Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Good afternoon. Thank you all for coming today. Welcome to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, back to back, two days in a row.

Lucky you and Lucky California today, in keeping with our commitment to robust public engagement and participation, we're holding this informational hearing on SB 867, the Safe Drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparedness and Clean Air Bond act of 2024. This is an informational hearing.

We will not be voting on the Bill today, although it would have an eye record from the chair. This afternoon, Members of the Committee on Natural Resources are joined by Members of the climate bond Working Group. Our hearing will be conducted as follows.

First we will hear from three of the authors of the measure and from a representative of the LAOs office. Then we will have an opportunity for discussion and questions from Members, should they attend. And then most importantly, we will hear from Members of the public.

That's the reason for this hearing, is to make sure that people who are active and engaged and care or have feelings about this bond can be heard. This bond represents the most impactful single investment in water safety, wildfire prevention, and climate and environmental protections in this state's history. We don't make these investments often.

We don't make them lightly. It's crucial that we don't miss this opportunity to provide this essential support. It's been designed to meet the urgent needs of communities across California, including many communities that have been overlooked for far too long.

With this bond, California voters would have a choice to make a transformative, equitable investment that touches many aspects of the lives of Californians. Importantly, this bond takes an enormous step towards implementing the promise of the Justice 40 initiative announced by President Biden here in California.

This bond will allocate 40% of funds directly to projects that serve disadvantaged communities. These neighborhoods have not just suffered from decades of disinvestment, but also bear disproportionate burden of climate change and environmental harm. Joining me today to present our Assembly Members Lori Wilson and Senator Limon. And if Assemblymember Garcia arrives, he's welcome to join us as well, and I will turn it over to you both.

Thank you chair and colleagues. It's a pleasure to be here with Lori Wilson and Eddie Garcia that is going to follow. I am pleased to present Senate Bill 867, authored by Senator Allen and jointly authored by Assembly Members Wilson and Garcia and many of our colleagues.

This is a historic $10 billion climate resiliency General obligation bond for the November 2024 ballot. SB 867 is the single largest investment in public funding for climate resilience in California history, and the largest made by any single government other than the federal Inflation Reduction Act. In a year where we have had difficult budget actions, especially regarding climate funding, this measure will provide billions of new revenue for years to come.

SB 867 provides comprehensive and major new climate investments in all of our regions of the state, from the Oregon border to Mexico, from our coast to the Sierra Nevada, including the Central Valley and the Inland Empire. The bomb places significant investments in water, drought, flood, wildfire prevention, parks, coastal resilience, biodiversity, extreme heat, clean energy, and sustainable agriculture.

It fully preserves the authority of the Legislature to shape appropriations and approve funds after the bond passes so Members can help refine allocations once the voters approve it. SB 867 includes a first of its kind landmark requirement that at least 40% of the bonds the bond funds be invested in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities that suffer the highest unemployment, most serious pollution impacts, and chronic underinvestment.

This requirement is directly modeled on the Justice 40 initiative adopted by the United States government, as has been referenced by the chair. SB 867 also includes another 1st 850 million for clean energy investments to help meet our zero carbon energy targets through port and offshore wind investment, creating thousands of new skilled, high wage jobs.

SB 867 is another example of California's world renowned leadership on climate policy and something that we can all be proud of. Members this bond tackles serious challenges California faces from climate change. Just this week we're experiencing extreme heat, and we know that we have active wildfires burning across our state.

Last winter, we saw devastating flooding and coastal cliff collapses, not to mention the constantly declining biodiversity essential to our environmental well being, all of which are direct impacts of climate change. This measure creates jobs, increases investments, makes our communities more park friendly, livable, and armors our state from the most serious impacts of climate change.

SB 867 is supported by over 180 environmental natural resources, environmental justice organizations, water agencies from westlands to the Sonoma county ports, clean energy companies, and many more. I have also colleagues speaking in support here, and we'll tell you more about the bond.

Thank you, Senator Limon. Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members, or I should say Member, I appreciate you holding this hearing today on this very important issue. I want to thank my colleagues in the Assembly, especially Assembly Member Garcia, for his hard work and diligence on carrying the Assembly vehicle from its moment of introduction in 2023.

I'd also like to thank the Members of the Assembly Climate Bond Working group, our colleagues in the Senate, and as well as the incredible staff who put so much time and effort into ensuring that we are able to put the best possible climate bond before you, I'm pleased to speak about Senate Bill 867, the 10 billion climate resilience bond that if passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, will appear on the November 2024 ballot.

There is perhaps no greater risk to the future of our state, our nation, and the world than the climate crisis. Maybe not today or tomorrow or even next year. But it is a crisis that is undeniably and unavoidably upon us that we must face head on to protect all of our communities.

Historically disadvantaged communities have faced the greatest risk and borne the brunt of the most negative impacts of the climate crisis. I am proud that this bond measure goes to great lengths to ensure that the benefits of these investments will be felt most by disadvantaged communities.

This measure steps up to commit to make necessary investments to solve fundamental problems resulting from the climate crisis. There are those in the Legislature who I imagine will raise concerns about the long term costs associated with debt service debt service payments related to this bond measure.

But we know if we do not make the investment now, we will pay for it later and the Bill would be much higher and the problems far greater. If we do not act. Many of the problems will be exacerbated and some we may not be able to address before it's too late and the hardest hit communities will fill it. They will be unable to recover.

This measure is the result of countless meetings and long negotiations that often ran late into the evening, or should I really say morning, and filled many of our weekends over the past few weeks. There are four chapters of the eight chapters that I would like to highlight. My colleague Assemblymember Garcia will highlight the rest.

There's the Wildfire and Forest Resilience chapter, which was led by Assemblymember Connolly. This measure commits over $1.0 billion for local and regional scale projects that will make our communities most vulnerable to fire resilient.

This chapter prioritize ecosystem health while doing fuels reduction and forest management work, provide resources for the heartening of homes and community structures and invest in underserved youth workforce organizations that specialize in vegetation management work as well as other climate and emergency response projects.

There is the sea level rise and coastal resilience chapter, which was co led by Assemblymember Papin and Assemblymember Addis. It contains meaningful investments in protection against coastal flooding and sea level rise, the restoration of marine wildlife and ocean and coastal ecosystems, and protection of native California. fish.

Our protect biodiversity and accelerating nature based solutions chapter was co led by Assemblymember Connolly and Assemblymember Hot... Hart. These investments conserve, restore and protect natural lands in the state, including programs at the Wildlife Conservation Board and regional conservancies.

These investments will help us achieve the 30 by 30 goal, as well as our climate goals for our conserved land. The final chapter that I will speak to is one that's near and dear to my heart, and that's the climate smart, sustainable and resilient farms, ranches and working lands, which was led by Assemblymember Soria.

It contains resources to assist California's agricultural confront the current and future challenges of climate change by investing in sustainable agricultural practices, programs for socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, tribal producers and veterans, and programs for our new farmers food access and farmworkers. I'd like to now turn it over to my colleague, Assembly Member Garcia, who will further share testimony and highlight some of our chapters.

Thank you very much. To my colleagues. To my left, your right. This is a product that we should all feel very proud of given the amount of time and energy that has gone into this draft that is before us in this informational hearing. So let me begin by thanking you, Mister chair, and the colleagues of this Committee who are before us. As my colleague from the Assembly, Miss Lori Wilson, has just outlined what the Assembly process looked like.

I'd like to just really emphasize on what were some of the guiding principles that led to what was our proposal, and that spilled over to the conversations with our friends in the Senate and that ultimately led to this particular proposal. Before you, we were looking at four driving pillars. The first is, you know, what is our goal and objective here? And it's clearly to address, you know, one of the most important issues of our lifetime and the issue of climate.

And so what are the programs that this State of California has adopted that we know are working that align with the first pillar of the issue of building resilient infrastructure? What are the programs that also help us transition and adapt to the circumstances that are in front of us? And so the idea of programs aligning with adaptation and investments moving in that direction were extremely important as a guiding principle for our work group. The third was, let's take a look at the existing scoping plan.

And those are the tools that we have, as we always say, the toolbox to help us address our goals and objectives to achieve climate emission reduction goals here in California. And we had to also consider, right, kind of the fourth leg to the table, the stool, what have you, is the voter appetite, what are they saying is important to Californians? And what are our colleagues in both houses saying as it pertains to what should be in this bond.

And so the p word, the politics of this particular dynamic of putting a proposal forward, that's what guided us to put forward a proposal that led to the conversations with our Senate. And I want to say that it was an honor working with the two individuals to my left. We couldn't have had a better group of individuals.

Putting California's climate priorities front and center. I'd like to highlight three particular sections to really round off what the climate bond before us all, and potentially the voters of California will be seeing the safe and drinking water program of the State of California.

And although the title is safe drinking water, drought, flood and water resilience in the chapter, it contains substantial investments to provide safe, clean drinking water for communities that need it most, funding for groundwater storage and water recycling to mitigate impacts on our communities from drought, and meaningful investments to protect Californians from future flooding.

One thing that I'm extremely proud of, and it was work done in collaboration with retired Senator Bill Monning, is that we allocated one of the largest portions of this chapter to save clean drinking water. And we know that there are tremendous amount of efforts to ensure that no Californian goes without safe, clean drinking water up and down the State of California in rural urban areas of our state. And we have a lot of work to do still there.

And that chapter is extremely important to me and I know to many, many folks on this dais and folks who will be speaking later, I hope and support. The other section is the extreme heat mitigation area that we've heard quite a bit from advocates as it pertains to what important role these investments will be playing.

