will be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close? I really appreciate the conversation. And I would just say I've obligated myself here with this legislation, not just to remedy what I think is a misuse of current greenhouse gas reduction funds, but to make sure people actually do get something for what they're paying in. And I think I'm willing to take on that challenge. I'm going to need all of your help with that. I think we've actually adopted some really important legislation today that could help with that from Senator Allen, say, or whatever we end up doing with the Richardson's bill going forward. And there's a number of other measures in this arena that you're championing, Mr. Chair. So I would say let's throw this spicy element into the mix of our broader efforts here in the Senate. And I hope you will consider taking an aye vote today. Okay. Do we have a motion? Senator Allen, the motion is due passed to revenue and taxation. Please call the roll. Senator Specker? Aye. Becker, aye. Ciarto? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Kvaldin? Curtese? Aye. Curtese, aye. Grove? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 4 to 2. Okay, that is 4 to 2. Is it 4-0? No, just 4-0. 4-0, bill on call. All right, now if we can quickly go back, let's start with the consent calendar. We have seven items, I believe, on consent. Senator Cabaldon moves the consent calendar. Please call the roll. It is Senators Becker Aye Becker aye Ciarto Allen Aye Allen aye Cobaldin Aye Cobaldin aye Cortese Aye Cortese aye Grove? Aye. Grove, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Six to zero. Six to zero. That is on call. So let's start from the top and go through and call the absent members. Starting with file item one, Senator Weiner, do you pass the appropriations? Senator Ciaro? Grove? Grove, no. That is 5 to 1 on call. 5 to 1 on call. File in 2, Gerardo, do pass to local government. Senator Sayarto? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Grove? 5 to 0. Yeah, 5 to 0. That bill will stay on call. File in 3, Blake Spear, do pass to appropriations. Please call the roll. Senator Sayarto? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Grove? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Five to zero. Five to zero, that bill will stay on call. Next up, file on five, Richardson, do pass emergency management. Please call the absent members. Senator Sciarto? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Six to zero, on call. Six to zero. Okay, next up file number 11, Senator Allen, do you pass to business and professions and economic development? Please call the absent members. Senator Syrtove, Grove. Grove file number 11, Senator Allen's bill. Grove, aye. Six to zero. Six to zero, on call finally, well the bill we just did. I think we got everyone on that one, four to zero. Okay. Grove, no. Oh, Grove, no. Okay, so we will update that to four to one, four to one. All right, we are going to take a brief recess. We're going to take a brief recess right now. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're back. We are going to lift the calls on the outstanding items, and I'm going to lean on the committee assistant to guide me through this. Are we starting with consent calendar file item one? Okay. You ready, Mr. Vice Chair? Yes. Okay. Okay we gonna start with file item number one SB 895 Motion is do pass to appropriations Please call the roll Senator Sarato No Sarato no Okay, that has four ayes, two no's. The measure's out. File item number, is that okay? No, it's five. Sorry, five to two. That measure's out. Thank you. We'll go to file item number two, SB 1085. Motion is due passed to local government. Please call the absent members. Senator Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye. That is 620, the measure is out. File item number three, SB 1135, motion is due passed to appropriations. Please call the absent members. Senator Sarato? No. Sarato, no. Yep, okay, that is five to two, that measure is out. Sorry? I sorry it is five to one with one abstention that measure is out Good looking out We going to file item 4 SB 1167 A motion is due passed Sorry that consent Sorry we do the consent calendar now Please call the absent members Senator Sarato? Aye. Sarato, aye. That's 6 to 0. 6 to 0, measures out. 7 to 0, measures out. Sorry, that's me. I've done this to you. I don't know what I've done to change. All right. We're on the record here. Let's get it together. We got it. All right. File item number five, SB 1270. Motion is do pass to emergency management. Do pass as amended. No. Do pass to emergency management. Senator Sarato? I don't know. Do we want that in our... Yes, you do. Yes, you do. Senator Sarato, I want... Seven to zero. Okay, that seven to zero measures out. File number six SB 1390 nope sorry those are all consent items 11 thank you all for hand holding me through this SB 1297 due pass to business professions and economic development Please call the absent members Senator Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. 7 to 0. 7 to 0, measures out. And last, file item 12, SB 1404, due pass to revenue and taxation. Please call the absent members. Senator Sayarto? On behalf of my district, no way. No. No. Okay. 4-2. 4-1. That measure is out. No, because Minge of ours is not going to come. Did Groffo know? She just before. Oh, she did? Yeah. Oh, changed to no. Okay. Sorry, that is 4-2-2. That measure is out. That's all. Thank you all for your time. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.