Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy

Senate Budget Subcommitee 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection, and Energy will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public both in person and via the teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8163. Access code is 694-8930. And I appreciate everyone who's bearing with us in the activities this morning and shifts, but starting relatively on time here. We are holding Committee hearings in the O Street building. Ask all Members of the Subcommitee be present in 2200. We will establish a quorum. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. We'll start out with issue number seven on flood management proposals. So from DWR, I believe Steve Rothert presenting.

Actually, this is Steve Rothert. My name is Kasey Schimke. I'm the Legislative Director, the Deputy Director for Legislative Affairs with the Department. I'm going to just kind of cover it a little bit, and Steve is here to answer questions, and we can move on. Obviously, we have the Central Valley Flood Protection Board here with us as well if there are questions about that proposal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Dahle. As I said, my name is Kasey Schimke with the Department of Water Resources. The issue seven of your agenda does a really good job of grouping our flood proposals together, and I think it does a fine job of delineating the different responsibilities of the Department. DWR has a primary responsibility for the levee systems of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Systems, the state and federal project levees, as we refer to them.

And as a result, you have a proposal for you that would fund our Urban Flood Risk Reduction Projects and work on that. That's many of the projects you may have seen and heard relating to Sacramento area, West Sacramento, moving into the Woodland area, throughout the Central Valley of the state. Another proposal you have before you relates to our flood maintenance work.

On an annual basis, we have responsibilities to maintain the levee systems, and we have maintenance yards of staff who literally are out there, and that is their sole task is to maintain that levee system. These levee systems, they converge in the delta. And so you have two other proposals before you. You've got, well, one other proposal before you.

We've got our proposal relating to the delta habitat and our special projects and maintenance program in the delta. Two programs that are 50 years old to assist local levee maintenance maintainers in maintaining their levees on an annual basis and preventing the types of failures that used to be much more common under those levee systems. That's one of the proposals you're going to have before you.

Our Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, document that was created came out of the SB 5 by former Senator Machado back in 2007. Our proposal here would fund the 2027 iteration of that plan. That plan delineates the progress we've made in improving levee systems, where there are still needs, what the facilities, the makeup of the facilities are, and the partnerships associated with that effort.

So that's one of the proposals you're going to have before you. And I mentioned the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, who is also here with us today. They have a proposal before you that relates to their assistance with maintaining agencies. President, Board President Jane Dolan is here and their new Executive Director, Chris Lief, if you have questions for them as well.

I would say also that primarily the Sacramento River System has historically relied upon the Yolo Bypass and our bypass systems to take those waters out of the river and prevent damage along the levee systems. You have a proposal before us today that deals with some work on the Yolo Bypass, but also talking about the Paradise Cut Project, which is down on the San Joaquin River and would provide great benefits to the City of Stockton.

So this is another very important element of what our Department is working on. And I mentioned the Yolo Bypass. I don't want to be remiss and mention the last of our proposals, which relates to some studies on the Yolo Bypass, particularly down in Solano County, where those waters do join into the delta. So that kind of, is a broad overview of the package of seven proposals you have under this item. And Steve is here. He can discuss some of the specifics. As I mentioned, Board President Dolan is here. And if you have any questions for us, we'd be happy to respond.

Thank you. Excellent overview. Does Department of Finance have anything to add? Not at this time. Okay, great. Ms. Petek, would you like, from LAO.

Sonja Petek from the Legislative Analyst Office. Good morning. We would just note that altogether, the proposals for the various flood projects, studies, state operations, maintenance, would commit the state to significant discretionary spending in the budget year as well as in the next several years. And of course, we know that the state's experiencing not an insignificant budget problem that is most likely worse than what was projected in January.

So this does, in fact, mean that the state cannot fund things that it has already committed to and that each dollar of new spending really means a dollar away from something that was previously approved. So in this context, we suggest the Legislature apply a higher standard for approving any new spending proposals based on how urgent the proposal is, and whether the benefits of those proposals sort of outweigh the benefits of previously approved commitments.

Our office does think that these flood proposals meet that higher threshold for several reasons. First, they respond to various critical flood protection and risk management needs to protect public safety, as well as key statewide water conveyance infrastructure. A lot of these projects also help the state draw down federal funding.

A number of the projects are conducted in collaboration with the US Army Corps of Engineers, and the proposals would essentially provide the state cost share for those proposals or create credits that could be applied to future projects with the US Army Corps. We would also note that the funding to support delta levees would support projects that have been identified by the Delta Stewardship Council as being a very high priority based on risk assessments.

And then finally, we just note that the funding requested is primarily one time in nature, which means that, even the funding that's for projects that are continuing. And what this means is that the structure of that funding means that the Legislature can consider future spending within the context of a given budget year. So for those reasons, we suggest the Legislature consider approving these flood related proposals. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I know that the state has given assurance to the federal government that it will oversee the flood control plan along the main stem and the tributaries of the Sacramento San Joaquin River. So we have a responsibility here. And we do know many levees are failing. As we know much of the land of the levees are privately or locally owned. How much funding is needed to ensure the 730 miles of privately or locally owned levees remain functional?

Sure. So the Department of Water Resources has been working with the local reclamation district and landowners for about 50 years now to identify priority projects and estimate the costs necessary to address delta levee risks and provide funding for them to address those priority risks and also fit within the capacity of their ability to implement projects.

And since the beginning of the program, the Delta Levee Subventions Program and the Delta Levee Special Projects Program, the number of damaging levee breaches has been dramatically reduced, and so many towns and farms have been saved from those damages. And so the amount varies by year depending on the needs of the districts and landowners and what capacity they have to implement.

That's the state prioritize state funding for non-state plan of flood control projects?

Well, I would in part answer and then Kasey can follow up, that the delta levees protect significant state interests throughout the delta, whether it's public safety, the water conveyance system, water quality, and other important infrastructure, pipelines, and roadways, and electrical corridors. So there's a significant state interest in supporting the locals to protect those levees and that infrastructure.

And I would just add to that saying primarily though, our investment is in those levees where the state has either the land ownership or the responsibility to maintain those. The delta has its own unique situation because of its special needs and importance to the state broadly. And then beyond that, I know our Department has done some work assisting with more Central Valley local small community grants and the likes of that.

But for the most part, the delta is really the one place that we do focus some state assistance. And it does come with a local cost share as well. It's not just a state funded program. Like Steve mentioned, it's been in statute since I think 1973, the programs. And have done great work to keep the delta out of the water, so to speak.

All right, well, thank you. I do believe these items are critical. I'm going to turn over to Senator Dahle.

Thank you. A lot of this is focused on the north part of the state. And I know that you're responsible for more than just the north part of the state. Obviously, the delta and most of the water comes from the north and then central. But I wanted to just, this is an overall question. I know that we're seeing extreme drought, extreme flood like we're experiencing right now. And we're seeing stuff like in Tulare where we're actually underwater.

And then also I was speaking with Senator Jones and Senator Padilla today about the issues in Southern California where they have structures that are needing maintenance that they can't get to full capacity. And so they're talking about local bonds. There's some talk about a bond. I think Eggman might have a bond coming forth, a water bond.

So I just wanted to kind of get an overall sense of what you see as far as statewide for infrastructure that's currently there that needs maintenance, that would do a better job in also retaining water and managing water if we were able to focus on those. And not so much new stuff. I've been focused on trying to get, obviously, new storage in the north state, but across the state we have a lot of structures that are in need of repair. So could you touch on that for just a little bit of what you see and maybe something that the Legislature should be thinking about because we're going to see these cycles continue.

Do you want to start?

Go ahead.

So much of the work and investment that DWR manages for flood management is in the Central Valley. Given the authorities of statute to focus on the Central Valley, develop the Central Valley flood plan and implement that flood plan. We do have a statewide focus as well in another program that has not been extremely active in recent years.

But we are in the process of developing plans to have a greater reach outside of the Central Valley, including Southern California and the coastal areas as well. And so I think there's more to come in that realm. I would just add on the facilities that you mentioned and these swings of climate and weather that we're experiencing.

Much of the work that DWR and partners at the Central Valley Flood Board and local reclamation districts and others have been trying to take advantage of the link between water supply storage and flood management through flood managed aquifer recharge and other strategies to reoperate our big reservoirs with an improved flood system downstream such that there's more room in the big reservoirs to store water for water supply and less damage and risk downstream in the Central Valley. So that's a big focus of DWR's going forward as well.

Well, you kind of led into my next question because the Governor did an Executive Order to, most of the facilities were built for flood control and not operated. They were operated for flood control, not operated for maximum yield of water always. And so I know the Governor did an Executive Order to help manage. Look at a different way, how we manage reservoirs. I just did a tour of Yuba County Water Agency last week, and the free board on the reservoirs is there for a reason.

So when you have these rains and floods, you have room to store the water and you don't flood downstream. But with atmospheric rivers and our ability to be able to model, and technology has changed since 1973 so much to where we can actually see these storms coming. And we can know, even a week in advance where we could start releasing water if we think we're going to get hit.

Or if we're in a drought period, we can hold that water back, which would be beneficial to use for the environment, for all those other uses that we need water for. So I was on the Englebright, and they have a project there that if they put in, I think it's $200 million worth of overflow, they can actually move their freeboard up, not make the structure higher, but just fill it up more because they have the ability to get rid of the water. And so I know throughout the state there's opportunities like that.

And so being able to look at that and figure out. I mean, if you add at the top of the reservoirs where you get the most amount of your water, right, because it's like a funnel. The last 10ft can be on Shasta is like a million acre feet of water, which is very critical to have later in the season or maybe years down the line when we see these big swings. So I just wanted to put that thought. There's people out there looking at it.

The Governor actually did an Executive Order to try to manage that. I know there's some systems in place, and I think we should look at that as, not the legislative body, but also you folks that are operating and looking at these models, along with the federal government, to maximize the yield. At the same time managing the risk of, obviously, flooding situations that we're going to have. So I want to talk about that because I think we have a great opportunity to get better yields out of our existing infrastructure that we have. So I just want to bring that to light.

And Senator, you make an excellent point. That concept that we are implementing under that is called Forecast Informed Reservoir Operations. So it allows. Oroville is currently working with the Army Corps of Engineers to have our operations manual rewritten. That allows that flexibility because we can see further over the horizon on storm systems. You can get a better sense. Lake Mendocino...

That was actually the Executive Order was for...

Lake Mendocino was...

Senator McGuire has the ear of the Governor better than we do.

Lake Mendocino was the first to kind of look at that. And a former colleague of yours, also still representing the north part of the state, Congressman LaMalfa, having conversations about the need to advance some of those efforts. Because you're right, it allows you, whether or not it's actual real freeboard of space, or whether it's knowing with more accuracy how much space is needed. That's very important, and we're having very good success moving that forward.

Right. So what's the acronym?

FIRO.

Because the guy that took us on the tour was talking about, I couldn't remember what it meant. But I knew there was a system out there that allows us to be able to track these storms and do a lot better job of managing our water. So I'm excited to hear that you're doing that. Somebody who represents Oroville and Shasta, Folsom, obviously. But the two big ones, Oroville and Shasta, I mean, you talk about 3ft on Shasta is probably half a million acre feet of water at the top, right? So awesome to hear that.

And I would just add that there's a really important connection that you've alluded to between the reoperation, the flood forecast informed reservoir operation, and the downstream flood system. To the extent that we can improve the capacity of the flood system, the rivers and channels downstream, and protect the public safety. That provides the reservoir operators greater flexibility to hold back water as storms approach.

And when there's a better idea of how much precip and runoff there will be, the reservoirs can release greater amounts of water if necessary, or hold it back depending on the forecast. So it's a really important connection that you've brought up.

Right. I think it was the year before last, we saw early on wet. And then the spigot shut off, and when they were releasing that water that we could have used later on. And so those are obviously things I'm happy to see us do. And I know that you have to work with the federal government on that because it's not just the state side. One last thing with the contractors. For example, the issue we had with the spillway of Oroville Dam in 2018, as far as, like, getting those.

I'm sorry, I have no recollection of that. What was it?

Yeah, I haven't forgot yet. With the maintenance and those types, with the contractors, obviously, the Met and those folks are part of that situation. How are we looking on taking care of the maintenance issues that's out there on these projects?