And I'd like to add some additional comments as I read off what the focus of this chapter contains. It focuses on funding for community resilient centers to safeguard communities during extreme heat or poor air quality events, as well as investments in natural solutions like trees and greening to keep our communities safe from this retreat.

I want to just add that in this chapter, although there may be some consternation that there isn't enough money going towards this effort, we have the Greenhouse gas reduction Fund, and although we have a five year plan that is in front of us and adopted to be able to make those investments, we have to ensure that there's greater alignment between those funds, these funds, and that we're being intentional in terms of where we're making those impacts.

And so if there is a need for this Legislature to revisit how we are going about making those investments, then we should commit to making those efforts in order to maximize the resources that are in front of us. The other point I want to make about that is that as a Member of the California Air Resources Board, we get to see many of the quarterly auctions that take place. And I got to tell you, there hasn't been an auction that I have not seen that has been bigger than the past auction every single time.

And so I think there needs to be an effort to determine what those funds look like on a regular basis and how it is that we are investing in those dollars. My hope is that we're not sitting on those dollars and that now more than ever, given the budgetary circumstance, given the crisis in front of us, whether it be here in Sacramento, the Central Valley, or where I come from, where it is extremely hot, that we are making the best use of these dollars.

And I want to challenge ourselves to work with the advocates who will probably be speaking about this section to do better and to do more. And so I wanted to just make sure that I made those comments upfront because there is a commitment.

I know from the individuals who are here speaking today, and I know that there's a longer list of Members that also want to see that come to fruition. The last section that I'll speak of that, you know, personally, I'm very passionate. I know many of you are as well. And we've seen some great results as Prop 68 dollars have put forward.

Parks in poor park communities up and down the State of California, which I had the opportunity to work very closely with former Senator on this section, has a $700 million investment that contains investments to ensure equitable access to green spaces for communities across the state and prioritizes access to the outdoors by providing funding for trails and outdoor educational facilities.

I think we have covered the chapters in the bond that are important to highlight this time is for the Members to ask questions, for you all to also hear from the Legislative Analyst Office, but also to hear from our stakeholders in terms of what they feel, think, and ultimately what their position is, hopefully on this bond that will be favorable to get out of both houses and before the voters of California this November. Thank you so much for your attention on this matter and we're looking forward to answering questions to the best of our ability.

Thank you. Mister Garcia. They gave me a gavel. I guess I'm used to these by now. And this is the time for the Members to ask questions, so I'm going to open it to my colleagues to my left. Do you have questions you'd like to ask of the panel?

Mister chair is it okay if we have.

Oh, I'm sorry. I just.

Our witness testimony.

Yeah, my apologies. I just was handed this thing, you know, so. Yes, apparently we have additional witness testimony, so let's proceed with that before we go to Member questions. Thank you.

Is this on? Great. I'm glad to hear that I am in the right place now. Good afternoon, Members. My name is Baani Behniwal with the Climate Center. It is 106 degrees outside right now, and there's no sign of relief from this triple digit temperatures for this next week.

There's no relief for families without access to air conditioning and clean drinking water. There's no relief for farm workers that are forced to work in these grueling conditions to grow our food. The very sad and alarming reality is that this type of extreme heat that we're facing right now is by far the deadliest weather event in California.

SB 867 addresses this head on by allocating $450 million to extreme heat mitigation to provide the much needed relief to communities across the state. This bond measure also provides critical funding to protect our water supply, forests, farm coasts, energy assets, and much more.

SB 867 also importantly prioritizes the communities that need it the most by allocating 40% of the funding to vulnerable, disadvantaged, and severely disadvantaged communities. There's a reason why over 180 organizations are strongly supporting this bond. They know that the climate crisis demands historic and sustained levels of funding, especially in light of budget cuts that critical climate programs have faced this year and will continue to face in the next several years.

In fact, there are a myriad of state programs that have been forced to shut down their grant applications because they are oversubscribed and don't have the funding needed to accommodate the need that is out there.

For example, according to the state coastal Conservancy, there are $600 million in immediate, shovel ready shoreline projects in the Bay Area alone, for which funding isn't currently available. If we act now, we can also leverage additional federal funds with these investments, an opportunity that we may not have from the federal level for years to come.

We've done a good job of setting laudable targets for climate action. This is an imperative first step. But what really matters is how we actualize these goals. As some have said before, we are in an implementation crisis. We need to now adequately invest in the programs that are necessary to achieve the vital goals that the state has set. We owe it to Californians dealing with the climate disasters right now to give them a chance to make their voices heard in November. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Legislature to approve this bond for the November ballot. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Helen Kerstein with the Legislative Analyst Office. We don't have any prepared remarks today, but we're here to answer technical questions, should you have any? On some of the areas that we cover for our office, our role is a little different in the initiative and Proposition kind of space than it is in many instances.

When we talk to you, we serve, instead of serving mainly as your advisors, we write what goes on the voter guide for those who are going to be voting. So happy to discuss that if you have any questions.

Well, thank you. And I'm assuming that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. I think we're going to.

Before we go to public comments, I do.

Are you a witness?

We had. Zero, okay. Well, I. Is this. Are you. Are you for public comment or actual witness? I'm looking at the panel.

I think we had two witnesses in support at two minutes each, and so not including the LAO.

Okay, that's fine. That's fine. From, from my perspective. Yes. Yes.

Wasn't able to come. You know, timing works. Crazy. So if it's the pleasure of the chair, we would love to have our witness speak, please. Thank you. I don't have the witness.

Thank you. Sorry for that little confusion. Ryan Ojakian with the Regional Water Authority. Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I. As I said, I'm with the Regional Water Authority. RWA is a joint powers Association that's comprised of 22 local public water agencies that provide drinking water to 2.2 million people in the greater Sacramento area.

Our Members are the stewards of source watersheds that are the source of water for. We don't measure it like this, but 7 million Californians, approximately. It shouldn't come as any surprise, based on the testimony that we heard here, that our single biggest challenge to meeting the drinking water needs of those 2.2 million people that we serve directly and the 7 million people that we serve indirectly is climate change and the impacts of climate change.

I was going to say this when the chair, Mister Bryan, was here, but I need to remind everybody that the impacts of climate change that we're experiencing, experiencing today are from emissions that occurred before the chair was born. And I meant that as a compliment, but I can deliver it to him.

But just want to remind everybody that the emissions, the 106 degree days that we just heard about happening today are from emissions from before when the chair was born. This is not a problem that's going away anytime soon. And it has an estimated price tag of $100 billion a year. $100 billion a year by mid century.

Mid century is already here for water. It takes decades to plan and construct projects. So, I mean, this is a very serious problem. Now, I do not want us to not take the climate change disasters that we hear about on a weekly basis, globally, lightly.

I do think that we've become numb to the fact that every week we have a heat wave that kills, historic hurricane, historic drought, historic flooding, historic wildfires that burn soils that were frozen. I think we've become kind of numb to those.

But I do want to give a story about a recent example here a little bit closer to home, not quite here in California, but in New Mexico, Las Vegas, New Mexico, a town of 13,000 people is running out of water because it's flooding. I want to say that again. It's running out of water because it's flooding.

And the reason why is because it had experienced catastrophic wildfires in its upper watershed, wildfires, plural. That the runoff is causing debris and toxins to inundate their water treatment plant. This is a multifaceted problem that this bond helps address in a variety of ways.

I can't list everything that the Members presented on, but, you know, it's got forest health, dam safety, flood control, resilient water supply, safe drinking water, recycled water, groundwater recharge. The list goes on. You heard about that. These are investments that we can't afford to delay. We're already late on making these investments.

I do think, though, that something of the pushback is because this is a little bit of a new approach. We also heard about this. We're taking not just a single focus, we're taking a multifocus, and we're focusing not just on landscape change, but also how are we benefiting those who need the help the most. Right.

This is a little bit different than when we've done things in the past, but I think that that's a good approach that is deserving of this body's support. And I would close with, I respectfully ask for the Legislature to pass this bond measure as we move forward. Thanks.

Thank you very much. I think we have no more witnesses at this point. Okay. All right. That's great. So I'm going to bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Committee Members, any questions or comments. Assembly Member Papen.

Well, I got here late, so I feel compelled to comment. I just want to thank you all for being here and for your testimony. There's been a lot of Members that have worked very hard on this. I think Assemblymember Wilson and Assemblymember Garcia, I concur with the last witness that the time is. I don't actually now, the time was yesterday to do a lot of these infrastructure projects, and these are expensive projects, and they're not easy. The financing of them is not easy.

And I think that the, this bond presents a vehicle that we can live with budget wise, and we're in a world hurt, especially as it relates to water. So I just want to thank the chair who's not here for the opportunity to have an informational hearing. We've been on a very short timeframe here, which is not easy for any of us. But I'm hopeful that this informational meeting, even if folks aren't here, they're listening and they hear firsthand about the exigent circumstances that compel this bill's need or the bond's need. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Assembly Member Papan, Mister Hoover, thank you.

Just a question. Whoever wants to take it can take it. But, you know, I guess one of the things that I'm looking at here and my concern, I know the analysis notes the budget condition that we're in. We're sending a very large, talking about sending a very large bond to voters. We're going to have to take on increased debt service because of that.

So curious about can we handle this as a state given our current budget condition and then additionally the bonds that voters have passed in the last couple decades, I don't feel we have seen enough hard infrastructure coming, essentially enough results coming out of those bond dollars. You know, how can voters be confident that this will lead to better results?

Well, you know, I think it's really important to recognize that on our ability to assess whether this is the right threshold to send to voters when asked by state agencies, when asked, when we asked state agencies and also local authorities what their needs were for climate, it well, amounted to over tens of billions of dollars.

