Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Senate Natural Resources and Water and Senate Environmental quality committees will come to order. Welcome.

I want to thank you all for taking the time to be here today on such short notice to attend this joint Senate Natural Resources and Water and Senate Environmental Quality Committee's informational hearing on the final water and wildfire bond known as the Safe Drinking Water, Wild Fire Prevention, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024.

Now, there's a saying from the ancient Greeks that civilization is great when its elders plant trees whose shade they know they'll never sit in. And that ethos, I think, defined this country for a long time. This idea of investing in infrastructure, in long term planning and things that will pay off down the line.

And I think we've gotten away from that in the recent decades. And those challenges, the lack of investment, have been exacerbated by climate change and all of the resulting problems that have accompanied it. Climate change is here, folks.

Extreme weather events, whether it's flooding, droughts, heat domes with dangerously elevated temperatures, even hurricanes here in California become the new normal. The impacts of these extreme events and rising temperatures mean our coastal areas have to prepare for sea level rise and coastal erosion. Homeowners and communities throughout our state have to deal with the rising risk of wildfire.

This $10 billion proposed bond is a long overdue investment in infrastructure that we need to make. It makes sense for appropriate capital investments to take advantage of the bond market right now to pay for these critically needed projects to provide greater resiliency to our state. We know that prevention pays for itself many times over.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $1 spent on prevention results in a $6 reduction in the next disaster's costs.

These include safe drinking, water storage, dam safety, flood prevention, water conservation, wildfire prevention, coastal resilience, parks and outdoor access, sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, clean energy, and other programs of the California Natural Resources Agency, its departments, boards, and conservancies.

Importantly, at least 40% of these bond funds will be used to benefit disadvantaged communities and offer vulnerable populations and other vulnerable populations, as these communities are disproportionately impacted by climate change.

That we're here today is, I think, a testament to the diligence and effort of the author, my colleague in hearing, co-chair Senator Ben Allen, as well as our colleagues Senator Lena Gonzalez, and Monique Limone, who have led our efforts in the Senate on this bond proposal.

It's been an honor and a privilege to be a Member of the Senate working group on the bond. I want to thank again, Senator Limone, for leading and coordinating this working group and want to thank and acknowledge the leadership of the Pro Tem in prioritizing this bond.

We would not be here today without his commitment to getting it done, as well as many long hours spent by the working group over the past few months. Californians, I think, owe a debt and gratitude to the PT, to Senator Allen, to Senator Limone and Gonzalez for negotiating this bond.

Now, there were hard choices to be made to reach an agreement with the Assembly and the Governor on this bond. I think this bond is safe to say represents a true compromise.

But again, I'd emphasize it's a necessary down payment both to help repair and rebuild our existing infrastructure, but also to help prepare our state for the future. So thank you.

And with that, I would turn it over to my colleague, Senator Ben Allen, who will provide an overview of the bond and an introductory remarks, as well as his co-panelist, Dr. Elizabeth Forsberg Pardi, the California Policy Director of the Nature Conservancy, and Kyle Jones, Policy and Legal Director at the Community Water Center.

Both Dr. Forsberg and Mr. Jones are longtime advocates for this bond. Welcome.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members pleased to present today SB 867, which is a massive and collaborative result of a very significant collaboration between many, many Members of the Senate and the Assembly. It's historic, this will place a $10 billion climate resiliency general obligation bond on the November 5 ballot.

If passed, it would represent the single largest investment in public funding for climate resilience in California history. In fact, it would be the largest made by any single government beside President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. We, of course, saw the need in the past year to claw back billions of dollars in climate funding due to the budget deficit.

And in that context, this measure will secure billions of new revenues, allowing us to tackle some of our state's most significant challenges next year and for years to come.

The Bill the bond provides comprehensive and major new climate investments for every region of the state, from the Oregon border to Mexico, from our coast to the Sierra Nevada, Central Valley, Inland Empire, everywhere in between, it invests in water security, drought and flood mitigation, wildfire prevention, parks and coastal resilience, biodiversity, extreme heat, clean energy, and sustainable agriculture. It's been carefully crafted to preserve the Legislature's authority to shape appropriations through the annual budget process, in line with the funding pots and guidance in the Bill, which will provide greater flexibility as we learn more in the coming years about the rollout and make certain dollars are not left on the table.

SB 867 includes a first-of-its-kind landmark requirement that at least 40% of the bond funds be invested in disadvantaged and vulnerable communities that suffer from the highest unemployment, most serious pollution impacts, and chronic underinvestment requirement.