So the Department of Water Resources obviously completely revamped the spillway, but also the procedures associated with that. So I would say we have a level of confidence. I think we need to demonstrate that to the public that that is the case. Statewide, you're actually going to hear another item talking about trailer bill language to implement a dam safety program. That kind of gets that for other dam owners of the state. So that's definitely something that is a highest priority and particularly in light of the Oroville spillway incident in 2017.

Okay, thank you.

Well, thank you for being here and answering these questions and for thoughtful presentation. We have a hold open recommendation, and we will move on to the next issue, which is issue eight on dam safety and flood management grant program.

Is it division manager Tapia?

Excellent. In case you'll be presenting this as well, in case there are other. Great. You're on. zero, ok. Go ahead when ready.

Yes.

All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. My name is Sharon Tapia and I am the manager the division of safety of dams within the Department of Water Resources. Issue eight is a request from the Department for trailer Bill Language to establish a dam safety and flood management grant program, the division of safety of dams. And we're more commonly known as DSOD. And so that'll be how I'll be referring to our organization.

We regulate the safety of approximately 1240 dams statewide, and these are dams that are non federally owned. The average age of dams in California is 70 years old, and we actually have some that are 125 years old. So DSOD provides independent oversight of the design and construction of dams, including new construction and the enlargement, repair, alteration and removal of existing dams. We annually inspect dams to ensure that owners are properly maintaining dams in a safe condition.

As part of our work, we evaluate the conditions of dams based on how and when they were constructed, the geology that underlies them, and the ability of the structures to perform adequate under varying loading conditions. And this is really all very unique to each structure, as is the cost to repair each structure.

From our evaluations, we have now identified over 100 dams in California that are rated less than satisfactory in condition, meaning they have some dam safety issue that requires intervention to remedy that deficiency to reduce the risks to the public. The trailer bill language that you have before you would establish a program to utilize $100 million in funding that was previously approved by the Legislature to assist damowners across California to begin addressing their dam safety issues.

The language limits the funding to dams that are subject to state to DSOD's jurisdiction, meaning they are of a certain size and again, they are not federally owned dams. The language directs the funding to fixed deficiencies to ensure the protection of public safety, restore water loss caused by the deficiencies, meaning we often put a restriction on a dam if it has a deficiency, and so it allow that owner to bring that back up to normal operation. And the language requires a 50% match cost.

But it does allow this to be waived if the deficiency poses an unacceptable risk to the public and the dam owners are financially unable to meet the need. As the committee analysis notes, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, of which I am actually the California State representative on, they have identified nearly a $2 billion need for California's dams and actually the numbers that we have of actual projects being proposed is higher than that right now.

This program will provide an important first step toward fixing the most pressing problems in the state with our dams. I'm happy to provide any assistance to you today with any technical questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. Let's see. Ms. Pettic, would you.

Thank you. Sonia Pettic with the LaO. Your budget Subcommitee staff did raise a number of important questions in the agenda, and beyond that, we have nothing additional to add. Thank you.

Okay. Nothing. Finance, tell me, what is the timeline for implementation of this grant program?

The idea is to, once this is approved, to immediately start developing guidelines for the program and to then solicit applications in from dam owners with the goal of having grant agreements starting by the end of this next fiscal year.

End of this next fiscal year. Okay. About how many projects, approximately, do you think you're funded?

So right now, I believe in the budget. It's broken up into two sections, a 25 million and a 75 million. And so it will vary on the type of projects. So small projects can range from, say, $5 million to replace a valve, a medium sized project. We're getting up into $50 million for a project. And then we have large projects, obviously, like the Anderson dam, which is going to be well over $1.0 billion.

So it really will depend on how many dam owners apply, the cost of the projects that they're applying for. And the intent is because this is a small amount of money to start with, obviously, is to utilize it for the benefit of as many dam owners as possible at the beginning.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and appreciate the presentation, Madam Director. So just quickly on that you believe total liability out there in regards to needed funding is, what would you say?

Okay. Senator Mcguire,

I believe it is close to $3 billion.

3 billion on that, as you said, 100 million is a drop in the bucket. So can you talk about your thoughts, agency's thought on long term ongoing funding?

Well, so, again, we have about $3 billion worth of funding of need, and it takes these projects multiple years to get fixed as well through the design and the construction phase. And we recently implemented risk informed decision making into our program. So we're doing comprehensive reviews of all of our high and extremely high hazard dams, and there's about 700 dams. And as we go through and review these, I know we're going to be finding more and more problems.

And so the pace that we're going to be identifying deficiencies, I think it's going to outpace the funding.

Yeah. No, absolutely. On the north coast, there are a lot of private reservoirs and dams that are antiquated and in desperate need, which is why I ask, and I know this is something the Department of Finance is also thinking about, of trying to determine what a long term funding model could look like because it's absolutely critical. And please.

Yeah.Crystal Shirta, Department of Finance. I just wanted to add that this is the first time that the state has invested in a program like this. And so part of the benefit here is that we're talking really about kind of a pilot program. This is one time funding over a couple of years.

So this really, you know, we have to kind of develop program guidelines and better understand kind of how the program would function, understand what the need is out there based on applications that the Department receives and then kind of evaluate from there.

Yeah. And I'm not trying to be smart on my response, but I think TBD. Right. We know that there is long term need, that we know that there's billions of dollars of need as well, but as far as a long term solution still to be determined on what that program could potentially look like. Correct. Yeah.

No. And again, drop in the bucket. But this is absolutely critical and we've heard from so many landowners on this issue. So thank you.

Perfect.

So I want to just springboard off of Senator Mcguire from it. Obviously, I'm assuming this gets through and we pass it and at some point we do something, maybe, and you're going to get the applications, then you're going to find out more by the applicants than to give you a real number on where you're at, I'm assuming right.

You don't really actually know exactly how many are out there and what exactly the cost is going to be.

So we track our projects. We do like five year projections so that we can anticipate, which is item number nine, the amount of fees that are going to be coming in through our applications. And so we have a list of dams where we either have applications currently and they're under review, or we know that they're going to be coming in because we have very close communication with our damowners and we know what work is upcoming.

So we have a pretty good handle on the work now, the timing of when it occurs, we don't because that's up to a lot of times environmental permitting stalls projects for a while or you get into a design and you realize, oh, this is going to be much more than what we thought. And then it goes back through a redesign process.

So maybe you could help educate me a little bit. So a lot of the facilities in Senator Mcguire, my district and throughout the Sierras is our FERC related infrastructure. So hydro, those type of. And then there's also Ag. So the FERC side of it, there's actually a generation of money there, but a lot of these ag type because we're going to be talking about how we fund these. Right?

And so there is a resource on some of them, but some of them there isn't very much of a resource of which gets to where. And there's water rights involved with these. So we're seeing a shift in relicensing of FERC projects. There's a water right with it, and they're basically selling these assets off at PG E and other privately or owned by IOUS.

And so what is your take on the amount that are out there that don't have a resource tied to them to be able to do the work?

I think it's fairly high, honestly. We have a project down south where they are in design. They don't have money for construction, so they are doing all the lobbying they can to highlight their project. And they're actually FERC regulated, too, but their power generation is so small, it doesn't generate the $100 million they need to have their spillway and outlet orcs system. I think the other thing we see dam owners run into is Proposition 218.

So they have to go out for ratepayers to vote, and a lot of them aren't successful in doing that. And so those are the ones that struggle as well.

So do you take into one last question? Because I think it's not going to be as much of an issue this year. But it was last year. So in Sonoma, when I was in Sonoma last fall, the water system there actually helped the community, but it was an Ag system that was originally put in, and they were being curtailed because of the drought. And actually, some of those cities were going to be without water if they were curtailed.

And there's no ability to be able to get the groundwater to backfill these facilities. So how do you rank, the question is, how do you rank the projects throughout the state? Is there a ranking system to say, hey, look, the total project impacts not only Ag, it impacts not only generation, but it impacts a community down the ditch. That's not going to get water that serves for the communities to actually have drinking water.

The question is, is there a criteria that set and prioritize for those ones that have, I guess, a bigger impact on more people?

And I'm going to take an attempt to try and answer that for you. The trailer bill Language, as it's currently written, it really is a public safety focus, which is really what this is about. It's a public safety focus where the dams have a deficiency that threatens the dam and its function to some extent, where that deficiency also has a water supply curtailment or some type of impact. The trailer language acknowledges that as an important element to consider, but it's one of several, so to speak.

I don't want to say that this is entirely about restoration of reservoir capacities, but that is an element of it that is going to be part of the reviewing, if that's helpful in addressing your question.

Well, you see on the map I have here, it's like the San Francisco Bay has 26, that's the most, is the highest. South Coast is 18, Sack River 17, San Joaquin nine. Tulari has zero of the deficient dams across the hydraulic region. Cool. Thank you.

Well, thank you for the presentation. I have no further questions. We have a hold up and recommendation on this. We'll move to the next item. Thank you very much. And we'll move on to the next issue, number nine. I did say the majority leader. These are good topics for him because he gets to say damn a lot. He's back there. I'll sit when he's back. He should be presenting again. Sharon.

Yes. Okay, go ahead. Yes. Issue nine is a request from DWR for trailer boat language to modernize the 1991 application fee schedule set in Section 6300 of the water code. Updating of the fee schedule will correct an imbalance in the revenue collected from dam owners to Fund the California Dam Safety Program. Since 2004, the program has been funded by annual fees and application fees paid by dam owners when it was switched over from the General Fund.

While DSOD can adjust annual fees for cost of living increases with DWR Director approval, we do not have the ability to adjust the 1991 application fee schedule. send statute. The modernization of the application fee schedule is needed to proportionally keep pace with the cost burden placed on the program by the regulated community. By updating of the application fee schedule, future increases in annual fees will be partially offset for the benefit of all dam owners.

And if I may just add so the program is funded by application fees for those who are initiating a new project or a new reservoir, a new dam facility, and by annual fees that are based on the size and the capacity of the dam and what has occurred since the 1990s. Setting of the fee is that the application process and the work involved in ensuring seismic construction meets all the requirements has increased.

So the workload on that end has increased and requires more effort from the department than the annual inspections and the work on those dams. So there's become an imbalance in what is funding the activities of the program. So the purpose of the trailer bill language is really just to reset the playing field, so to speak, so that the fees assessed to someone proposing a new facility meet the needs of the Department at carrying out the duties for that new facility.

And it doesn't fall upon all other dam owners to cover the cost, if I may.

Got it. Makes sense.

So I heard a lot about. So I was around in the 90s as a local elected when they started the process, and there was a lot of smaller Ag type dams that just barely meet what we call a dam. Actually, I think it's 50 acre feet. Are their rates going to go up? Those existing small. Folks? I didn't catch that in my.

So really, this is based on the cost of the work to either repair, alter, or remove a dam. So if they're going out and doing a repair on a dam that's a fairly simple structure. The repair isn't going to be a very high cost like if you have a complex dam. So basically what we're doing is we're increasing the dollar amount of the projects. So a smaller project would cost more.

But the key with this is that dam owners are able to plan this in to their plan for the project. It becomes a project cost, so they can plan for it. They can seek grants and loans to help cover that cost. So it isn't something that's going to get them by surprise. It'll just be part of the project cost.

But isn't there an annual fee for inspection, though?

So we have an annual fee that supports the entire program. And what this will do is, okay, say, for instance, we have Anderson Dam, and that is over $1.0 billion project. So as we bring in application fees, which is right now, I think it's about $500 million for that in fees that is going to help. Go ahead. Sorry, I didn't mean 500 million. So, fees collected from applications.

As we collect more in application fees, we are going to be able to hold steady or absorb the annual fee increases for dam owners because right now we have two pots of money. We have annual fees and we have application fees. And annual fees right now are covering about 85% to 90% of the program. And application fees are covering about 10 to 15%. The workload for applications is probably about over 35%.

So anytime we get a budget increase for cost, of living increases, staff benefits, salaries, any program expansion that's all absorbed through the annual fees. And so this will help now offset the annual fees from going up at the rate they've been going up.

So this is going to be targeted more to that 35%. That's really where the cost is not being serviced by the annual, by the application fees.