And so we understand that the need for our state and for our local communities is significantly greater. But the reason that it's a $10 billion bond has everything to do with our assessment of what would be appropriate during this time, given our state's financial situation, but also our bonding capacity. And I think that what you have in front of you is a product of that exact same analysis and conversation. But we also, I think, weighed not just the needs, the fiscal needs of our state, but the human, governmental, natural resources need.

And not taking action now, delays needed action which will incur a greater depth for our communities. And the debt, I say in a different way, there's the debt that we incur through a bond, but there's the debt we incur for our communities when we don't take action. I can tell you that as a Member like my colleagues here, who has had some of these climate impacted natural disasters, we get to billions in damages for one county or for two counties real quick. Real quick.

So the fact that this is 10 billion for the whole state is an approach, again, that was measured, but also one thinking about what happens if we don't take action. So, you know, I want to share that with you, but I know some Member Wilson also has more to share.

And just recognizing the uncertainty around our own budget that we know for the next two or three years has issued, we need additional funding sources and a bond is approached to be able to do that and giving that opportunity for the voters to weigh in if this is something that should be prioritized as a state, because we definitely feel like without addressing these important climate impacts, that to Senator Lamon's point, billions and billions of dollars would be outgoing.

I think our witness testified that it cost us $100 billion a year to not address climate impact. But recognizing that if the voters should pass this, the process really starts with Department of Finance within the treasurer's office, they are the ones that issues the bonds. We appropriate the funds related to it. So there is a roll for the Legislature, but there is no new debt until the funds are appropriated and those bonds are sold over a period of 10 to 20 years after we authorize them, we know that the market doesn't have capacity to do them all at once.

So we're not appropriating a $10 billion bond all next year because we can't sell 10 billion. You can't sell 10 billion worth of just this one bond. We have another bond on the ballot that we're asking voters to approve. We have bonds that we've issued, as you noted already, that we haven't yet fully appropriated. So this just gives us another tool in the tool chest to address climate change with resources that we do not currently have in our General Fund budget.

I just would like to add to the oversight and accountability question that you also raise. I think we, as a legislative body, we definitely need to do more of that. You have that authority, and not only for bonds and the pending dollars and projects that perhaps have not been built out, but for all of our budgetary allocations on an annual basis. Right. We do that with agencies.

I can't think of one agency that we love to bring in quite frequently and often the CPUC to talk about transmission, other types of programs. And so we need to do that across the board and specifically when it comes to these types of proposals that the voters are approving and that we specifically said we are going to build out these projects.

You know, one area that I mentioned earlier that is very important to me and special is the parks components in Prop 68, we put forward somewhere in the range of $400 plus million. It was 4.5 million, five, $4.6 billion proposal that the voters supported. That program was oversubscribed by five to one.

And you don't have to take my word. You can ask the Director of parks and Rec for the State of California. And they'll tell you how significantly valuable the resources that we sent to them in Prop 68 and thanks to the voters how they were able to get those dollars out the door very quickly. And one of the things in that area that we need to do follow up, they agree, is making sure that those communities that receive those grants have actually delivered on the project.

And in some cases they haven't because things changed post the bond being approved, those dollars being invested Covid hit and many communities were unable to fully deliver. The cost of these projects have gone up, but for the most part, those projects have been built. And to your question, those dollars did go out the door immediately.

And so full circle to answering the question about accountability and oversight. That's something that I think really behooves us to do more of, especially when we're asking the voters to approve these types of proposals on the ballot.

Completely agree with you on the accountability piece. And you know, don't get me wrong. I mean, there are some very great things in this proposal. I do remain concerned that there's a bit of bond fatigue among the electorate. I think we've seen some bonds fail in recent years. We saw Prop one, obviously very laudable goals in Prop one barely pass. We're also going to be talking about a school bond. So certainly a little concerned about that potential for bond fatigue here, but appreciate the answers to the questions. Thank you.

And I do think it's important, even in an environment where there might be bond fatigue or voters are filling potentially a pinch, is giving them the option to choose what is the priority at this point.

And I think that's our role as a Legislature, is not making the decision for them, but saying, here's the opportunities before you, let us know what you would like to prioritize in the season where we're having tight budgets.

I want to elaborate on that. But we also need to let them know that we've got some pretty gloom and doom budgetary circumstances before us and there may not be other resources in front of us to be able to make these investments that are based on commitments in the climate space that were made the last two years.

And we also have to look at the cost benefit analysis of making these investments and the economic stimulus that it could potentially cause in certain parts of the state where it could be tremendously beneficial. We talked about areas that have high unemployment circumstances. We talked about areas that are disproportionately impacted by climate. There are some win win situations that come out of this by putting people to work and addressing the climate situation on real time.

Thank you, Mister Garcia, Miss Pellerin, thank you.

I just want to thank the Assembly Members and Senator who's here today for crafting this proposal and the working group that I know you put many, many hours into doing this. I'm particularly grateful for the funds that are going to go to our vulnerable populations, disadvantaged communities, severely disadvantaged communities.

I mean, that is really an essential piece of this package. And as an ex officio Member of the state park and recreation Commission, I'm really grateful to see some money in here for our parks as well, because we have a lot of unmet needs there.

And certainly coming from a district that has been the place where we've had severe damage due to wildfires and our coastal erosion. And so I'm really excited about seeing what's in this package. And I'm just wondering, is it going to be enough? Are we going to make enough of a difference with this? Is this going to make a dent?

Those are, those are, those are two different questions. Is it going to be enough? And is there enough in here? There is enough in here. Is it enough? We just talked about the impact of climate change being $100 billion a year.

We talked to,Senator Limon, talked about different projects throughout the state, I mean, different calamities throughout the state where the impact was billions and billions of damage. So, no, it's not enough. When we think about the total cost to our state, however, we have prioritized some key investments.

As noted, when it comes to safe drinking water, 650 or 610. $610 million for safe drinking water. When you think about the number of projects across the state to be able to ensure that when people, you know, turn on the tap that they have clean water, that's pretty significant.

And we have, there was a recent article that talked about the various areas throughout the state that have issues with safe cleaning, clean drinking water. We like to look at other places across our nation and say, zero, look at them. But there are places in California that needs clean, safe drinking water.

And this $610 million goes a long way. So it's not enough. When you think about the total cost, the total Bill that is due as it relates to the impacts of climate change and the needs of our vulnerable communities, but it definitely makes a key investment and a down payment on the work that we need to do, and we just have to continue at it.

The safe drinking water piece is really key. I guess there's like a million people in the State of California without safe drinking water. So thank you. Thank you again for this work. And I'm happy to support it.

Rebecca Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mister chair. Hi. And I want to start by thanking the climate champions that are sitting before me today. I know you have all been at this for a very long time and some newer but also been climate champions since your time here. And, you know, it's one of the things that made me run for office is my kid's future. And there's a lot of work that needs to go into making sure our state is ready for the future that we are already facing. And our communities are seeing that and feeling that.

And so I think your dedication to making sure that happens is apparent and appreciated by me, but I'm sure more than me. And so as I look at this bond, knowing that fundamentally I think this is a really important thing to do. The question I guess I'm posing to myself as I face the vote that we'll be taking tomorrow, I think is, is this right? Did we get it right? Should we put this before the voters? Right. So it's not a question of should we do a client of honor, shouldn't we? Right.

I think the answer to that is a clear yes for me. And so I want to dig a little bit, and I apologize. I was in two other committees, so I may have missed some of these answers. So I want to apologize in advance if you're repeating yourselves. So I guess I want to start a little further out, which is, as you all know, I've spent a good part of my time in the Legislature studying water. So as I looked at this, I really honed in on water.

And the question that my colleague from Santa Cruz asked, I think, is the one that I'm really struggling with, which is I think we need to do huge investments in water and energy to get to where we need to be. In 20 years, scientists are telling us there will be no more snow in the Sierras.

That means California's water right now will not move in the same way. Our largest reservoir in the state is our snowmelt. And so when we no longer have our snowmelt, the way water moves and is used in California today will no longer be our reality. So that's going to take a huge investment. 20 years isn't very long.

These projects can take a decade. So we got to start now. And so as I looked at this, I started to look at less than $100 million for water storage desalination, 60 million water recycling. I mean, when we look at leaders in the world that are getting it right, Australia, Israel that have less water than us and are doing good. They're doing water recycling. They're doing desalination. They're focusing on groundwater storage.

And I fear that the money in this bond been so split up in so many different directions that we're not going to see the results we need to see in those major investments. They need to happen to really ensure the future of California's water and climate. And so I just wanted you to give you an opportunity to address that because it's one of the things that I'm really struggling with.

Well, I'll start, and thank you for the question. You know, and I, and I'm sure my colleagues would like to chime in, the 2, 3 examples that you give are areas where we don't always find consensus on.

Those are areas where they become, although for some of us, become very logical investments that we should be making in some of the spaces that we work in. They are very controversial areas of investment. When thinking about the driving principles of this conversation and the budget being one of them as well.

And how do we backfill what's been pulled back on? What resources are there? What other resources are available at the Federal Government level? We also talked about the political dynamics of our houses, the state voters. And the fact is that desalinization isn't something that everyone is embracing in our house, in the Senate House and throughout the State of California. And many stakeholders that will probably be speaking before us later today in terms of where they stand.

And you mentioned storage, and there are other items underneath the water chapter that we have a lot of different perspectives. So in the negotiation, it was about maximizing the resources that we were able to agree on for this water chapter, which I will say that, you know, we heard from some water agencies that they would have loved to have seen this bond.

And we heard this post, an agreement being made that the majority of this bond had just been focused on water. And, you know, if that was the case, we would be talking to you or the water, you know, Committee today and I presenting the water bond and not the climate bond. Right.

And so there were some very difficult decisions that needed to be made. And your points are well taken. But we also had to consider the dynamics of what voters and Members of this house would support. And the two things that you pointed out are extremely important, but not to everyone.

And we have people in this house and stakeholders that would not support more money going towards that safe, clean drinking water. I don't think there is an argument that that is a fundamental right and a important area for us to invest a significantly large amount of resources. Other areas in the water chapter that we agreed on are exactly what is reflected in this deal.

And I guess, I mean, I gave the examples of the things that I think are game changing projects that we could actually build. And I guess it doesn't whether my priorities are the same as others. I guess it doesn't really touch on the overarching concern, which is it feels like the money is split in so many places that nobody's priorities are actually going to get fulfilled because everybody doesn't have enough to actually do what they need to do.

So I guess you can say you disagree with my priorities, but the bigger question is, like, is this going to, are our voters, are our constituents going to see the transformation that $10 billion could achieve? That's my question. Just to reframe it, since I think maybe it wasn't clear.

No, look, I think that one of the pieces that's important to recognize in this conversation is that, as some Member Garcia mentioned, is that the priorities for 58 different counties and 480 cities were all different. And what you see in the bond are priorities for the state.

There are things that we discussed heavily that didn't even make it in the bond. And we all recognized time and time again, we looked at each other and said, this is really important. How do we make an impact? But also realizing we had a capacity of what we were able to do.

So from my perspective, the numbers that you see, there are not a reflection of them not being a priority. It's the contrary. They are a priority. The question about whether they will go far enough, we actually started by saying that the entire bond is not enough.

If I recall correctly, when we asked just our state agencies how much they would need as state agencies to be able to address the climate impacts from their lens today, not tomorrow. It was well over $52 billion. Yeah. And so for us, the fact that we're able to say, you know what, there is brackish water desalination in there. There is groundwater storage. There are recycling programs in there. It's an investment.

And it has to be put in the context of not just what's in the bond, but what is and what is not in the budget this year and next year. And so for us, I think we feel really confident that you have to put it in light of what we had to cut and where we are going to have to go in the next years to be able to feel, I think, a level of confidence that we think it does meet the right balance.

It is the right approach. So our ask is for this to go forward, to put it to the voters. And as assemblymember Wilson said, let the voters decide where we place that emphasis. But we felt it was so important to try and to be able to ensure that we're not just leaving this alone and that we're not making progress on water recycling, on storage, on, you know, desalination and other pieces. Absent this, there's no movement. So from my perspective, some movement is greater benefit to all of our communities than no movement at all.

And to echo that piece, just one, echoing that last statement, and really both statements, but just to note, we did take time as a work group in both houses, thinking through capacity issues as it relates to the total bond.

And there are some things that are high priorities, but because they couldn't, even though it was a high priority, giving it a small amount wouldn't do anything for it. You needed the full dollar amount that didn't make it into the bond for that very reason. And so we had to be mindful of capacity issues.

It's interesting, the two projects that really come to mind in the water space that I think will be transformative for the State of California. Neither of them are even in my area. I think Met's recycling project, which serves Southern California, but Met is in dire need of access to water.

And the idea that they could get to 100% recycled water is such an exciting thing for all of the half of the Californians that met serves, but really the whole state, because water is a shared good. And then the Central Valley flood expansion project, which will be game changing for underground water storage, it's expensive.

It is listening to our native people returning the land to what it was. From an environmental perspective. There's nothing more exciting where we've done it, which is the new state park. Kudos to the Administration that has really led on that project. We are seeing wildlife return, we're seeing the groundwater recharge.

And it's just such incredibly exciting but expensive work. And so I just hope that as we look at these transformative projects that will set us up for the future, that we really make sure we're achieving them. I think that's so critical to this. But I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate your answers.

And then I had some, you know, I would be remiss if I didn't speak on behalf of my Bay Area folks and focus a little bit on this disadvantaged community piece, because I think it's really important. And I think, you know, as we've moved infrastructure, it's been a really critical thing that we as a Legislature, ensure that all communities, but those that have not benefited historically have. And so I have two questions on that.

The first one is, so the language around disadvantaged communities says that at least 40% of the funds available shall be allocated to projects that provide meaningful and direct benefits to those vulnerable populations or Disadvantaged communities.

And I know, and I apologize again, you can tell me if this is asked and answered, because I was running between committees, but that seems vague to me, like, who is going to decide if it's meaningful and direct? How will we make sure that it's actually going to communities? I have serious concern around that definition as it relates to ensuring access to those funds.

Yeah, just to expand, just to make sure everybody's on the same page where you are. No, no, no. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood the definitions that we're talking about for disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations. And so, you know, our, this bond says that 40% should be related to disadvantaged, severely disadvantaged and vulnerable population.

Our disadvantaged community is 80% of the area average or lessen than 80% of the statewide median household income. Severely disadvantaged, which makes up 10% of that or 10% of the whole, is 60% of the area average or less than 60% of the statewide median and vulnerable population. Which I think is what you were alluding to is the more vague.

Well, actually, I was talking just to this point. I'm talking about just the 40% writ large going where there's meaningful and direct benefits. What does that mean?

And so it means just that. I mean, that's it. I was going to repeat it, but my husband always, he's like, you can't tell a definition with the same words that I used. But anyway, here's the deal.

So it's through two ways, right, that this is how we're holding accountable to this 40% is through the programs that exist. A lot of the bond dollars go to existing programs that provide grants and or benefits to our communities as well as then us as a Legislator appropriating dollars and to provide for different projects across our state.

So the accountability comes in between our departments as well as the Legislature. And we have, on the Assembly side at least we have a new budget sub for that is definitely accountability and oversight. Who could take at any point, take a look at this bond outside of the audit that is already required by the bond language.

Through the bond language to take into consideration, are we meeting the objectives of this 40% to our disadvantaged, severely disadvantaged and our vulnerable population of vulnerable populations.

I'd like to just really add to what the intent here. And there have been other comments that there's a need to be more clear with that language. And I'll tell you, we spend a lot of time with our partners in the Senate and the workgroup that represents a pretty diverse region of the state who have expressed over the course, even of some years, the traditional definitions that have been used and the application of a specific disadvantaged communities definition that's in statute, like the Cal and viral screen, that definitely will have left out many communities up and down the State of California.

But I think we need to just have real talk. We have districts up and down the state that are extremely affluent, and we have some districts that are very poor. You have some of these affluent districts that might have pockets of some poverty that we don't want to exclude when it comes to accessing these dollars.

And we had Members, and I'll look to Miss Diane Papen, who was there making sure that these definitions did not exclude those poor people in her community and others throughout the state, like Mister woods, that by using a very specific definition would automatically exclude them because of the higher income census tracts. And again, we all represent diverse parts of the state, some much more wealthier than others.

And I'm glad that we're having this conversation because I think in order to paint the picture more truly, here is we have communities in the Central Valley and perhaps some in the northern parts of the state as well, where the city manager is the planning Director, the public works Director, the grants writer, the Director of code enforcement.

And the list goes on and on and on and on. And it's in those types of communities and circumstances where we want to be far more intentional when it comes to these definitions, so that these communities see an opportunity to get these resources to help them address their climate challenges.

And again, I will reiterate, we spend a lot of time trying to thread the needle here to make sure that by being intentional and inclusive, that we weren't being excluding of any community to access these dollars. Let's be mindful, 60% of the rest of the bond remains available through a competitive process.

And if you're from a community like Imperial County, Central Valley, the argument is, you know, those folks from the Bay Area kick our butt all the time when we compete for these dollars and other bigger, more urbanized areas that have the capacity and sophistication and the know to go after these dollars.

We tried our best to make sure we had a balance with these definitions. And you had some good Members of the workgroup that then carried over to the negotiations to have the definition that's before us. I hope that answers the question.

But if there is some more clarity, which I understand, even some of the environmental justice groups that push this particular area wanna see, so that there is no ambiguity by agencies, then we should move forward and try to address that accordingly.

And there is capacity within. So this is going before the voters. And there's the language, like you said, meaningful and direct. There is an ability for the Legislature to define meaningful and direct. That doesn't change our ability by the voters voting on it. It doesn't change our ability to provide a definition.

But this is what we're putting to the voters, that it should be meaningful, direct. That's our intention. And then we as a legislative body, can determine the actual specifics to that particular phrasing.

Yeah. And to be honest, Mister Garcia, my concern is actually those communities that don't have great access to the staff that communities in the bay have as it relates to this meaningful direct language.

And as someone who had to chair a hearing on the previous water bond, where people are very upset that that money has not all gone out, I think that we need to be really careful here to make sure we don't have money caught up, because people are fighting over whether it has a meaningful and direct benefit, because nobody understands what that means.

And that's my concern with vague definitions. So it isn't that I think it's going to go to the wrong community. It's actually that it won't go out, then it goes to nobody.

So I think we need to be really careful in having vague definitions that we're fighting over to get this money out when it needs to go out, to the point that was made earlier about how we need to move these projects forward, as Miss Lemon said and others said.

And then I did want to touch on the vulnerable population definition, which I think is what Miss Wilson thought I was asking about the first time. And that one is concerning to me because it says so. As you said, disadvantaged community can be those income brackets or a vulnerable population. Right.