Right.

This should ultimately help existing dam owners of varying sizes to not see as fluctuating.

Basically, they're going to have to deal with just the COLA part of it, not the 35%.

Right.

Okay. All right, I'm good. Thank you very much for both of you for the presentation. And we will move on now to issue number 10. This is coastal resilience and we'll invite folks I believe the Department of Finance will be leading the presentation. Will you be off? Okay, quick. Go ahead when ready.

Good morning. Mike McGinnis with the Department of Finance. So, recent fiscal years have provided the state with an abundance of available General Fund that have allowed for historic investments, many programs. However, the reality of the projected 22 and a half billion dollar deficit has resulted in some difficult decisions that have to be made with regard to some of these investments.

As you have heard before, in making these determinations, in developing General Fund solutions, the Administration has attempted to protect as much of the funding as possible or as many programs as possible, has prioritized programs for disadvantaged communities, has prioritized the most immediate climate needs, namely fire and water, and remains committed to the programs that were originally funded, and as such has protected 57% of the proposed climate resilience funding, which is several times what was made available for climate or for coastal resilience. Excuse me, in Proposition 68.

Okay, you go first.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Sonia Pettic with the LAO. So we note that the Governor's Budget does propose a disproportionately large reduction to the coastal resilience package relative to the other packages recently approved in recent budgets, cutting 43% or 560,000,000 of the original 1.3 billion. These proposed reductions are somewhat nuanced. The budget would maintain the highest amount and share of funding for the state coastal conservancy's sea level rise adaptation activities that are nature based activities.

The budget proposes a much larger cut to the state coastal conservancy pot of funding. That's for a wider array of coastal resilience activities. So, for example, allowable uses of this funding would include everything from restoring upland habitat, to removing dams, to helping local governments acquire property at risk from sea level rise. Similarly, the Governor's Budget proposes a large cut to the funding that would allow the coastal conservancy to adapt public infrastructure like ports to sea level rise.

And then finally, we note that it proposes cutting both the budget year and budget year, plus one funding for the Ocean Protection Council's SB 1 implementation funding. So we just note a few things about this proposed approach. First, we note there was already a low funding base for sea level rise adaptation, and the Governor's Budget proposes significant reductions here that could affect statewide preparation for impacts that we know are serious and that are certain to happen.

Yet we know that some sea level rise adaptation activities are more urgent than others, obviously. And because of this, we think the legislature could consider modifying the state coastal conservancy's funding. So, for example, regardless of what level of funding the Legislature and Governor agree to retain, the Legislature could consider combining the sort of three pots of funding and directing the conservancy to target some of the most critical sea level rise adaptation activities. These could be nature based, but maybe they wouldn't be.

So, for example, if there was an urgent need to protect public infrastructure, then that could be an allowable use under that type of proposal. Finally, we think the Legislature might consider retaining more of the Ocean Protection Council's SB 1 local planning dollars. This funding will really help locals assess risk and evaluate and identify the needs of vulnerable communities. These planning efforts will help direct future spending more effectively.

So the Legislature could consider sort of what level of funding would help the state and local government achieve those goals. oh, and actually, I do have one more thing to note. There is some federal funding available for similar types of projects, but this funding is awarded competitively. So that means that there's no guarantee necessarily that the state will get that money. And this funding is primarily available for nature based activities, the same activities for which the Governor proposes to retain most of the funding.

So that federal funding, even if the state were to get it, would not be a direct backfill of the proposed reductions by the Governor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So when this came out, obviously myself and my colleagues were quite concerned about the deep cuts in this area. And I guess what I'm wondering is, with the damages from the storms recently, is the administration reconsidering that 43% cut in the coastal resilience?

The Administration remains open to negotiation with the Legislature and additionally open to any shifts in climate need. However, at this time, there's no proposal being put forward to change these numbers.

Good. Well, we do look forward to those discussions. Without going into details that folks know, we've had significant damage around the central coast, certainly damage in my district as well, up north and really throughout. And as LAO mentions, because I think one of our previous hearings, we talked about the federal funds available in this area, but as LAO mentions, that those funds would be coming for the same nature based solutions that we're already actually funding fairly well.

And it's these other areas where there's probably more concern. There's money allocated to adapting infrastructure to sea level rise, and the governor's solution proposed to reducing that down, I think, to 38 million for maybe 144. What is the demand for this type of funding?

Hello, I'm Amy Hutzel, Executive officer at the state coastal conservancy. So, yes, there are these three different categories of funding. The broad coastal resilience funding, the nature based sea level rise adaptation, and then the funding you're asking about adapting infrastructure to sea level rise. 38 million out of the 144,000,000 of that funding is protected as part of the Governor's Budget. And we are working on projects now from Crescent City to Imperial Beach So, you know, projects up and down the.

And what kind of projects are those?

Yeah, so we have City of Imperial Beach planning public access and protecting a disadvantaged community from sea level rise and raising a 1 mile segment of trail project with the Port of San Diego. The Surfers Point managed retreat project in Ventura County, working with City of Santa Barbara to relocate water infrastructure. Santa Cruz Wharf, the first phase of a larger project to strengthen the wharf. San Mateo North Coast. This one's really exciting. The sewer outfall retreat planning project, the port of San Francisco,

where's that one?

It's on the north coast of San Mateo county. I'm assuming it's San Mateo County.

I mean, that's my district, yes. I just don't know if that's the Pacific one or the Halfman Bay.

I'm not sure I can find that out. The port of San Francisco, there are peirs, 38 and 40 projects. So working with them to incorporate public access and sea level rise resilience, a project in the Crescent City harbor to redesign commercial fishing infrastructure, and the Humboldt Bay Living Shorelines project. So those are the projects we have pre applications or applications for or have already taken to our board for funding.

Yeah. Well, I was recently on a tour of the Pacifica coast. My City Council Members might be here a little bit, and Pacifica is an example. We talked about adapt infrastructure. They've already had to relocate a number of homes, and there's more homes and possibly major highway that are in really the only major road there, high one that be susceptible to further erosion. So I'd say it's almost ground zero for this issue. They need a lot of money.

The point of the tour was talking about the needs, and so reducing this big of a jump from 144,000,000 to 38 million, it's really substantial reduction. It seems like that's going to prevent some of that work from getting done.

We will have the 38 million encumbered in projects this year. So, yes, there is a significant need on the coast. BCDC and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission just put out a report that there's $110,000,000,000 of sea level rise adaptation infrastructure needed just in San Francisco Bay. So when you think about each of the bays and estuaries along with the outer coast, there is a very significant.

Yeah. Yes. The scale that number, that is. Well, good. I know we'll continue to discuss this because it's certainly of great concern to me and my district, as well as the rest of the Coast Senate.

So the LAO is talking about the overall reduction, but Senator Becker is talking about the damage is done in these storms. So we have a State of emergency for flood and storms right now. So the infrastructure that he's talking about, has it been damaged by sea level rise or by storms? Because there's two different things, and there's two different pots of money available. Obviously, we could have FEMA money coming in to take care of issues that are created by storms and floods, not sea level rise. So what's the difference?

I'll just answer for my district. There's both. Right? There's some immediate storm damage, but when I'm talking about Pacifica, that's more sea level rise, General sea level rise. But go ahead.

I would say it's the combination. So sea level rise alone creates significant issues. But when you are combining sea level rise with extreme storm events, also caused at least partially by climate change, that's when you're seeing the significant damages. It's also the combination of coastal flooding and fluvial flooding. So, for example, that coastal resilience category of funding, we could be doing projects in watersheds to help manage fluvial flood risk.

And it's that combination of water coming down and then storms, coastal storms and or sea level rise preventing the fluvial water from getting out. So on a positive note, the City of Napa did very well this year and has flooded multiple times historically. And a huge part of that was the living river project on the Napa river. So it is possible to develop projects that manage flood risk

So how do. You determine the criteria for how you're going to spend the limited resources you have? So I heard a trail replacement. Would that be higher than losing a road and cutting off a community? How do you rank those?

I think we have a set of project selection criteria for the coastal conservancy, and we have a recently adopted five year strategic plan that lays out criteria, 40% of our funding. We want to benefit disadvantaged communities or systemically excluded communities. So that's a significant criteria. And then I think a large criteria is the need for coastal conservancy funding. So if there are FEMA funds or other funds to replace a piece of infrastructure, that's not necessarily the best use of coastal conservancy funding.

And we want to really support planning and implementation of projects that are designed to adapt to sea level rise.

Thank you, Senator Mguire.

Thank you so much. I'll be brief. I said my crunchy remarks at a previous hearing about 30 days ago about both these issues. And first and foremost, I just want to compliment the coastal conservancy. The coastal conservancy gets it done right. They are able to work with local governments to be able to advance desperately needed fundings for an array of issues, but in particular, becoming more resilient when it comes to the issue of our climate crisis.

And I get it that we're in a tough budget year, but when we take a look at these strategic investments going from 144,000,000 to 38 million, that is simply not going to work. If you look at, like, the citizens dock that was just funded from this allocation up in Crescent City, that's just the engineering and environmental.

And when we take a look at the long term cost of redesigning that dock based off of what sea level rise is projected to be, we know it's going to be a heavier price tag. All that saying, that is a very small project compared to some of these projects the coastal conservancy, the State of California is going to have to fund.

So I think it's going to take all of us focusing on whether it's the infrastructure dollars or the climate resiliency funding that was cut by two thirds. And I understand I'm using the word cut, I hear others say deferred, but I think that we can all agree it is very difficult to get a deferral back here in the State of California if we are looking at history as the present. So again, just want to say, Madam Executive Director, thank you for your fantastic work.

Thanks for always having an innovative hat on and think we need to figure out how to be able to resolve this, or at least a portion of this here in our ongoing negotiations. And I know that the chair is hyper focused on this issue and just want to say thank you, Mr. Chair, for your leadership.

Thank you again, echo those remarks, and it's been a privilege to serve on the coastal conservancy and see some of that work up close. So thank you very much. Um, with that, we'll move on to the next issue, which is issue 11 on nature based activities and extreme heat.

Department of Finance.

Yes, good morning. Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance.

I think you're mic.

We'll give this one a try. Thank you. Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance. The 2021 and 22 budget acts committed $1.6 billion for nature-based solutions and $649,000,000 for extreme heat, a total of approximately $2.2 billion in these areas. The Governor's budget maintains $1.8 billion, or 81% of this funding and has been discussed in previous hearings.

The Administration used a general framework on climate and resources general fund solutions, which included several considerations that I won't reiterate here in full, but did want to highlight some of the pertinent considerations related to the nature-based solutions and extreme heat investments, including protecting the majority of funding for most programs.

And in cases where programs were reduced, the majority of funding for those programs was generally maintained, minimizing disruptions for programs underway, including consideration of the status of previously appropriated programs and where departments are at in the awarding process, and the availability of program funding by fiscal year.

Given the multiyear nature of recent climate investments, as well as the need to address the budget gap within the budget window. So specifically, the Governor's budget includes the following reductions in the nature-based solutions area. Protecting fish and wildlife from a changing climate a reduction of 35 million in 23-24 and this maintains approximately $318,000,000, or 90% for this purpose.

For state conservancy nature-based solutions, a reduction of 100 million in 23-24 and this maintains 130,000,000, or 57% of state conservancy nature-based solutions funding and 662,000,000, or 87% of all state conservancy funding within other areas of the climate budget. The Natural Community Conservation Program Planning and Land Acquisition program, a reduction of 6 million in 22-23 and this maintains approximately $30 million, or 83%, of program funding.

The Climate Smart Land Management program, a reduction of 4 million in 22-23 this maintains $16 million, or 80%, of program funding. The local and tribal Nature-Based Solutions Corps, a reduction of 12 and a half million in 22-23 and 11 million in 23-24. This maintains 25 and a half million, or 52%, of program funding.

The San Joaquin Valley Floodplain Restoration Program, a reduction of $40 million in 23-24 which eliminates funding for this purpose and the San Francisco Bay Wetland Support Program, a reduction of 10.4 million in 22-23 which also eliminates funding for this purpose. Investments reduced in the extreme heat category of funding include the Urban Greening program, a reduction of 100 million in 23-24 which maintains approximately $150,000,000, or 60% of funding for this program.