And then a vulnerable population is defined as a subgroup of population within a region or community that faces a disproportionately heightened risk or increased sensitivity to impacts of climate change, which I think is incredibly important because not all of our communities are facing this in the same way.

And we want these dollars to go, I think, where they're desperately needed. And then the next part of that definition says, and that lacks adequate resources to cope with, adapt to or recover from such impacts.

And I guess that is, I think, to the Bay Area where we have, and I think it's Miss Papman's district, but I might be wrong. We have areas along the bay shore that will be underwater and in Miss Bontis district and others that will be underwater, potentially with sea level rise. And could they tax themselves, perhaps.

And so then are they not ever considered a vulnerable population, even though the climate impacts to those communities? And let me be clear writ large, the economy of the Bay Area is dependent on us solving that sea level rise problem. And that economy is critical not just to the area where that sea level rise is happening, but to the greater Bay Area community where all of those folks are in place.

Until you tax yourself, you don't have resources. You can't plan on a potential future tax, just like we're doing this particular bond, until the voters vote on it, it is not a resource to the state. Right. And so, for a community, until you vote on a tax that is not a resource available to you.

So this speaks to adequate resources, meaning what is available to you at that particular moment, just because you can tax for it, or the potential to tax for it, that's tax. Tax that's not voted on is not a resource. It is only becomes a resource until you vote on it. So adequate resources about what you have at your disposal. We found with Prop 68 in particular, great program, over prescribed. However, there were communities that had sufficient resources to build a park on their own. They were wealthier.

I mean, wealthier cities who had opportunities to have grant writers on staff, right, had General Fund monies, had ARPA monies, things of that nature, and chose to go after a Prop 68 grant for park poor areas instead of using their own resources that they had at their disposal that existed that day.

So, yes, if there is a community that's affluent, but happens to have a disproportionate heightened risk or increased sensitivity, as it states, to impacts of climate change, and has $10 million in their coffers to be able to address whatever issue is going, then, no, they probably couldn't apply for $10 million for that particular project.

But if they had 5 million, then they could apply for 5 million for that project because they had 5 million available. So we would be, this bond would be able to fill in the gap. But, you know, the thought of the ability to tax yourself is not the same as having taxed yourself and having available resources. I think Senator Limon wanted to speak before you.

Okay, please. Sorry. And just not used having three authors. Okay.

It's fun. So the other thing that I will add to some Member Wilson's point is that this is also something that fluctuates very regularly. There is not a static need or static resources. And so when I look at some of the areas that you've mentioned there, while my communities and the districts I represent are not identical, there are similarities. And what you will know is from year to year, the resources available to tackle climate change differ.

Right after a year of a wildfire or a debris flow or king tides or part of our infrastructure falling off a cliff, those numbers change. So I think it's really important to also recognize that what is true today may be very different in terms of the resources and the needs for a community tomorrow.

And we have seen that roll out in a very real way. And I think that it's also part of the conversations that we've had just recognizing at that moment in time what are the resources available to a community. But they could change, and they likely will change because of climate change. So that will also have an impact on the ultimate outcome and the formula that is used, recognizing that these are not static numbers or static resources available.

For communities, I appreciate that and I actually appreciate what both of you said. But Miss Wilson's clarity on this, I just worry that the language itself isn't as clear as you are. Right. And so I guess that's my concern, is that we ensure that these areas that really need it are able to get it.

And I, you know, my community passed a wildfire bond because we are at incredible risk. And we actually were willing to pay as a community. It passed with flying colors to do the mitigation that we needed to keep our community safe. And so now we have those resources. But to your point, they're limited in time.

So by the time this passes, they'll probably be gone because there was a lot of work to be done very quickly or there might be a gap in this. So. Or there may be a gap. But I just, I mean, I guess I have a fundamental concern around this language that just feels not clear to me who's going to get these resources.

And so as a result, I guess I'm concerned not only will places like my community not benefit from this bond that they're paying for, but also that we will have this problem with a log jam.

And I really just want to make sure that we get these dollars out and we are not in a place, again where the voters are looking at us and saying, we passed this money. You had the bonding authority. Why am I not seeing these projects being built? Because I think that really risks our ability to do big projects in the future. Thank you.

I'll just say 5.3 billion that work, I think in a very synergistic manner between the water and fire, looking at the recharge and storage, it's close to 400 million that is set up in competitive form. I am very confident that your region is going to do very well in that process. I appreciate all the questions.

And we definitely can provide greater clarity. And I'll look to LAO in terms of I know you, you normally don't. This is more about what's on the voter ballot, but in terms of your expertise and understanding of what the Legislature can do post language, being in a particular bond, is there something you can speak to related to that?

So this isn't my area of deep expertise, but my understanding is that the Legislature can provide some additional clarity. And both statutorily, but also as you're appropriating these funds, that gives you a really good opportunity potentially to provide clarity in areas where it may not be there. So some bonds, for example, have continuous appropriations.

In that case, the Legislature doesn't have that role. But in this bond, because the Legislature would be appropriating those funds, that provides a chance to add, you can add language to the budget Bill, for example, that might provide some additional guidance if additional clarity were needed on some provision. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the folks who have worked incredibly hard on this. So I'm going to take a little bit of a counter to Miss Bauer Kahan. I kind of like the fact that some things aren't as clear because I think we don't know what we don't know.

Sometimes there may be opportunities that we meet. If we are so prescriptive about what the language is, we potentially lock things up so tightly it's really difficult to get to. I think the last water bond was 2014 and they're still not completely spent. I think we should be looking at that and trying to figure out why that money hasn't been spent. Was it the way it was constructed? Are the controls too tight? I mean, what are we doing here?

But the fact that the Legislature has the ability to appropriate these funds I think is really, really important and I appreciate that. There's a lot in here and it almost looks like Christmas for climate geeks a little bit. And that's a good thing. That's a good thing.

I wish there was more with regards to the 40% for disadvantaged communities. Look, I represent the largest district of any Democrat in the state. And when you look at median income in my district, four of the five counties I represent come in. They are in the top 12 or the bottom 12 as far as median income in the state. And we suffer the challenges with the ability to have the technical expertise.

Oftentimes, as Mister Garcia was talking about, the city managers do everything and they do the best they can, but that means that there's probably things that they don't have the opportunity do and their opportunities that pass them by. What a lot of people don't stop to consider is that a lot of our rural communities, especially in the north and other areas as well, we are resource donors, especially in the water space.

Trinity county that I represent has a very large lake and there's a lot of water that comes out of that lake that goes down to the Central Valley and beyond. And that is a significant, that's significant. And so it's important that you don't ignore that as you move forward with these kinds of investments.

And I have been hypercritical of the Enviro scan at times because for some of the districts that I represent, because we don't tick all the 14 boxes or whatever it is, because we have clean air, because we in General have clean water, we can't access those resources in a way that others can.

And that is a challenge when you are then requiring certain air quality management procedures and things on these really poor communities that are really going to struggle to do that community that a farmer may use a truck for 500 miles a year or less, but is now going to have to convert to another truck that might cost $100,000 in a community that's really, really poor, is that the way we should be looking at these things?

These are challenging. So I do like the flexibility a little bit there because I think as we go forward, there are going to be opportunities that we might not know exist. I'm leaving at the end of this year, I'm leaving my job here in the Legislature, but I'm nothing, you know, I'm.

My passion is around a variety of things. The environment is certainly one, energy is another. And we have opportunities here, I think, to maximize these dollars. We can manage our water supplies better. You know, I'm working on something that's. It's done. We're going to, we're in the final stages.

But the reality is when we get into a drought situation and we will get into another drought, there is no question about it. That's the history of this state. We react. We don't have pre planned strategies to deal with that, especially in our sensitive watersheds. And we waste water.

We waste water and we in some cases actually end up decimating watersheds because we haven't pre planned. So when I think about a climate resilience, I think about our legislative opportunities to be in better shape to manage the resources we have. And that's not a big, bright, shining ball. That's just good, sound governance.

And we need to do more of that. In March of last year, 23 Governor used an Executive order to capture floodwater for recharge in the Central Valley. We need to figure out a policy long term to do that on a regular basis every single year because there is floodwater every single year.

And we are wasting that resource that can go into the groundwater, that can recharge some of these wells in communities that are struggling with drinking water. And those are not expensive things to do. They are really not. Those are policy decisions we can make here, but we have to do them. There are costs.

Just planning for protecting watersheds in a drought will take some planning and it will take costs to do that. But it's small compared to the benefit in the long run. The witness from the climate center talked about the weather today. It's pretty warm. The next 10 days are expected to be 100 plus 110 in some cases.

Depends on where you are in the state. I have an app on my phone. We're in the middle of a, and Northern California is in the middle of a transmission emergency right now in Northern California because we haven't even gotten close to what our peak consumption is going to be later in the day.

That's going to come when everybody gets home and they all flip on their air conditioners and do their washers and dryers and all those things that they need to do.

And so I'm really happy to see that there is money in here for transmission, which we desperately need in this state, which is really, really slow to build out. And also the opportunity for investments in additional green energy infrastructure like ports to help with emerging energy opportunities like offshore wind and onshore wind.

And so these are the things that get me excited. There's just so much positive here. But I implore you all who will be here, far beyond me, as I look in the next couple of months of my career, think about the planning pieces of it and use these funds in a way that a little bit goes a long way.

And, you know, when you start thinking about disadvantaged communities, like the communities I represent, a County of 29,000, a County of 16,000, 18,000 in another county, small counties. A little bit goes a long way and you can do great things with that.