The Extreme Heat and Community Resilience program, a reduction of 25 million in 22-23 and 50 million in 23-24. And this maintains approximately 100 million, or 57% of funding for this program. And finally, the Urban Forestry program, a reduction of 20 million in 22-23 and 10 million in 23-24. This maintains approximately 80 million, or 73% of funding for this program. And we do have representatives from all the departments impacted by these general fund solutions here available for your questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Certainly have a lot of questions in this area. We'll try to go quickly. Let's see. For the coastal conservancy, there's a significant cut for the San Francisco Bay Wetland support from $11 million down to $1 million. So were there projects queued up? What's going to happen to those projects, and where will that remaining $1 million go?

So, yeah, the coastal conservancy, we have a long history of leading and partnering on wetland restoration projects in San Francisco Bay. There were projects lined up for this funding, but we have been able to fund them out of the coastal resilience and the nature-based sea level rise funding that we talked about under the previous item. The need for funding for San Francisco Bay Wetlands is obviously larger than the resources that we currently have a 2018 General Accounting Office report on the San Francisco Bay estimated a $1.5 billion need for restoration in the Bay Area or in the San Francisco Bay.

That said, there are significant resources for San Francisco Bay wetlands restoration. The voters in the Bay Area passed Measure AA in 2016. It provides $25 million annually for San Francisco Bay Wetlands restoration and the US EPA. There was just a San Francisco Bay program, a geographic program established as part of the National Defense Act last December.

And the increases for EPA funding for San Francisco Bay, or there have been increases in funding through us EPA for San Francisco Bay. And our staff just applied for and received two grants from the US EPA program just this year. We're also partnering with the US Army Corps of Engineers on a couple of projects in San Francisco Bay. And we just were awarded $91 million in federal funding for our South San Francisco Bay shoreline project.

We do have to match that funding with nonfederal funds, but we're using Measure AA funding.

Okay, thank you. Interest of time, we'll move on. I had a question for OPR around the now $100 million, I believe, to help communities prepare for the impacts of extreme heat. And question, how does OPR plan to utilize the $100 million proposed for this program?

Thank you Chair, Scott Morgan with the Office of Planning and Research. And so the $100 million is budgeted to go to communities. We have 90 million that we're allocating for grants that will be dispensed in two rounds. Program staff anticipate making round one awards in early 2024 and round two awards in 2025. We intend to fund planning and implementation projects in heat-vulnerable communities and tribal communities. We will focus on community-based solutions and set funding targets for tribal disadvantaged communities.

Projects include creating comprehensive heat action plans, providing mechanical and natural shade, increasing building and surface reflective, providing passive or low-energy cooling strategies, promoting evaporative cooling. Along with the funding for planning name implementation, we will leverage this grant funding to create a model for future investments and action on extreme heat. We will partner with experts on providing technical assistance in grant implementation and continuing monitoring the success of the project.

So it's really looking at providing direct funding to local communities to deal with the heat impacts that they're working on right now. We are formally kicking off this project tomorrow at the Integrated Climate Adaptation Resiliency Programs Technical Advisory Committee meeting to start getting formal feedback on the projects and needs from communities and stakeholders.

If we do fund residential, say, heat pumps, they also get air conditioning. Residents will get air conditioning in their homes. Is that slated for funding under this program?

Not necessarily under this program. Our understanding is that is covered by different existing programs. And so we're really looking at programs that aren't funded by or haven't been historically funded, and that'll also be part of the guideline developments. Right. So part of that stakeholder feedback or what are those gaps and those needs that will be identified for these funding?

And it's going to take till early 24-25 to develop that, you said.

Correct, well, we're going to look to get the grants out in that the round one grants would be early 2024. We're hoping to have applications coming in in the fall and winter of this year to get the funding out in early 24.

Okay. And again, you said some examples of projects would be. You listed a couple of examples.

Yeah, so we're looking at comprehensive heat action plans. So local communities developing action plans on how they're going to deal with extreme heat events, providing mechanical or natural shade environments, increasing building and surface reflectance, providing passive or low-energy cooling strategies. And again, a lot of this will be based on that initial stakeholder feedback that we get starting tomorrow.

And how would a reduction of $75 million impact this program?

We think it's going to be about a 50% decrease in the total amount of grants. So we're not looking at a reduction in individual amounts per grants, but the total number. So probably instead of around 80 to 100 grants, probably more to the 40 to 50 grant projects that we'd be looking at.

Yeah, significant. Okay, I probably should have done this earlier, but LAO's thoughts on this proposal, this item.

So my name is Helen Kirstie with the Legislative Analyst Office. So our comments on these packages are pretty similar to what you've heard us comment on, on previous packages, both essentially, we think that most of the proposed reductions appear reasonable. These are all programs that meet important state goals and priorities. However, given the budget situation in the state, we're going to have to make some tough cuts. And so we think generally what the Governor is proposing seems to be defensible.

I think one of the things that's important to keep in mind with these packages as well as with other packages is there are other equally good packages the legislature could come up with. It's really about legislative priorities. We identify a few potential programs that we think are other candidates. The legislature could consider them in place of what's proposed.

If, for example, some of these programs that you've talked about or that you will talk about today are really key priorities, you could switch them out for some other programs. We identify some that are potential for that. Or if the budget situation gets worse, as it may well between now and the passage of the budget, you could consider these programs. I'm going to just highlight a couple of them in the interest of time.

There are a few that we think that are potential candidates, partly because they're pretty early in development. And so we think those could potentially either be delayed or reduced. One of them is the State Coastal Conservancy's Coastal Acquisition program. This is a program where they haven't identified specific projects yet. So again, maybe an important kind of program, but it may not be quite as urgent to fund in this budget year. Similar with CNRA's tribal nature-based solutions or tribal nature-based program.

Again, this meets an important purpose to help right historical wrongs, but it's still in development, still very early. They're still consulting with tribes on the guidelines for the program. So that's something that could potentially be delayed or potentially reduced if that wasn't as much of a priority, depending on kind of the legislature's goals. There are also a couple of programs I wanted to highlight that the legislature could consider reducing because there's other similar funding in the budget. One is OPR's community-based public awareness campaign.

That's a program or a new endeavor that would focus public awareness on extreme heat, clearly an important need for the state. But one of the things that we'd highlight is the OPR recently received ongoing funding for a public awareness office. And so we think one thing the legislature could consider is having that office focus more on extreme heat, potentially reducing some of the specific allocated money in this area because potentially there's some overlap there.

Another similar, on the similar vein, there are various programs that meet similar needs to each other. The Wildlife Conservation Board has various programs, DWR's habitat restoration program, and also there's a CDFW program that are all within the nature-based solutions package. And we talked about this similarly in some of the water and drought conversations, but there are a number of similar programs. So those are ones that the legislature could consider whether as a whole there's any opportunity for potential reduction, again, depending on legislative priorities.

So we think you have a lot of options, and depending on kind of how you weigh all of your priorities, you could choose the Governor's packages or you could do something very different. Thanks.

Which were the ones you said are programs that there's other similar programs.

So a couple of the ones that we highlighted were the community-based public awareness campaign, just because they have some base funding that was recently implemented. I think it's 65 million of base funding for public awareness in OPR. So that's pretty similar. And then with the programs for the sort of nature-based programs, there are a variety of them. Let me see. There's the. Yes, here.

So, for example, the Wildlife Conservation Board has programs for protecting fish and wildlife from changing conditions, a stream flow enhancement program. DWR has habitat restoration funding, aquatic habitat funding. There's quite an extensive list, and we can provide that. And we outline it in the report that we prepared earlier this year. But there are a variety of programs, again, they're not all identical, but they all kind of meet similar types of purposes. So thinking about them in concert will be important.

And also, I think this is maybe a broader kind of issue where we have all of these packages and there is some overlap in the packages. And so thinking about not just nature-based solutions by itself, but thinking about, well, how does that relate to the coastal money? Right. Some of those are nature kind of related projects. How does that compare to the drought and water conversation? And some of the programs that are funded in one package are also sometimes funded somewhat in other packages, too.

So thinking about it as a whole, given your priorities, where do you want to put those dollars.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. With all due respect to LAO, I'm going to have a little bit of a different opinion on one of the issues. So we'd like to be able to talk about the tribal nature-based solutions program. So, as we all know and very grateful, the Governor has allocated $100 million over two years to focus on this nature-based solutions program. And when we take a look at tribes applying for traditional California State grants, that process simply doesn't work.

That's why we have implemented a new fire grant program for tribal governments to be able to apply for. That's why we're now looking at legislation that will set aside 350,000,000 for tribal housing, which, by the way, some of the most fragilely housed residents in this state live on tribal lands. And that is why this $100 million over two years is so critical.

And if this state is serious about walking its talk and returning ancestral lands to tribes, which is the right thing to do, then, candidly, we're going to need to be able to preserve this into the budget. There are landback initiatives throughout this state in almost every senatorial district. And when a tribal government receives the land back, there are significant expenses associated with taking on that land. It could be infrastructure projects like what we see here on the north coast.

It could be issues in regards to stewardship. It could be issues of protecting sacred sites. But I think it would be a bad precedent to be able to cut this $100 million, or however we want to describe it. I'll describe it as a cut, but I'll turn it over to the Natural Resources Agency if you would like to, Madam Deputy Secretary. But I'll just say that this is something that we're going to fight to be able to keep in.

Thank you.

I think we're on the same side on this issue.

Well, wado, and thank you, Senator Mcguire, and thank you all for the opportunity to speak before you all today. Yeah. So we are very excited and honored to have the opportunity to establish the new tribal nature-based solutions program and are well underway in finalizing those grant guidelines and getting those monies out the door.

Just as a bit of background about the work that we've been doing to set up this program, we've had extensive tribal consultations in our tribal workshops, both virtual, hybrid, and in-person, before we even put pen to paper on the draft grant guidelines. And now during our consultation period on those draft grant guidelines. And I'm very honored to have the opportunity to connect with representatives from 42 different California Native American tribes across the state.

And really a huge appreciation for Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, the Wiat tribe, Big Pine Piute of Owens Valley, and San Ina's Band of Chumash Indians for hosting our regional workshops and convening all of us to have this conversation around the development of the grant program. And in all of these conversations, it's become very apparent that we're anticipating that this program is going to be oversubscribed.

And we've been hearing consistently from tribes that they're excited about the opportunity to partner with the state in implementing their multi-benefit, nature-based solutions programs, whether that be restoration, workforce development, working with our natural and working lands, as well as ancestral land return. And folks are ready. They have their projects ready to go. They're like, finalize those grant guidelines and we'll get those going. And so we're well on way to get those monies out. And, yeah.

Happy to go into more details, if that's helpful, but just thank you for the opportunity.

I appreciate, Mr. Chair, if it's all right, on that. And again, thank you for your work on this. This is two years in the making, literally convening hundreds of folks in every corner of this state. There is a project on the north coast where we are on our third year. The reason why we don't see applicants is because there hasn't ever been any money.

This is the first time in the history of this state when we're doing the right thing of giving land back that was ancestrally a tribe's land to begin with. It's going to be expensive and would really hope that we can look at this and preserve this funding. And do want to say thank you, Madam Deputy Secretary, for your work on this. Want to say thank you to Secretary Crowfoot, who has been instrumental as well as the Governor on this issue. So, thank you so much.

I'd just like to follow up on that, too, because we think of tribal lands and we think of the tribes that have gaming, and Senator Mcguire and I represent a third of the state's landmass together. And many of our Native Americans don't have gaming, and they're really poor. At the end of the day, they don't have the resources to do a lot of these things on their own.

So I'm in lockstep with Senator McGuire on this issue, and I think we need to quit kicking the can down the road and actually make something happen. So, on that issue. But I do have a question, not in this area, because the gentleman stepped away on the heating, but I wanted to ask. I met with OPR yesterday. I actually had the Director in my office yesterday, but I wanted to ask a question about, we had the coastal conservancy, and they have all these projects.