And when you consider the resources that come from some of these small counties and the opportunities there, a little bit can be life changing, not just for those counties, but for the rest of California as well. So I'm going to be supporting this wholeheartedly. Wish there was a lot more we could do. But I want to thank you for everyone, for all the work you've done here. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Mister Wood, and Assemblymember Papan

Oh, I don't know if I want to follow that tough act. I know, I just want to, I had one follow up in connection with the previous line of testimony and Senator Lmon, you did. And I agree with Assemblymember Wood that perhaps we shouldn't be so prescriptive when it comes to describing vulnerable, and vulnerable can be a fluid situation.

You may not have money that day, as Assemblymember Wilson pointed out on the day that the flood hits, and you have no way of protecting against it, and that has nothing to do with your taxing ability on that day or going forward. You know, you just get hit and that's the way it is.

So I appreciate that it isn't quite as prescriptive as Assemblymember Wood had pointed out. And then the other comment that I had was, some of this money that goes out goes to established governmental agencies that do do a needs assessment along the way before money is distributed. What comes to mind is a safe drinking water program.

So as we talk about accountability and knowing where some of the money is going, we do already have departments in place that are going to be doing some of that needs assessment, but we will also be doing it certainly at the legislative level as we decide where we might want to have money go out at any given time.

But I just thought I would add that to the discussion about how money gets distributed and the factors that may come in to determining how that money gets distributed and how we account for it in the end run, because the voters deserve that, certainly.

But I want to close by saying as some of our Wood, I thank you for your eloquent remarks and you have good experience and it was nice to hear about your district and the environmental tensions that you might have. And I thank you on behalf of the Chair of the water Committee. I thank you for being a water donor. I really do.

Well, I know Mister Wood has another thought. I just wanted to jump in real quick. I'm also really grateful as a Member of the LA delegation for my colleagues in Northern California. We are all interlinked together. A few years ago I wrote a Bill around Justice 40 in relation to our infrastructure dollars.

And I remember Assemblymember Wood and I having many conversations. That was my first experience working with how we define disadvantaged. And it doesn't mean poor air quality. Does it mean poor water quality? The highest poverty rate in the State Assembly, make no mistake about it, is south central Los Angeles.

You can look it up on Calmatters right now, the most affluent district in California is quite a bit further north. You can look that up on Calmatters as well. How do we capture all the nuance in between those, I think is what this group spent a lot of time doing.

And Mister Wood, I don't think we would have ended up with the kind of expansive definition that we would have had without the leadership you've had for not just this year, but many years. And also want to point out that this bond is both an equality bond in that 60% is for everybody, cut the pie up equally.

It's competitive, have a chance, go fight for it. And an equity bond. And I think that's incredibly important. That piece of equity isn't supposed to be cut up evenly across the state.

It is supposed to remedy some of the harm that we know is coming in certain places, that often comes in certain places, or has been coming in certain places for a very, very long time without the resources or answers that those communities deserve. And so that's the thing we've been able to do with this pot of money.

And I think those who have said, is it enough? It is never enough. These are investments we have to make. In fact, we're barely replacing in quantity the total dollars that have been stripped from the budget. Right?

And this doesn't put, this doesn't put us in a position where we do not have to think about climate going forward. We still have to think about climate in our budget.

We still have to think about the kind of climate policy that provides for the thoughtful planning and safeguards that might save us some of these resources because we have planned and adequately redesigned certain areas to mitigate these harms. But I just want to, you know, pass it back to Mister Wood for your final thoughts.

But to thank you for particularly, Trinity county should be incredibly proud of your representation because I didn't know where Trinity county was when I got to the Legislature and because of your advocacy. When I think of disadvantaged communities across the state, I now think of Trinity.

Thank you Mister chair, I appreciate that very much. One of the, and this is I'll go back to just to highlight two things. One is I hope that in the future that you can, somebody can do an oversight hearing or an informational hearing about the last bond and why there's still resources that haven't gone out the door.

I think that's really important as you go forward as this bond is successful, that we learn from that and make sure that that doesn't happen again. If those resources could have gone out, what prevented it from happening? And that, and that my final point is that we as a state, our agencies do not do always a really good job in getting the money out the door.

I'm working on something right now that the money has been allocated, there's federal money and state money and it was allocated two years ago and we're having a hard time getting it out the door. And that is a problem. And that's the kind of thing we have with our oversight ability to be able to ensure doesn't happen.

That's why I like the idea that things might not be overly prescriptive because that flexibility might be the key to helping get that money out the door. And so with that I want to just say thank you to the chair for your leadership here and these amazing people who have put this together. So thank you.

Thank you Mister Wood. Any further comments by Committee Members Singh? None. Any final thoughts for our witnesses and testimonies today?

I will close by just thanking everybody. And I do want to echo some of what's been said about Assemblymember Wood. He and I had very large wildfires at the same time. Not that that's, those have been the only ones, but you know, it's a reflection of the fact that we know that our communities can change very quickly.

We also know that when one county and one city is hurting, it impacts the entire state. When one of our main corridors to get people to and from any community or from one portion of the state to the other is impacted, it has an impact on every other county.

When we have to dip into our General funds, you better believe that every county and every city is impacted by that. So whether the fire, whether the drop in a freeway, whether it is a flood in our community, it has an impact on all of us.

And so what we're putting forward is a bond that will also, just in the same way that we all hurt together, we all also can benefit together. And so when one community benefits it has an impact on the state. When one community hurts. It has an impact on the state.

And while I think this was a long and a difficult process, it's because each of us cared so much about what we were putting in. We were not at a place where we were disagreeing about the merits. We were trying to figure out how to prioritize this.

And I think that this hearing has been a reflection of how difficult it was to come to a place where we agreed on a final outcome because everything that was said was real and because everything that was said mattered. And we understood that.

So our hope is that we've been able to answer questions, to provide information, not just about the process and what is informed front of you, but also about the benefits that this has for our community.

And we hope that this will get the support of the Legislature and that the voters will see the value in making sure that we have adequate resources in a time where our budget doesn't always allow us to make the investments that are needed, not just desired, for our communities.

Thank you. Senator, can I take those comments to be for the whole.

Yes.

So the main reason that we are having this hearing today is actually not so we can talk to each other. We've been doing a lot of that.

I think sometimes it's important to do that out loud and in public so you all can hear the kind of discussions and conversations that are happening between the people's representatives up and down the street. But the reason we're having this hearing is actually so we can all hear from you all.

So we're going to do this like a good old fashioned budget hearing, which means instead of name, organization and position on the Bill, I'd actually like to hear 30 seconds of why this is important to you, why we should do this, why we shouldn't do this, what you're feeling and what you're thinking based on what you see in print and what you've heard up here today. And with that, we'll start with Melissa.

Thank you so much for this hearing and for the opportunity. Melissa Romero, California Environmental Voters so I don't have to tell all of you, but this week, a majority of California is going to be over 110 degrees, and there's over a dozen wildfires burning in the state. So we cannot wait. We need a climate bond now.

And this bond really is an opportunity and a chance to be one of the most intersectional approaches to tackling climate change in California. With over 40% of the projects having to benefit disadvantaged communities, and also by prioritizing environmental justice programs, drinking water, community infrastructure, public health sustainable Ag alongside investing in major infrastructure like transmission and clean energy. So we are very supportive. This is a top priority for California Environmental Voters, and we urge an aye vote on this. Thank you.

This has been a year and a half long's worth of effort, and now it's finally coming to fruition. Just from the offshore wind piece. We specifically wholeheartedly agree with Assembly Member Wood about the offshore wind piece. We appreciate the 475 million that's in the climate bond.

In order to get these projects started, we have to have ports infrastructure to get there, and you can't do that just by assuming that it's going to get built. There's federal dollars out there that we can leverage. There's private dollars out there we can leverage. Humboldt has already gotten some funding, but it has to have a match.

So, there's so much more that needs to be done with other ports in order to get these projects start. We have to do it now. And that's why we appreciate the authors for including this money in the bond. It'll provide family wage, jobs, great reliability, at the end of the day, help us meet our climate change goals. So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Pilar Onate-Quintana here on behalf of the Irvine Ranch Water District and Yuba Water Agency, we're in support and we're particularly grateful for the funding $480 million for dam safety and climate resilience purposes. I didn't prepare 30 seconds, but let me throw a couple of fun facts at you.

Dams in California, based on the most recent Association of Civil American Civil Engineers Association's infrastructure report in 2019, gave California dams a C minus, which is honestly generous. Dams in California are on average over 70 years old, also on average about 10 years older than dams throughout the United States.

And it's not just an issue of safety, it's an issue of supply. The water that is lost in terms of storage capacity due to safety-restricted dams in California is about 330,000 acre feet of storage capacity, which would serve about 3.6 million people in California. And that's per a recent CalMatters article, if you'd like to know more. Thanks.

Juan Altamirano with the Trust for Public Land. We want to thank the authors and the Committee and all the staff for all the work that they've done to get us to this place.

The Trust for Public Land builds projects across many of the districts in every single region of the state, including doing parks, open space, and creating areas for public access for many of the communities that currently don't have any access to them. So we know that this bond will make a difference across many people's lives.

We've seen it in our projects that we put together across the various areas of the state. We know that this climate bond will deliver for many Californians. Again, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Martin Radosevich on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, speaking in strong support of the bond, particularly like to highlight the $480 million for dam safety funding. It's very crucial to our district.

We have Anderson Dam in our district, which is one of the biggest seismic risks in the state, and that funding will go towards that project. Also great to see the funding for flood subvention, $150 million which will really aid our district as well as well as the funding for water recycling as well. So, we greatly appreciate your leadership, and thank you everyone.