They're ready to fund them. And when we talk about the know and the LAO mentioned, like the WCB, I will tell you, Wildlife Conservation Board, they have projects lined out for a long time. There's people waiting to do good conservation work. But on the issue of the heat, extreme heat stuff, there was really no saying what projects were out there when Senator Becker asked, so can you get a little more detail on that? Because I want to know.

Maybe we're not at the point where we should look at that as funding because we're not ready to implement. Get the money out. There are many projects in this issue here that have a lack of funding and their projects are ready to go. So could you touch on that a little bit more, maybe? Hi.

Yeah, thanks for the question. I think you're right. My name is Abby Edwards, and I work for the Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program, helping get this extreme heat program underway. Yeah, this is the first-of-its-kind type of funding. We know that extreme heat events are increasing with climate change, and it really impacts communities. It impacts communities differently. There's communities that have been historically more cool, that are getting hotter and have less adaptive capacity to adapt to the heat.

And similarly hotter areas are getting hotter, and all of this is increasing with climate change. And so I think there's been a lot of momentum built to develop a program like this that helps communities have comprehensive plans to adapt to extreme heat. And so we know that extreme heat impacts multiple sectors. It impacts people differently, outdoor workers, vulnerable populations, people with health concerns. So across the board. And there's not a program that exists that takes a comprehensive look at this issue.

And so one thing that this program is really intending to fund is these comprehensive heat action plans.

So that's my point. When we ask the coastal conservancy, they have projects ready to go. So is this more of a planning? We're in the planning stages. That's what I want to know. Where are we at in the process? When Becker asked, give me an example of a project, and he mentioned, is it putting heat pumps in somebody's home so they can cool their house? Where are we at with that?

I think we need to know that because obviously we know that it's happening, but how are we going to spend the money? And what does the project look like?

Yeah, so there's funding in this pot for both planning and implementation projects. So it can be at a bus stop, creating a natural shade structure, planting trees, investing in evaporative cooling, doing cool pavements, cool roofs, different types of technologies that can reduce the urban heat island effect in communities. And then also this plan, the planning funding for working at a local and regional scale, at plans that exist to incorporate heat factors into them.

And so whether that's standalone plans or through creating these really community-informed approaches, I think that there's opportunity for both types of projects.

Who's doing that? Who's actually, give me an example of a community, let's say San Joaquin Valley, where we know we're having extreme heat issues. How is it implemented?

Right now that I can think of two communities that have really considered heat into their general plans and others. So there's the City of Elk Grove and the City of Los Angeles are really considering and incorporating heat into their different plans that are in place. And so there's examples out there. But again, there's an opportunity here to really help people provide funding. To think about this comprehensive issue, you can go to.

I think I'd add one of the points is people want to do this, but haven't had funding or the expertise to do it in the past. And so this is really a first step to assisting those communities and to getting these projects moving forward and implemented. And so we are in the planning phase.

We are learning, and that is part of what the stakeholder feedback has been, is we need help to understand what are the best things we can do for our communities to deal with this issue that is fairly new. It's been around for a while, but has obviously gotten quite worse in the recent years.

So do these communities come and apply for a grant? Yesterday I had the Director of OPR in my office, and they're doing a similar type of thing with their outreach. And so I guess I'm trying to figure out how the program actually is going to work. So they apply for a grant. So City of Elk Grove applied for a grant?

No, this is a brand new program, sir. So we are literally kicking it off tomorrow at our Technical Advisory Committee meeting. And so that's the first step in developing the grant guidelines, which we'll plan on having done by this fall, to get money out in early 2024.

Okay.

Yeah, one more thing, too, on this. A lot of the interests of this program came out of the development of the heat action plan that the state did. That's a comprehensive look. And one of the things that was identified as a need for a funding program like this to take this comprehensive look both in planning and implementation. And we do have funding kind of set aside to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of some of these interventions.

We are sort of at the beginning stages, and we don't know necessarily how effective some strategies will be to really reduce the urban heat island effect or others. And so there's an opportunity to kind of evaluate the effectiveness of some of these interventions as well.

Sorry. So are NGOs going to do this, or are you expecting local governments to do it, or who are you expecting to do this work?

Yeah. So in the trailer bill, there's language that says that kind of multistakeholder partnerships are required. And so we are imagining NGOs partnering with local governments to help sort of inform the process, to make sure there's community feedback and buy-in and engagement with the full process.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, may I make a quick comment?

Sure.

Rachel Ehlers with the LAO. I think, Senator Dahle, this is really highlighting both the scope of the investments that the legislature has made in recent years and also some of the difficult decisions before you where the legislature put a lot of money into existing tested programs that have long backlogs of programs and are ready to go.

But you also made investments in brand new initial efforts where the state hasn't played a role yet and really in many cases is going to need to in the case of extreme heat because of the public health challenges. And so as you're thinking about your package, part of our guidance for you is to weigh some of these trade-offs of how quickly can we get things going. It's a tested program we know works.

Let's continue working on that versus, okay, this is something new, but we need to get going and we need to try and we don't want to step away.

So as you think about these difficult choices, one option is perhaps scaling some down and making, particularly for initial efforts, more of a pilot to test something first before you make large investments, but making sure you're collecting data to learn from it, versus maybe on the other argument, well, we've invested in this type of effort for a long time. They've had a lot of money. Maybe it's better to prioritize anew.

So these are really difficult trade-offs because of the scope of programs that the legislature chose to fund and also now the scope of budget problem that you need to solve.

Thank you. That's what I'm trying to determine. Right at the end of the day, under this Governor, we have created more programs than we've created under any other Governor in the history of our state that I'm aware of. And we know that for low-income disadvantaged folks who don't have the right kind of windows and the right kind of heat pump in their home that we can just go in and retrofit and we can help them immediately. We know that program actually works.

It drives our cost of energy down and it actually gives them the ability to be able to cool their home and heat their home at efficient rate. So now we're in a different time where all these programs, it costs money to implement the program, hire people, do all those things when we know we have true proven programs that just need more funding to actually go do some work.

So those are the trade offs that we have to decide obviously along with the administration to figure out where we're going to head. And so with these reductions, I'm trying to figure out where we are at in the process so that we can then say, is this wise to go further? Or is it maybe, do a small pilot project in some of these areas where we know we have extreme heat and some of the locals are already talking about doing it.

But instead of looking at a statewide, I mean, in my district, heating is on the other side. We had minus 10 degrees this year at my home. Right. Well, heating for the disadvantaged folks is the issue there. Not cooling in the summer but heating in the winter. So it works both ways. But we're going to be tasked with reduction in amount of funds available and we need to be wise about how we do it.

So those questions need to be answered not only from you all, but by the legislature as well. So that's where I'm trying to determine is where are we at. Look, we talk about cutting some of these programs that I know traditionally have worked forever and there's a backlog of actually applicants waiting for funding. Those are easy for me to say, hey, we need to fund those because we know what they're doing for the environment. We know what they're doing for this or that.

These new programs, we have to determine that. So that's what I'm trying to do is flush that out. So when we get to the full budget, we can have these conversations and educate the rest of the members that aren't here in these hearings with us. So thank you. Did you have a comment?

Sure, Crystal Sherta. Department of Finance. So I agree with sort of the, LAO's comments about kind of needing to look at this holistically. And I think it went into the administration's framework in terms of trying to make decisions on the, you know, the extreme heat community resilience program does have a reduction. But I think the thing I wanted to point out in this area, as opposed to some of the other areas where there may be new programs, is that extreme heat and sort of the state's response to extreme heat is different than some of these other new programs.

It's really a new area of investment for the state. And so in this space, you are going to have quite a few of these sort of newer approaches and thinking in terms of how we're going to respond to it. So I would put it in a slightly separate category than some of the other new programs that have been contemplated.

And that in this space, it's sort of the reality that the state has not invested in a lot of programs in this area, which is why, and this was a legislative investment last year, which is why it was sort of included. So I just wanted to make a little bit of a distinction there. When we're thinking about new program investments and how we evaluate.

Well, one of the challenges as a legislator, though, is when we work with NGOs who are nonprofit organizations. When those funds go out, it's hard for us to track actually where the money goes. We've seen that with CASA funds, that's for broadband issues. But as a legislator, when you have these NGOs working with government, it's hard for us to do a good audit to figure out exactly what's happening because they're exempt from the processes. So that's why I was wondering who's going to do the work?

Is it the city, is it the county? Is it an NGO? So we can kind of figure out where we're going, because we're going to need the data back to figure out what is the best way to spend the resources that are getting less and less every day. So thank you.

Thank you for that important question. We do need to move on. I do want to ask.

I was out planting trees in a low-income school in my community, and while I was doing that, they said, hey, this is funded under the Urban Forestry Program, which is getting cut. And they said it was being zeroed out, although it looks here that there's still maybe 10 million, but maybe got cut in half. So I'm still trying to clarify that. So I don't know if Cal Fire could speak about the urban forestry program.

I'll start high level while they're coming up here in terms of what the reductions are in this space. So there's the Urban Greening program, and then there's the Urban Forestry program, which have a lot of similarities. There are some distinctions. But the Urban Greening program, there is $150,000,000 that's being maintained. On the Urban Forestry side, there is $80 million that's being retained for that program.

80 million on urban forestry? I don't see that.

Yes. So there's a $20 million reduction in 22-23 and 10 million in 23-24. I think maybe part of the confusion. I think the investments in this space were spread across a couple of different investment area. So it wasn't in a single package. So this is the collective amount that's being retained?

I don't think that's right. 80 million over what year? So what's going to be spent next, this year and next year on urban forestry?

It. We'll have to maybe.

Why are you looking up? Because I don't think that's right.

I'll have to get back to you because I think there's at least 20 million that's being maintained in 2122. And then I'll have to get back to you.

I think our tables might be incorrect. Yeah, that'd be great because were cinemas being zeroed out? I don't think it's 80 million, but maybe there's some portion of funding that's available. But to me, these are a huge bang for the buck because they Fund these fantastic volunteer programs. Actually, kids are paid to plant trees in these urban communities where there's a huge need and it's just an incredible community activity. And kids are getting paid and learning and provides the much needed shade and such.

So concerned about that program. If you can comment, I just wanted.

To highlight this is Bryan Cash from the Natural Resources Agency. Going back to what we were just talking about, about implementation known programs. These programs are very popular and have been historically and consistently oversubscribed. So just wanted to highlight that we just awarded the $50 million that we had in urban greening for 23 new projects, and a very large percentage of those projects were in disadvantaged communities. So the money is going out the door. It's for very valuable projects and I don't know.

Matthew, anything on forestry?

Sure. Thank you, chair Becker. Senator Dahle. Matthew Reichman, CAL FIRE Deputy Director for natural resources. Yes, I will certainly defer to Department of Finance, but we're viewing this as a $30 million cut. And so when we looked back at the way we administered funds in 2122 that $30 million that we administer through three different grant types, implementation, where we largely grow and maintain urban tree canopies. A lot of the type of projects you were referring to, Senator Becker, also workforce development.

Urban workforce development, getting young men and women educated in urban tree techniques and providing more expertise into the workforce so that we can continue to maintain those tree canopies. And lastly, I would say it's for management plans, local urban forest management plans, which allow those local communities to not only inventory hundreds of thousands of trees across these disadvantaged communities, but also those urban management plans help drive local ordinances which will continue to protect those trees into the future.

We would anticipate being able to Fund somewhere between 30 and 45 grants with this 30 million planting somewhere between 35 and 45,000 trees across these disadvantaged communities. And so a very significant benefit in these disadvantaged communities. And we're happy to answer any other questions. Well, again, I do think it's very valuable. It's not a lot of money and I think it's a very valuable program. And so I was dismayed to see the cuts, but I think we can probably go ahead and move on.

Mr. Chair, if I could just clarify a little bit. So in the wildfire and forest resilience investments, Mr. Reichman hit on it, but there was 30 million in urban forestry in 2021 and 2122. So that's of course, retained. There's the 30 million that's coming out for 2223 and 2324 but there's also $100 million school greening investment that was included in last year's budget that is retained. And that school yard greening is sort of a subset of the urban forestry program.

So that $100 million is also retained in this budget. So there is funding still in and we'd be happy to sort of do some sort of, okay, maybe worth, because I don't see the 30 million that you mentioned for urban forest. I just don't see it. We'll be sure and get a breakout to staff so we can show you what's been provided and what's still in. Okay, great. I think with that we should move on. Thank you all for being here.