Good afternoon, Chair and members Kayla Robinson on behalf of Save the Redwoods League, I just want to thank the Assembly and Senate for their leadership on this very important issue. I'll keep it short, but just particularly grateful for the money for WCB and coastal conservancy and as well as state parks. That will go a long way for us. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon chair and Members Julie Lecheski, on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District and Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. Really want to take a moment to thank the authors as well as Senate and Assembly leadership for their great work on this proposal and particularly emphasize the importance of climate resilience extending to wildlife and habitat as well, and the great investments included in this bond really do that very well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Nicholas Mazzotti, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps. Would like to thank the authors and leadership in both houses for a deep commitment to equity and also workforce development, in particular a direct carve out for state-certified local conservation corps as well as state conservation corps.

So, thank you all very much. Really appreciate the leadership on this issue. In response to the conversation earlier about is this enough? I think we all agree it's never enough, but a small step forward is much better than the cost of inaction. So, thank you very much.

Buenos tardes.

Good afternoon.

[Spanish]

My name is Cristina and I come from Madera County.

[Spanish]

I'm here to thank all of you that are working towards changes for climate change.

Soy trabajadora del campo.

I am a farm worker.

[Spanish]

And I'm seeing that some of the changes you are doing are going to help some of us farmworkers.

[Spanish]

Thank you for your support and taking into account what we go through as farmworkers.

Gracias.

Thank you. My name is Rocio Madrigal. I am from Central California Environmental Justice Network. We are a nonprofit, been around for only 24 years. Miss Wilson, you are from our area. I thank the comments and the luxury of Mister Woods having clean water and clean air in his districts. We do not have that.

I can tell you a great majority of our workers and all of our towns do not have parks. We have a park. That's simply because they are incorporated in Fresno, and they do not have water. They cannot sustain grass in a park. I have a community in Poplar that has no park. And this is very sad.

Our workers need everything. They really do. And I invite you, as I invited Miss Wilson, to please invest more as you can in our communities. They are suffering. Our essential workers that fed our nation during COVID that had such a tremendously higher amount of death because they were essential workers and they did not stay home, are suffering.

They do not have clean water and they spend money they do not have on bottled water. Whether they go to the local mill or they have to buy water at the local grocery store, that is sometimes double the price of what you and I pay. They do not have water.

And in Fresno County, Tulare County, and Kings County, we have very bad air. So much so that you might have heard some of your Assembly Members. I know Mister Arambula has said more than once, they live in our area, in our zip code, 10 to 20 years less because of the air that they have.

Only 15 miles southwest of Clovis, where I live. And that is not fair, that is not equity. They are our farm workers. They need water and they need air, and they are the least protected. And they came here today. We left Fresno about 5:30 in the morning to speak to you today.

And I ask you, they are the most vulnerable. And it is very sad that being in California, being labeled essential workers. They do not have water and they spend money they do not have on water. Just to get through the day with this heat.

This heat that is awful that farmworkers die each year from because of heat illness. I could go on forever. But please don't make it a luxury for clean water and clean air, we need it. We need it in the Central Valley. We need it in Madera County, in Kings County, and Tulare County. Please help us. Thank you.

Mister Chairman and members. Bob Giroux on behalf of three clients, I'll try to split my time with 10 seconds each. On behalf of Assembly Member Garcia's home county, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, we're here in support.

We'd like to thank the working group and the members for all of the revenue that we're receiving for the Salton Sea restoration, flood subvention, fire protection, and for heat resistance.

On behalf of the San Diego County Water Authority and its 26 member agencies, we'd like to thank the working group for the pure water money we're getting in the climate bond, for the money for the Tijuana new river fixes that we're getting, and for other things.

On behalf of the Westlands Water District in the Central Valley, we'd like to thank the working group for the money that helps the family, farmers, and water agencies with estate Groundwater Management Act compliance, for the ag land repurposing money, and for some other revenues for the Central Valley, for groundwater cleanup and for the communities in need.

And for you, Mister Chairman, I'd like to say this is somewhat of a consolation prize for your ACA that was shelved earlier this year. And congratulations on the money you're getting for the EJ community and your communities in Los Angeles.

Thank you, Mister Giroux. The fight continues.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members and bond authors as well. I also am here for three organizations today, one echoing my colleague for the San Diego County Water Authority, in addition to the projects, he emphasized, we're also very grateful for the dam safety money, and that will go a long way to protecting people in the San Diego region.

Also for United Water Conservation District in Ventura County, very grateful for the dam safety funding. They have a high hazard dam project there, the Santa Felicia Dam, and they are grateful for this money and also the other water funding buckets. And then finally in Doctor Wood's district, the Yurok tribe represents much of Northern California.

They are very, very grateful to the bond authors, to all of the Legislature for the monies that have been specifically set aside for tribal water infrastructure in addition to the tribal nature-based solutions. So, thank you and we urge support on behalf of all three of those entities.

Good afternoon. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities, representing those 482, now 83 cities across the State of California. We had a support if amend position on SB 867 and we had a comprehensive set of priorities on the bond for cities.

We wanted to just recognize the tremendous amount of work that went into shaping the bond that we're seeing today.

While we are a bit saddened to see a lack of funding for organic waste diversion from landfills to help reduce methane emissions and the transition of public fleet to clean vehicles, we are extremely supportive of other categories in the bond, inclusive of stormwater funding, recycled water funding, water conservation funding, local wildfire resilience and prevention grants for cities and counties, as well as sea level rise, extreme heat, and parks funding.

So, thank you so much for the tremendous work here and we'll be urging an aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Jamie Go on behalf of Resources Legacy Fund in support of the measure. Really want to thank the Assembly, Assembly Member Garcia, Senator Limon for the leadership and working to get a deal together on this.

With the challenging budget, we feel that a resources bond is a critical way in ensuring that the state can continue its progress towards its ambitious climate, biodiversity, and outdoor access goals. And we really appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to helping get this across the finish line. Thank you.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association, first want to thank the author, the members of the working group, and all the staff who spent a lot of time putting this together. We specifically want to offer our support for the funding for port infrastructure that's desperately needed if we're going to develop offshore wind.

We also want to offer our support for the funding that's in the bond for transmission. We've heard a lot about transmission in the last couple of years. If we're going to meet our energy and climate goals, we need to upgrade and improve our transmission systems. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Brian Shobe, and I am here on behalf of the Food and Farm Resilience Coalition. We are a coalition of 17 organizations representing agriculture, farmworkers, the environment, public health, and food security.

We formed in 2020 in response to the disruptions we saw to our supply chain and our food system, and since then have worked with Speaker Rivas and Assembly Member Wilson on two bond measures to invest in a more resilient food and farm system.

The proposal before you today includes over $1 billion of priorities laid out by our coalition and we enthusiastically support the proposal. So, thank you.

Mister Chair and members, Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition. First want to echo the same thanks for the tremendous amount of work that has gone into this process specific to the Delta counties. The dollars for Delta levy maintenance is nothing short of critical, but all of the comments made. Urge your support.

Thank you, Mister Chair. members. Mark Fenstermaker here on behalf of Sonoma Water. You know, Sonoma County has experienced whiplash in terms of going from drought to flood wildfire. It's really emblematic of the region on the north coast and also the rest of the state.

And so we are happy to support SB 867, in particular, the investments that are being made in watershed resilience, groundwater, and also the regional approach that's being put in place for wildfire. It all impacts the watershed system and impacts how we do our business and serve our customers.

So, really appreciate everybody's hard work on this and urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. And before we hear from our next speaker, I just want to thank you, Dolores Huerta, for joining us today and for you to know that you are not bound by the 30 second time limit. Whatever you would like to share with us, we would love to hear from you.

Thank you. I am Dolores Huerta with the Dolores Huerta Foundation for Community Empowerment. But I just want to thank all of you for all the work that you've done. As was said earlier, in the central Valley of California, we have many communities that have totally run out of water, but they do not have any water.

So, we look forward to supporting this bond and thank you very much for doing this and we will be there to support you. Si se puede. Thank you.

Si se puede. Thank you. Thank you. Back to 30 seconds.

I was going to say what somebody have to do to get one of these waivers of the 30 second rule, it can't be that hard.

if you can match Dolores Huerta's legacy.

Working on it. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. Like everyone else, I really want to thank the leadership in both houses for the work on the bond. Really particularly appreciate the significant investments in our natural world, in our fire and water and biodiversity, the very things that we survive upon.

And there's a spirited conversation upstairs in the Senate around, just like, you know, the size of the bond and that I have every confidence that 10 years from now, when we're looking backwards, we will wish that this was twice the bond it is now, because we are still just nowhere near making the scale of investments that are going to be needed to deal with the challenges that are coming at us.

So, thank you very much. Encourage your support.

Good afternoon. I'm Liv O'Keefe with the California Native Plant Society on behalf of our 36 chapters across the state. And I just want to thank all of you for your work on this measure. We believe that it recognizes and sees that the health of our communities and our environment are intertwined.

And from looking at this from a plant perspective and related to that health, we know that California has the most types and diversity of native plants in the nation, but also the highest risks for extinction.

And so, we're especially happy to see the investments in conservancies in watershed resilience and wildfire resilience that will give these species a fighting chance. And in so doing, we hope, enrich our communities as well. Thanks again for the support.

Hi, April Bird on behalf of a number of organizations in support, Outward Bound Adventures, the California Invasive Plant Council, City of Sacramento, Sacramento Area Sewer District, California Academy of Sciences, Natural History Museum Los Angeles County, Placer County Water Agency, San Diego Zoo Wildlife alliance, and the Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority, who have been working with the authors for bonds since 2019.

We thank them and all the members and staff on working group in both houses for not giving up on doing a climate bond that will help with critical investments, particularly for water, wildfire, workforce development, and biodiversity. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Michael Jarred on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the California Institute for Biodiversity and Climate Resolve. We'd like to thank you so much for your work on this bond. All the working group Members work really hard in the Legislature.

We support it and want you to pass it to the voters so they can make their decision on it. We particularly appreciate the investments in sustainable ag, protection of biodiversity and extreme heat.

Kai Cooper, on behalf of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, and strong support of this bond. Thank you, Chair, members, staff for all your hard work on this.

Mike Lynes, I'm the Director of Policy for Audubon California. We've got members and chapters all over the state.

I want to echo the thanks for all the work that's been done on this really for many years, and also a lot of the comments around the investments in communities going across the board for renewable energy, clean water, and the like. Audubon supports all of that. In particular, I wanted to highlight, you know, as we're talking about the climate crisis, we're also in a biodiversity crisis.

And this bond has very significant investments for the 30 by 30 effort, for WCV, for coastal conservancy, for doing restoration projects, and other things across the state that will support biodiversity as climate change makes it harder and harder for us to conserve our species, our natural history in the state. So, thank you very much, and we urge your strong support.

Good afternoon. Katelyn Roedner Sutter on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists. Thank you all so much for the work that you have put into this.

There is a lot we are excited about in here, specifically the investments in safe and affordable drinking water, groundwater, land repurposing, water data, forest resilience chapter, clean air, clean energy investments. There's a lot we're excited about, and the reality is we simply cannot afford not to take action at this point.

So, thank you very much for all of your work, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. This is Megan Cleveland with the Nature Conservancy in strong support of AB 867. We thank you all for your work on this. I know it was hours and days and months of work, so we really appreciate it.

Some great investments in this that will help to increase the climate resilience of California and protect our citizens, our majestic landscapes, seascapes, and all of our biodiversity. So, thank you so much, and we urge your support.

Hi, Samantha Samuelson on behalf of the Conservation Fund, just want to thank you for all of your hard work and urge your strong support.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Sonoma Land Trust, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sierra Forest Legacy, Sierra Fund, Sierra Institute, Golden State Salmon Association, Pew Charitable Trusts, Oceana, Ocean Conservancy, Monterey Bay Aquarium, NRDC, and the Power and Nature Coalition, which is 300 organizations working around the state to promote the 30 by 30 goal.

These are really important investments. I think you know why these organizations support them. We thank them. Thank you for the very, very, very hard work that has gone into shaping this bond. We look forward to having you pass it and then working to get it passed by the voters. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Meegen Murray with the Weidman Group on behalf of RWE in strong support, particularly the port infrastructure and the transmission. Thank you. The investments in those. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the County of San Diego and the Port of San Diego, supporting for a variety of reasons, I'll specifically call out the pot of money for the border rivers, which will be critically important in helping us address the public health issues along the Tijuana River. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tasha Newman, on behalf of several organizations, including Bolsa Chica Land Trust, Big Sur Land Trust, Peninsula Open Space Trust, the California Council of Land Trusts, the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, all of these groups do conservation work throughout the state.

They are so excited about this bond and have been working with you guys to try and get this passed for many, many years.

So, we just really urge your support and we're thankful for all of your work on this and look forward to getting this passed and signed by the Governor and then passed by the voters of California. Thank you so much.

Hi, Megan Mekelburg here on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation and Sempervirens Fund. Really, really appreciative of all the work that went into this, but particularly for the parks. So, thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. Would like to thank the Committee, the authors and all the staff that's worked on this really hard. Appreciate the investments in wildfire mitigation and the important transparency provisions on expenditures. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jordan Curley on behalf of American Clean Power as well as the Port of Long Beach for today. Just wanted to thank you all for the hard work and of course for the investments in offshore wind and our ports as well as transmission, incredibly important in building those industries and we couldn't do it without it. So, thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members. Tatum Ackler with Samson Advisors on behalf of Vineyard Offshore, one of the offshore wind developers with the lease area up on the north coast in Humboldt. Here in strong support today of SB 867.

Particularly thrilled about the Clean Air Chapter, the transmission investments, but also the investments for port infrastructure for offshore wind. As you've heard mentioned here before, the Port of Humboldt already has 426 million in federal DOT grants and that's contingent on matching funds. So, this will go a long way in helping close that gap. Really appreciate it and just strong support.

Good afternoon. Jamie Miner on behalf of the California Stormwater Quality Association. Very thankful and grateful for the inclusion of stormwater capture as a line item in the bond.

There are few project categories that are as multi-benefit at stormwater capture from a water quality perspective, from a water supply perspective, urban greening, extreme heat, the list goes on. So, we really appreciate that investment and look forward to working with you all.

Good afternoon. Theresa Cooke, on behalf of Equinor, one of the Central Coast offshore wind developers, want to give our deep thanks for your committed support for the technology by funding by way of ports and transmission infrastructure. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance. I've also been asked to convey the support of Western United Dairies. I want to thank you both for your leadership in this space and the work of the respective working groups.

We very much appreciate the funding for water projects, namely the groundwater projects and the bond. Almond Alliance and Western United Dairies have partnered with the Department of Water Resources on an innovative program called Landflex, which can be used in times of drought and flood for groundwater storage.

This is one of the programs that Assembly Member Wood referenced in his comments. We are hopeful that the Legislature and the Department will prioritize funding for this program as we move forward. Appreciate the support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Roschen on behalf of Western Fairs Association and California Fairs Alliance in support with a presence in your districts. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors and the Urban Counties of California. We are supportive of the diverse investments that benefit a range of geographical needs and challenges.

This bond and subsequent projects will take considerable steps toward addressing real climate threats we've seen in the way of extreme weather events and natural disasters. Just really appreciate everyone's work on this. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tomas Valadez with Azul in strong support. Really appreciate the investments in coastal resilience as well as thinking of underserved communities. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Kam Bezdek representing California Trout, and we are an organization that invests in freshwater restoration across a very diverse state and depend on investments like this in order to help restore freshwater species, specifically salmon and steelhead trout, to their to their native ranges and to great population growth.

I'm also here on behalf of Trout Unlimited and we'd like to thank you all for your work on the bond and say that we are in support and specifically in support of the dam safety funding. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Cynthia Cortez with Restore the Delta I want to share our support for the climate bond, particularly appreciation towards the flood funds towards improving existing levees in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, and funds towards the flood control suspension program, but also want to highlight the funds that will be going towards the transformative climate communities to which Stockton received. So, thank you so much.

Hi, MJ Kushner with Community Water Center I want to start off by thanking you all for your work on the bond and especially the 610 million allocated for safe drinking water.

Community Water Center and our allies have spent the last seven months working with both authors' offices to ensure that the bond funding definitions are equitable and inclusive, that funding accurately reflects the needs of communities across the state. So, thank you again and I urge your support.

Good afternoon. Angela Islas with Central California Environmental Justice Network I just want to have my deepest appreciations to all of you, Monique, Eduardo, to all of the other assemblymembers and senators that have been working tremendously hard in getting this bond together.

I think that this is very very tremendously historic for our state to really see this go through, and we hope that all of the Assembly can support on this. We are in strong support in seeing this move forward, especially for our farmworker communities that we represent heavily in the San Joaquin Valley.

I do want to emphasize that in terms of our leadership in our counties, this is something that we are still seeing heavily in our counties, that they are not supporting the safety and the bond and the money that needs to go towards our communities to be able to see a resilient future, to fight against climate change, to fight against our wildfires and everything else.

And so, I really, really want to see that you all work heavily with our leaders in our counties to really work this through and to protect our futures, especially for all in California. So, thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and Members. My name is Dan Jacobson with Environment California. Over 20 years ago, we helped to pass the first renewable portfolio standard. We passed the second one for 33%, the third one for 50%, the fourth one for 100%.

The funding that you have in there for offshore wind and for transmission is the critical piece that we need to help ensure that we get to 100% clean energy that helps reduce our climate risk, provide jobs, and help stave off the worst impacts of climate. Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Chair and members. Reed Addis, on behalf of CalVans and 75 other organizations or climate geeks that are in support, it's been tough, we think you did it, not only because you developed a bond that's going to work to get out of the Legislature, because it's investing in all our communities.

It gets the definitions right, it gets the equity right, and if there's any problems on the implementation side, the organizations we work with will be here to work with the Legislature and the budget committees every year to make sure that things are fixed.

The other reason you've done it right is that you've developed a bond that speaks to the voters. Voters want infrastructure and clean water. They want to reduce wildfire risk. They want to improve wildfire, excuse me, wildlife. They want to protect our rivers, streams and lakes, and they want clean air. You've done that. Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of the people who came to be heard today, and I especially want to thank my colleagues, Senator Monique Limon, Assembly Member Lori Wilson, Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia, in addition to Committee Members, and especially Assembly Member Jim Wood, who stayed here for the entire hearing to hear from the people.

That is our job, to hear from the people. This is a $10 billion climate bond. It addresses the diversity of needs across our state. It has a lens on accessibility, inclusivity and equity. It speaks directly to the voters, as was mentioned by some of the folks who spoke on the microphone. We have to address our wildfires.

We have to address safe and affordable drinking water. We have to invest in the kind of infrastructure that's going to bring us closer to the sustainable California that we can all live in, raise our families in, and expect to be here in the future. This is an important investment for our state.

I want to thank everyone who's been a part of this, and I'm looking forward to the next conversations on the Assembly Floor. With that, the Assembly Natural Resources informational hearing on this year's climate bond is concluded.