We'll move on to issue 12, which is community resilience, another very important topic here. And let me find my presenting.

Go ahead again. Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance. Thank you. So the 2021 and 2222 budget acts committed $1.9 billion for community resilience, and the Governor's Budget maintains $1.6 billion, or 85% of this funding. And as we've discussed, the Administration used a General framework.

Specifically, some of the relevant considerations related to the community resilience investments include protecting the majority of funding for most programs, minimizing disruptions for programs already underway, prioritizing equity and investments in priority populations, the potential availability to shift to other funds, and the potential availability of federal funds. Some of these specific reductions and delays in the community resilience investment area include the Community Resilience Centers program, a delay of 85 million from 2324 to 2425.

So this program remains fully funded, but the funds will be allocated a year later than initially allocated. The regional climate Resilience program, a reduction of 25 million in 2223 and 100 million in 2324. And this maintains 125,000,000 or 50% of funding for this program. The Transformative Climate Communities program, a reduction of 65 million in 2223 and 40 million in 2324. This maintains $315,000,000 or 75% of funding for this program.

And finally, the Community Air Protection program, or AB 617, a reduction of 50 million in 2324 which includes a shift of 250,000,000 to the greenhouse gas reduction Fund. So this maintains 560,000,000 or 92% of funding for this program. And again, we have representatives for.

Which program is that?

That's the Community Air Protection program, AB 617.

Great. Go ahead.

Thank you again. Rachel Aylors with the LAO. Our comments for this package are largely ditto what they have been for the others, which is that we think the governor's proposals are largely reasonable, but we think you could take a different approach, either with substitutions or potentially additional reductions if needed based on the budget situation. So the proposals focus on larger programs, programs that are just getting up and running, scaling them down, taking advantage of available federal funds.

In the case of the transformative Climate Communities program, some of the additional options that we identify for you that are highlighted here in your agenda that we think you could take a look at are first the methane monitoring satellites program, which has not really gotten up and running yet, and is, we have thought, kind of potentially duplicative of some other areas that it was funded with GGRF.

But as we've talked about in this Committee, we think that there's a lot of room for flexibility between Greenhouse gas reduction Fund and General Fund for some of these programs. So if you freed up that funding, you could use it for some of your other General Fund priorities. Also, the Climate Resilience center program, as noted, is proposed for a delay.

We think you could consider, rather than delaying some of that funding, actually making it a reduction and treating it as a pilot program because it is brand new and seeing how it works and how effective it is and what kind of demand there is for it before you make additional investments on the regional climate Resilience center, excuse me, the regional climate resilience planning funding. There's a lot of similar names for these programs.

That's when we actually think you might want to think about potentially retaining some additional funding as compared to the Governor, because this is, in our mind one of the programs where this is a really important new kind of investment for the state. As we know, climate impacts do not stop at the city or county line. They are multi jurisdictional and planning across city and county lines is very difficult but necessary.

So providing some of this funding to help start those conversations, have some of these regional based plans, we think is a really important role for the state. And then finally, one of the programs as part of this package, the Climate action core program for OPR is not proposed for a reduction. It's actually proposed to be doubled. So additional new funding for this program.

And we think given the context of all the other discussions you're having, it's not really a time to be expanding programs, especially programs that are still new and in a pilot stage. So we would recommend that proposed expansion from the governor's proposal that. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And the Transformative Climate communities program, a very important one. I was following the beginning of that. I wonder, the strategic Growth Council could talk a little about the program. And I know it's, I've heard that it's become a model now for the federal, 20% of the Ira is supposed to be spent with, for dispatched communities. Maybe you could tell us how that program is going and give us some examples of things being funded.

Yeah, thank you for that question. My name is Amar Azucena Cid. I'm the Deputy Director for Community Investments and Planning at SGC. The transformative climate communities is a brilliant program. As you mentioned, the federal programs are modeling after what California has been doing over the last couple of years with TCC. TCC is in round five right now. We just approved the guidelines earlier this spring, and we're going out for award later on this summer.

What is really interesting about this space and this connection with the reduction is an opportunity to think about the federal funds differently and how can we get our entities within California well suited for those dollars. So the strategic Growth Council went out with an RFP for technical assistance that would really help our grantees and other program support within California to go after those $3 billion. We understand that that program at the federal level is being modeled after TCC.

We had an opportunity this week to submit public comment for their request for information on how to fully develop that program. What are best practices within the state? Providing a lot of opportunity that OPR and TCC have set up already. And I think we're anticipating with that model that 12 to 15% could come to California once we have the NOFA later on this summer from the federal program. TCC has been really successful.

It's oversubscribed, but we have looked at opportunity to fully expand the program that is really conducive to community need. Part of that this year is through project development grants. We are also looking at expanding, or, I'm sorry, maintaining our planning grants for multiple years and then implementation grants. So the way the planning grants have worked is really supporting that capacity building to get entities ready for that implementation space.

Got it. Excellent. Very helpful on the AB 6117 program. Can you talk a little bit about that? We talked about there's a shift from GGRF to make up some of that program. What is that program primarily going towards? Got. Yeah.

Hi. Thank you. Yeah, my name is Brian Moore, and I'm one of the supervisors in the Office of Community Air Protection, which implements AB 617. At the state level, that funding is split into three pots. We have a large chunk of it goes to incentive programs that are administered to the air districts for programs in disadvantaged communities. Another pot goes to implementation. So funds for the air districts to administer the program, and then there's a third pot that goes directly to communities through community air grants.

So that's kind of rolled up into the total funding for the program.

And is the funding with, if we do the plan transfer from GGRF, is that at the level funding that you're anticipating is needed?

That's hard to predict because all the communities are different. This is a very locally focused program. Historically, we work at air quality or regional level, so we are in the fifth year, though, and there have been concerns from air districts about funding levels, especially since we commit to up to 10 years when we enter a community with annual funding. Makes it a little difficult to predict. Also, I could be correct if this is wrong.

I believe that with the cuts, the $10 million that is put towards community air grants is part of that 50 million that's being reduced. So I'm not sure if we would be able to run the community air grant program in the following year because I believe those pots are pretty walled off from each other, as far as I know.

Okay, well, we'll look into that interest time. We'll move forward. Just one last question for OPR around the regional climate resilience program. Can you just tell us a little about the regional climate resilience program and the status of it?

Sorry about that. Scott Morgan again with the Office Planning Research, really looking at regional efforts. How do we work with multiple entities within a region to develop regional plans? We've been doing research on this since 2002. We have about 800 people that have been involved from 540 some odd different organizations since that period. We did release draft guidelines in January of this year and held seven regional and community specific workshops on those guidelines, and we're looking to finalize those and put those out in May.

So next month with applications later this summer to then do awards this fall. So we're ready to get the money out the door on that, primarily looking at projects again, as the LOA mentioned, on regional scale vulnerability assessments, formation of regional climate partnerships, plan alignment within regions for one or more hazards, regional community education initiatives, implement projects detailed in previous planning documents.

So if there's efforts that regions have done already, how do we support those and get those projects rolling and then implement hazard specific projects or align multi hazard projects. So really building on efforts that have already happened at regional areas, but making sure that it's a combined effort among multiple partners. So cities and counties working with tribes, cities working with counties, special districts working with tribes.

So really combined effort at a regional scale and also looking at it from allowing them to define what their own region is. To a certain extent, we are looking at one grant per the nine regions that was identified in the state adaptation plan, but again, allowing that kind of self identification.

Okay, that's going to be a question. Yeah. So part of it is around regions then.

Correct. Who are the partners? Is it city and a county, a city, a special district, a city, a tribe? What are those multiple entities that are going to get together and then what is the region that they're looking to identify and working within?

Great. And so the applications are due in a certain.

Yeah. So again, the final guidelines will be out in May and then applications this summer with awards this fall.

Okay. Turn to my colleagues. Anything on this? All right, well, I think that is good for now as we raise a number of issues. We'll love to follow up. When will you have a sense of the TCC on the federal, what's the timeline? Again, we'll understand where the Federal Government is going in this.

So the Federal Government just closed their RFI. They announced continuously that funds should be available or the NOFA should be available in the summer. From what we understand, there are hundreds and hundreds of comments on the program itself. They just released this morning technical assistance for this setup of the block grant. And so I think they're going to be processing a lot of what we have put forth through the next several weeks, and then we should hear more information on that.

Good. Well, I think we should be proud of a program we pioneered here, and it was part of the cabin trade discussions. And so thanks for your work on this and we'll look forward to following up. So our recommendation is a hold open on this item, and we thank you all for your time. We'll move on to our last item, which is basically our catch all bug, other non packaged program proposed for solutions, item number 13. We'll lead off at Department of Finance for this. Yes.

Thank you. My name is Daniel Ross Jones with the Department of Finance. As mentioned, the 2021 and 2022 budget acts included a number of other investments outside of packages in the climate space and as part of the administration's proposal to address the General Fund deficit. There were a few investments impacted by proposed solutions, as has been discussed before and in the interest of time.

I won't go through the entire list of what went into considering all of these different pieces in the General framework, but I do want to highlight as it relates to these specific non packaged investments that some of the potential considerations included prioritizing equity and investments in priority populations, minimizing disruptions for programs underway, and including consideration for status of previously appropriated programs and where they were in their award processes and availability of program funding by fiscal year.

Given the multi year nature of the budget problem and the need to address the budget gap within the budget window, a listing of the reductions and delays within this include complete fine scale vegetation mapping for California, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, a reduction of $20 million General Fund in 202324. This maintains $25 million, or 40%, to support fine scale mapping and investments since 2122. Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program, a reduction of $25 million General Fund in 202223.

This maintains $85.5 million provided by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in 202223 as core program funding and deferred maintenance at CAL FIRE reduction of $13 million in projects. This maintains $37 million, or 70% for projects in this space. We're available to answer questions and have representatives from the departments here as well.

Sure. Thank you. Let's give Lao a chance to weigh in here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All three of these programs represent important priorities for the state and the Legislature, but the governor's proposals would not eliminate any funding for all of these. They're all just kind of reduced and scaled down. On the chart on page 40 of your agenda, it appears that the Department of Conservation funding would be eliminated. But as you can read in the bullets, that program does get continuously appropriated GGRF funding. So there would be continuing support.

So given that and the budget problem that you're facing, we think scaling down some of these efforts is reasonable for you to consider. Thank you.

Well, thank you. I certainly get concerned when I hear about deferred maintenance CAL FIRE, so maybe you could put that in the scope for us of overall CAL FIRE efforts. Is this a separate program or is this kind of core maintenance? The notes talk about $160,000,000 backlog.

Hi, I'm Mike Dugan, Assistant Deputy Director for Technical Services. Basically facilities for CalFire. Just kind of a summary of what this is, is 122 projects statewide. It is part of somewhat similar to our special repairs budget as far as how we tackle it. We tackle it with the assistance of the Department of General Services, in house and through contracts. So the 122 projects that, comprised of the 13 million, are in basically four major categories.

There's headquarters projects that in Riverside County and in Sacramento, there's a total of four. There is 15 state demonstration state forest projects, 30 forestry lookout deferred maintenance projects, and then 73 lighting retrofit projects throughout.

The Department of Forestry lookout. Certainly seems important. Yeah. Is it a mix of then just core facilities and other projects? What was the last category you mentioned after the.

As far as the led retrofits? Those are through fire stations. And basically our facilities, mostly through Northern California, was through a program with PG E. Okay.

I mean, just as far as you look at, as an example, that seems a very important one to Fund. Where does that stand in terms of your ability to execute these? Yeah.

These, I think, were identified because they were unencumbered, currently in contracts or in other means to continue on. A lot of these are in plan development, but as mentioned by the LAO, these were identified projects that hadn't yet begun and hence were available for reduction.

Senator Don. I just want to weigh in on. I think this is an area that Senator Mcguire and I sat on this Committee for some time now, and our focus has been to try to implement the lookouts and basically the ability to be able to see fire before we get these catastrophic events. And 13 million or whatever, that's a few days of fighting fire if we can stop these fires.

It's prudent to me to think that we would spend the money to get these projects done, because on the flip side of it, if you have a mega fire, it's billions of dollars to fight these fires. And so preventive maintenance, I think, is sometimes a lot better than the emergency. Way we go. Can you talk a little bit about. I mean, I think it's something we should talk about here.

It's not that big of a. I mean, it's not that much money or the bang for the buck that we get. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here.

That's true. I would agree. As far as looking at trying to meet your goals of reductions wherever you can, this isn't a pathway to that. And if this wasn't there, we'd have to find a way to address these. Some of them are higher priorities than others. The led retrofits operationally aren't going to wipe out the Department at all.

But as far as on the lookouts, which the majority of them were built in, I'd say the 1940s to the 1960s, and they're small projects, and that's why there's 30 of them. Yeah. We need to address the higher priority unit headquarters projects. One's the Paris ECC. It's our largest emergency command center, and it's a roof repair. So we would have to make it a priority for us to tackle within our own authority or own budget from next year whenever that comes. Yeah.

There are some high priority ones that we are going to have to work into the plan one way or another. It'd be wonderful if we could retain the $13 million, but we're a partner in the state and we'll do what we need to do.

It's a small amount. I just want the legislators to know for the preventive stuff that we need to do. To me, it's like changing the oil in your engine before it blows up.

Well, I would love to proceed on.

This, but on the vegetation. I know, I see Mr. Bonham here on the vegetation mapping is another one of those areas that I wanted to, and I know that's not fire, but I want to talk about that, too. We're into the phase of that as well, and it's budget dust. Makes sense. Yeah, I had a question on that, too. And what's the impact? This is almost half of the funding reduced.

So just maybe quickly tell how does fine scale vegetation mapping benefit the state, and how would this reduction affect our ability to make progress?

Chair. Good morning, Senators. Chuck Bonham. I'm the Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Vegetation mapping benefits the state in multiple ways. Our Department has been on a long journey to map the entire state. It's not a quicksodic journey. It's a practical journey with real results. So what we do is send scientists out, they conduct vegetation sampling and classification. They come back and then develop a map of that vegetation, and then they do an accuracy assessment of those maps.

Why?

Vegetation is actually the single best representation of habitat and ecosystems. So the maps become the primary tool for all kinds of planning, infrastructure development, but also things like 30 x 30. They are the underlying data for a lot of the permitting that occurs around certain sectors. They're essential. Here's the great news. We have $25 million in hand. That's unheard of for us in this space.

And with that amount of energy effort support by you, we are going to get to about 67% of the state mapped, that's a great accomplishment. That'll leave us about 33% left to map and about 9% left to sample. Sample happens first. So we're well down the path on having sampled all of the state. And where we're catching up is translating the sample data into maps. So your current investment of 25 million is real. It's producing significant results.

I'm cognizant of your staff recommendation and analysis on page 41. I agree. We're making significant progress and giving everything else you're considering. It's a prudent General Fund solution for you to deliberate on.

Are there other sources of funding that could help these projects?

Senator? Perhaps. I think my answer would reference back to the last time I was in front of you and we talked about service based budgeting for the Department and an ongoing year over year challenge for us to Fund things that don't have a sustainable Fund source. That's why I think we currently have 25 million in hand from General Fund for this purpose. So I, off the top of my head, don't see a readily available Fund source internally, but I'd like to think about that question.

Do you have any thoughts on that? I hate to see us get so close to where our goal is and not finish out with, in the scope of the billions of dollars that roll around here, these are really minor in my mind. Certainly echo that. It's an important effort. We thank you, Anne, for your previous testimony as well, and we'll look forward to following up on this with that.

We do have a hold open recommendation on this one as well, so we will accept that recommendation and move on. That was our last issue. So what we'll do now is we'll have public comment in the issues of time and some of the center schedules. We'll ask people to limit that to one to two minutes first here in the room.

I do have some of my cities who are up for a city and invited them here today, and this would be a chance if you wanted to weigh, and we did discuss coastal resilience earlier and the cuts, for example, to scc of significant amounts of money that could be used for that kind of coastal resilience planning. So you can feel free to line up and weigh in on the importance, say, for your city. Well, why don't you go ahead, you identify yourself. Thank you.

Are we going together? So my name is Tygarjas Twyrls Bigstyck. I am the mayor of Pacifica.

Sue Vaterlaus. I am the mayor pro tempore of Pacifica.

I was given this snapshot of reducing 144,000,000 dedicated to adapting infrastructure down to 38. And I'll tell you, we're looking at recreating our sea wall to the tune of $120,000,000. To give you some idea, we're looking at projects along esplanade to offset erosion. I couldn't tell you the price tag off the top of my head. We have a pier that needs to be refurbished, even if we were to.

So we're looking at upwards of 20 years of planning and project design as we're going to consider our phased adaptation approach. And if we were tomorrow to, say, move our sewer lines, that would be $45 million we would need to spend tomorrow. So that's for our community, where we have substantial development right along the coastline. Pacifica can't be the only one. And I appreciate there's serious budget needs in this state. When I look at these numbers in just thinking about Pacifica's needs alone.

Here's some of the numbers I've thrown out to you compared to what is on the paper.

Some of the numbers I've thrown out to you compared to what is on the paper.

It's not just the coastal erosion and the beach issues, because if we lose those, we lose our infrastructure, then we have affordable housing that we're going to lose, and it continues to grow and grow and grow. So we need these funds as soon as we possibly can so that we can continue our work there and not have to go into the loss of infrastructure and the loss of major housing in all of our cities.

The coast is really important in the entire state, and to remove our funding because we don't have the incomes that most people do, we really need the funding back. So I appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you both for being here.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Erica Romero, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, here to discuss the nature based solutions proposal to cut funding for local and tribal nature based solutions programs. Mr. Mcguire, you addressed them earlier, and I know both of you are probably familiar, as the local corps do great work in both of your districts.

Senator Mcguire, you're probably more familiar with the North Bay Corps, and I know in your district, Senator Becker, the San Jose Corps and the Cesar Chavez Environmental Corps both do amazing work. If you are all familiar, as a reminder for folks who are not, they are workforce development programs for underserved and historically underinvested young adults.

So they provide workforce opportunities and supportive services to these young adults while also working on all kinds of conservation projects that ultimately help the state meet its goals, including wildfire resilience and mitigation projects, recycling projects. I can think of, Senator Becker, in your district earlier this year, they did all kinds of disaster response work, sandbagging in East Palo Alto, for example. The Governor is proposing about a 65% cut to this funding.

Traditionally, the local cores have been funded via Prop 68 and other Prop funding, and the Legislature came to an agreement last year to Fund programs who were losing funding due to Prop funds being exhausted. And this is one of those programs. It's a critical intersection of equity and conservation. So we urge you to reconsider this proposal and ensure that funding remains stable for these programs.

Due to this morning's events, local corps Members couldn't join you all to share their stories, but I promise you, they're very moving and make a huge difference in a lot of young adults'lives, and so we urge you to reconsider those cuts. And just for you all, in case you want to take a look at some of these programs, we will be on the southwest Capitol long next Wednesday. There will be an opportunity to see some of those recycling and wildfire projects, so please consider reconsidering that.

Thank you. I do know the San Jose Conservation Board does excellent work, so thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Robert Gore from the Guelco Group, on behalf of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the King's River Water Authority, two of the state's most fraught and largest flood managers, we'd like to thank you for this forum and the chief consultant for her fine work on issue number seven in that comprehensive package and also express our appreciation to the LAO.

Again, we're in strong support of that and we're available to answer any questions and to brief you at your request. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank.

I think it's afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Julie Rentner. I'm the president of River Partners, and I have a handout for you today. I wanted to thank the committee for hearing about these important flood protection improvements that are included in the budget and proposed changes to the budget. I'm here to speak specifically to a proposal advanced by the governor to eliminate $40 million worth of funding towards San Joaquin Valley floodplain reconnection projects.

The handout that I shared with you today is an image of what floodplain reconnection projects look like. These can be delivered across the San Joaquin Valley to implement multiple benefit solutions, recharging groundwater, providing critical habitat for dwindling wildlife populations, and public access locations for critically park-starved Central Valley communities. The image that I shared with you is actually going to be California's next state park, hopefully later this year.

It's also reducing flood risk for communities like Manteca, Lathrop, and Stockton at the moment by reducing water surface elevations in the system, and it's recharging groundwater at rates that are incredibly important for our water supply reliability, as well as interacting with the FIRO that Senator Dahle was talking about earlier today, providing space for larger dam releases that are safe past communities.

So I'd like to extend an invitation to all of you to come out and visit a floodplain restoration project in action and see for yourself how important this public investment is for the future of the water supply here in California.

Thank you. I have looked at this. I believe it's important I do plan to visit. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Manny Leon, California Alliance for Jobs, in strong support of issues 8 and 9 with respect to dam safety. And we align our comments with many that you'll hear today. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of Serrano Water District in Orange County, here in support of issue number eight. Really appreciate the discussion on dam safety. There's a lot of needs up and down the state and critical piece to get this trailer bill through, get the program established, and then we'll be coming back and asking for some more money after that. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Dam safety phone sounds like one of Senator McGuire's tagline. We will now move to the phone. And again, I'll ask people to keep their remarks to 1 minute. 877-226-8163, access code 6948930. Moderator, please queue up folks and have them start.

Perfect. Thank you. Again. Please press one and zero at this time. It's one, zero. We'll go first to line number six, please. Go ahead.

It is me. Okay. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. This is on behalf of California Trout, Trout Unlimited, Defenders of Wildlife, and American Rivers. Addressing issue eight, we are opposed to the dam safety trailer bill is currently written and point out that the bill would inhibit the removal of obstacle dams, which is a strategy clearly outlined in the state's 30x30 pathways report. The cost of dam removal is frequently less than repair, especially when maintenance federal funding opportunities recognize this.

California should take a similar approach consistent with federal policy and allow these funds to be used for removal. Our groups would be supportive of the trailer bill if it includes provisions for dam removal. Defenders of Wildlife, Cal Trout, and Trout Limited also request the inclusion of other fiscal passage solutions and take issue with the current definition of public benefit as outlined in our letter.

Additionally, on behalf of Audubon and Environmental Defense Fund regarding issue 11, we are in strong support of continued funding for the Department of Conservation's Land Resource Protection program, which is continuing to demonstrate high demand, far exceeding current funding, and will only grow over time as Moreland is retired to meet our stigma goals. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Next is line number 14.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Pilar Onate-Quintana, on behalf of the Yuba Water Agency and the Irvine Ranch Water District to speak on issue eight regarding dam safety. Clearly in this extremely wet year where we are seeing examples of significant supply opportunities lost due to dam capacity restrictions, and we are seeing serious ongoing flooding concerns, the importance of funding infrastructure improvements to existing dams to address public safety as a paramount priority and to cope with climate change has been made very clear.

We appreciate the initial funding for this program and do support the administration's trailer language. And I would also note that we appreciated the subcommittee's high level of interest in this topic today. During today's discussion, and also I think I heard an allusion to the potential of bond funding to really properly fund it. So we would support that as well in the future. And we thank you very much.

Thank you very much. We do have, I think, about 18 callers in line. We have a hard stop, a couple of minutes for one, so we can vote before 1:00, so great job. Please keep your comments to 1 minute. Thank you. Go ahead. Next caller.

Line 21.

Thank you very much, Chair and members, this is Dan Gluesenkamp with the California Institute for Biodiversity, speaking on issue number 10. We're surprised and disappointed to hear earlier today that the administration is not proposing to change their ill-timed proposed cuts to coastal resilience. And by cuts, we're using Senator McGuire's definition, of course. We do feel that the Lao got it right, that severe impacts are certain along our coastline. The drastic and disproportionate cuts will impede California's ability to cope.

As the LAO says, the Legislature's funding should be maintained, and we especially think that there should be an emphasis on urgent activities. CIB, my organization, and California biodiversity scientists are particularly concerned about intertidal biodiversity, and we ask you to please support today and in the future vote to support action, as today we're able to do things that tomorrow we simply won't be able to. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Is that me? Good afternoon, Chair members. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. I guess I'm speaking to issue 13. It's actually an issue that I didn't see reflected in the agenda, and that was the funding appropriated last August for the Cascade High Sierra watershed restoration for climate resilience and the parallel Southern California program that was $79 million that the January 10 budget proposes to revert to the general fund in June of this year, functionally eliminating that program.

And that's problematic both because it's a significant amount of funding for the Wildlife Conservation Board, almost $160,000,000, but also because particularly I'm thinking of the Sierra-Cascade program. It really undermines the trust that we build with partners as we're putting together these projects that take years when the state rolls out a new program, and then a few months later, it's like, oh, never mind. And pulls back. So really urge that if you do need to make reductions that are reductions and not eliminations, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. We did recover that in the water package, but we'll continue to look at it. Thank you. Next caller.

Line 26.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino, speaking on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife California, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, and the Mojave Desert Land Trust. I also work with the Power Nature Coalition, which we submitted a letter regarding budget cuts on issue 10. I would just echo the comments already made about restoration of funding to the coastal conservancies, protect the coast from climate change funding that was cut by 65%.

Regarding issue 11, some of the governor's reductions are, frankly, penny-wise and pound-foolish in that they're very small amounts that have a big impact. And I would highlight specifically the $6 million cut to the NCCP program that is actually critical to permits continuing to function, the Department of Conservation's Climate Smart Lands program, and the Tribal Nature-based core program.

These last two programs are programs that cannot be funded, or actually all three of them really can't be funded through bond funding, so they're not able to be backfilled. I'd also object to the LAO's suggestion to cut the Wildlife Conservation Board because of duplication with DWR. Those are apples and oranges, quite frankly, and for all the reasons already stated, object to the cut to the tribal grant program.

And finally, with respect to issue 13, appreciate the comments that have already been made about the vegetation mapping program and how foolish it would be for us to not continue funding that program. We are almost there. It has taken us 20 years, I've worked on this for 20 years to secure the funding to finish vegetation mapping. This information is absolutely essential for our investment.

Thank you. I do have to ask you to wrap up.

And we would urge you to restore that 20 million in the budget. Thank you very much.

Line 23.

Thank you. Next caller.

Good morning. My name is Olivia Seideman with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. First, we want to emphasize that we oppose proposed cuts to two critical programs on the ground that should not, that are investments in some of the most vulnerable communities. First, we oppose any cuts or delays to the community resilience centers program. Resilience centers are crucial investments in physical and social infrastructure in the most climate-vulnerable communities.

Recent floods, community evacuations, and extreme weather events demonstrate how urgently communities need safe places to go during climate disasters. They need these funds now. As such, we again oppose any cuts or delays for this program and urge the budget keep the full 160,000,000 for fiscal year 23-24. Second, we also urge cuts against the Transformative Climate Communities program. This is a critical program to implement community-centered, in place-based climate solutions.

Reliance on the Federal EJ Block Grants program as a replacement is insufficient as federal applications could be administratively prohibitive to lower-capacity applicants, and applicants would have to compete with communities across the United States. Fully funding TCC is imperative to ensure just and equitable implementation of California's climate strategies. Finally, regarding issue seven, we're strongly supportive of flood prevention funding and note the need to ensure that this funding is accessible to aid communities we work with, like Planeta and Allensworth. We particularly note the need to ensure funding and that projects move forward to protect communities in the Tulare. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Line 29.

Good afternoon. Elise Fandrich from Trattonprice Consulting. I'm here on behalf of a couple of clients. So first, on issue 11, on behalf of climate resolve, we're asking the Legislature to reverse the trigger cuts to the extreme heat and community resilience program and provide funds later than initially allocated. We're also asking that we reverse the regional climate resilience program as well as maintaining the Community Resilience Center program and fully funded with no delay in the allocation of 85 million for this year.

And on behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, the Green New Deal Coalition, and the California Environmental Justice Alliance, on issue 12, we're urging the state to protect the full 160,000,000 in funding for the SGC Community Resilience Centers program, which provides critical and adequate funding to address the foundational gap in climate resilience investments in communities and neighborhoods throughout the state. Delays in program funds could leave planned projects without the necessary resources to implement and would significantly hamper this program that has extensive community input and support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Line 12.

Good afternoon, Chair. This is on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, the regional water supply, flood protection, and stream stewardship agency for Santa Clara County. We're speaking in support of issue eight, the Dam Safety and Flood Management grant program, and we want to express our support for the administration's proposed trailer bill Language.

We're also pleased to hear the division manager referencing Anderson Dam, which is the district's largest reservoir, as one of the potential projects in need of funding due to its seismic safety issues. Investments in dams like Anderson will restore water storage capacity for future droughts and also protect public safety in the region. We're really pleased to hear the discussion on this topic. Item. Thank you. Have a good afternoon.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Line 28.

Good afternoon. This is Ross Buckley on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District, here to speak to issue 12. While we appreciate the AB 617 program funding being provided in the governor's budget for air districts for implementation incentives, especially given the state budget shortfall we're facing, we encourage and request the continued prioritization of funding for this important program that the LAO previously acknowledged is highly cost-effective in addressing air quality, public health, and climate challenges. Currently, the AB 617 program is severely underfunded.

The number of communities in the program has grown statewide, but there are not enough resources to support existing communities. The South Coast region contains almost two-thirds of the EJ communities in the state. We cannot support additional AB 617 communities due to lack of resources. To address this, we respectfully ask that the AB 617 funding be restored to last year's levels, and should GGR revenues continue surpass current estimates that you consider additional investments in this worthy program. This will help cover actual program costs and cost-effectively reduced emissions that help meet federal air quality standards and protect helps in disadvantaged communities statewide. Thank you.

Okay. Next caller.

Line 24.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of American Farmland Trust, the California Climate and Ag Network, and the Carbon Cycle Institute. We are opposed to the $4 million reduction to the Climate Smart Land management program contained in issue nine. These dollars are critical for the on-the-ground technical assistance needed to meet the governor's nature-based solutions goals outlined in Executive Order N 8220.

It has proven time and time again that robust outreach, education, translation services, assistance with grant applications, and planning are essential in reaching farmers and ranchers, especially those who are small-scale, socially disadvantaged, or new to farming. We are also opposed to the $25 million general fund reduction to the salt program contained in issue 13. While GDRF money is still available for this program, those dollars must be used for purposes directly tied to reducing greenhouse gases.

This general fund allocation would have allowed for important planning and capacity building, and only more affluent local governments and well-funded NGOs are able to meet this need now, leaving out large portions of our state. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 19.

Yes. Hi, I'm Matthew Fidel representing RAC California, which is the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism. As someone who is speaking on item 12, we're a network of 100 synagogues across California representing 100,000 temple Members. We banded together as part of a program called Climate, a climate justice campaign. We're working alongside our environmental justice partners right now to really urge you to maintain funding for the TCC, the transformative climate communities. That's a full proposed $420,000,000.

These are programs that really serve our state's collective climate goals, our housing goals, our equity goals, and we're just troubled seeing that some of these largest cuts are coming from programs that serve those that have the greatest need. So thanks for providing leadership as the state making these tough choices, and we appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Line 32.

Hi. Good afternoon. Zach Lipton. I'm a constituent in San Francisco. Public transit is important to me, and I'd like to ask to use cap and trade funds to support transit operations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent severe cuts to help grow transit ridership. I'm a public transit rider. I don't own a car. And we have a lot of people in the state who've, frankly, done what's been asked of us by using sustainable transportation to reduce vehicle miles traveled as required to meet our climate goals.

Billions of dollars are being spent in federal funds already for electric vehicles. But the state needs to bolster and not cut back resources to save transit and public transportation services or we'll be quite literally stranded. Resources can't all come from riders in local jurisdictions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Line 27.

Michael Jared with the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. Thank you for your attention. You've paid today for flooding. I wanted to draw your attention that extreme flooding events have decimated hundreds of small family farms, their homes, farm equipment, and more. There currently is no federal or state program to help them get back on their feet. CAF urges the Legislature allocate at least $5 million as part of any additional flood funding to help family farmers through CDFA's California underserved and small producer program.

On behalf of the Nature Conservancy, we ask the Legislature to protect critical investments in nature based solutions, biodiversity conservation and coastal ocean resiliency from further budget cuts. In addition, we recommend the Legislature restore and preserve general fund appropriations to programs that are considered ineligible for special funding or bond funding.

Finally, these cuts demonstrate California urgently needs a climate bond and at least $15 billion to provide stable long term funding sources for nature-based climate solutions, as well as a structured investment plan to address the impact of climate change. Thank you for your time.

We are working on a bond. Thank you very much. Next caller.

Line 18, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Erik Turner with Niemela Pappas and Associates on behalf of Turlock Irrigation District, in support of issue eight related to the dam safety program. And in the interest of time, I'll align my comments with previous commenters in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much for doing that. And next caller.

Line 34.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Raquel Mason and I'm calling on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, speaking on issue 12 and emphasizing our alliance's opposition to proposed cuts to Transformative Climate Communities program and the Community Resilience Center program. Our alliance strongly supports maintaining the original 420,000,000 proposed for SBC's TCC program.

One of our members, the Environmental Health Coalition, which is based in San Diego, has been gearing up for their TCC application for the past few years and have co-created an amazing project that includes 10 different project types with their community leaders. With a proposed cut, EHC is going to have to return to their members and ask them to choose between affordable housing units or a complete build out of a park, a choice that we don't believe they should have to make.

And the promise of federal funding to fill in the gap with the cut is tentative at best. We're really concerned about the reliability of the federal funding mentioned and that it is not a guarantee. And also, there's a high likelihood that California having this existing program will put us at potentially a disadvantage compared to other states that have never benefited from this type of investment.

Additionally, we support maintaining full funding of community resilience centers and align our comments with those shared by Leadership Council, the California Green New Deal Coalition, and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Thank you.

Got it. Thank you. Next caller.

Line 33.

Hello, Chair and Members. My name is Nicole Wong, senior climate resilience program manager with the Greenlining Institute. I'm here to speak on issue 12 as well. We strongly support preserving the original 420,000,000 proposed for fiscal year 2021 to 24 for the Transformative Climate Communities program, which advances holistic, community-led climate resilience projects. Despite the forthcoming rollout of federal EPA funding, this program is anticipated to be highly competitive, and federal grant programs are uniquely challenging to apply for.

It is uncertain whether California communities will be able to successfully access these funds, and there are also stark differences in the program's implementation, timeline, goals, and eligible entities. And so we urge you to fully fund the TCC program that SGC has tailored over the past five years to the distinct needs of California communities, especially rural, unincorporated, and tribal communities. Additionally, the regional climate communities program offers the necessary partnerships, technical assistance, and skills so that under-resourced communities can prepare to effectively apply for climate funding.

Therefore, we strongly urge the Legislature to include 10 million to maintain this critical capacity building program, which was not included in the governor's January budget. Lastly, I want to uplift our support for protecting the full 160,000,000 in funding for the Strategic Growth Council's Community Resilience Centers program, which will support foundational resilience across California's communities with the greatest needs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next caller.

Line 25.

Hi. Good afternoon. Tasha Newman on behalf of the California Council of Land Trusts and the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. We are speaking on issues 10 and 11 today. We are very concerned about proposed cuts to the nature-based solutions and climate resilience budgets across the board. In the interest of time, we would like to align our comments with those of Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy. Thank you.

Okay, we can take one more caller. Next caller.

Line 30.

Thank you Chair and members of the committee. On behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, on issue number 12, we urge the state to protect the full 160,000,000 in funding for this strategic Growth Council's Community Resilience Centers program. This program will expand access to cooling, backup power, and other resources by upgrading community-based facilities with clean energy technologies like heat pumps and prioritizing high road job opportunities. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you are not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the budget and fiscal review Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you, and again, we appreciate all who participated. We will now move over on to the vote-only calendar. And we only have six issues on the vote-only calendar. I will entertain a motion on the vote only calendar. So moved by Senator McGuire. Consultant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is two to one, so those issues are out. Those pass. So again, thank you to all of our panelists today for participating in the discussion. Thank you, everyone, for your patience and cooperation today. We've concluded the agenda for today's hearing. Senate Budget Subcommitee number two is adjourned.