Directly modeled on the Justice 40 initiative adopted by the US government. SB 867 also includes another 1st $850 million for clean energy investments to help California's zero-carbon energy targets through port and offshore wind investments, creating thousands of new skilled, high-wage jobs while continuing to put California at the forefront of the fight against climate change, I want to highlight a few other key components.

The bond has nearly $4 billion for water, including over half a million for clean drinking water, nearly half a million each for water recycling and groundwater storage, along with 100 million for stormwater projects, representing nearly $1.0 billion in investments to secure new water resources. Over half a million, sorry, over half a billion to address floods.

Over half a billion across several pots to improve watershed resiliency throughout the state. We have a billion and a half for programs to address fire risks, which we know is a massive challenge that's going to continue to get worse.

This includes various pots to fund critical efforts to harden communities and make them more fire resilient, fuel reduction efforts targeting every at-risk area in the state, and funding to reduce fire risks associated with transmission lines. The Bill targets over $1.0 billion to combat sea level rise and improve coastal resiliency, ensuring equitable geographic distribution.

Nearly half a billion in investments to address extreme heat, focusing on our most vulnerable communities. This includes transformative climate communities, urban forests, urban greening, among other programs. Over a billion in historic investments to protect our natural resources at risk of climate impacts.

This funding, too, is geographically balanced and aimed at helping California meet our ambitious and vitally important 30 by 30 goals. We target 300 million for climate-smart agriculture programs and 700 million to expand access to parks, critical investments that will complement our efforts to reduce the impacts of extreme heat and protect our open spaces.

And finally, as I mentioned, the measure dedicates nearly $1.0 billion to clean energy and clean air programs designed to speed renewable electric transmission projects, battery storage, ports, offshore wind infrastructure, etcetera. So, taken as a whole, SB 867 is yet another example of California's world-renowned leadership on climate policy that we can all be proud of.

Let's be clear, this bond tackles every serious challenge Californians face from climate change, the extreme heat and wildfires that we're living within real-time today, the flooding and coastal cliff collapses that we saw last winter, the biodiversity essential to our state's environmental well being, all of which are direct impacts of climate change.

All topics that we discuss all the time on these two respective committees. The Bill creates jobs. It increases investment. It makes our communities more park-friendly and livable.

It armors our state from the most severe impacts of climate change, supported by over 180 environmental and natural resources organizations, water agencies from Westlands to Sonoma County, tribes, ports, clean energy companies, and so many more.

I'm proud to say it has no recorded opposition, and I look forward to our witness testimony to speak on behalf of the bond.

Thank you. We're going to do questions after all three of you presented, let's go to Ms. Forsberg Pardi.

I'm always ready.

Then maybe we'll hear from the public before we do questions, we'll do something off Senator Donnelly. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you, Senator. Chair and Members of the Committee, life as we know it is at stake in California. Extreme heat, flooding, drought, sea level rise, and catastrophic wildfires threaten our home. The need for a statewide investment to make our communities and natural systems resilient to climate change is greater than ever before.

Without intervention now, the cost of climate change is estimated to reach 113 billion annually by 2050 in California, but we've reached that number much faster than anticipated. Last year's atmospheric rivers brought record snowfall, intense rain, and severe flooding that resulted in damages for California totaling more than $4.6 billion.

And California is not providing the funding at scale needed to keep people out of harm's way. Budget cuts have significantly reduced funding for programs that forward nature-based climate solutions, which are cost-effective and efficient ways to prevent mega fires, flooding and fight extreme heat.

Less than 3% of the state's current budget is allocated to natural resource programs. When it comes to state funding for water and natural resource projects, California has typically turned to general obligation bonds.

These bonds enable the state to borrow funds and pay them back over time using General Fund Dollars, which makes economic sense given that benefits from these projects are realized over many years.

The historic budget surplus in 2021 changed this longstanding arrangement, and the state had directly allocated large sums of General Fund Dollars for climate, water, and natural resources. However, California is facing a new reality today.

With declining tax revenue and a significant budget deficit, the climate funding has been drastically cut, and we must use bond measures to fund the state's natural resource and climate programs. Senate Bill 867 creates a structured investment plan to preempt the worst effects of climate change and provide stable, long-term funding for nature-based climate solutions.

The bond finances projects that improve water resilience, protect the state from catastrophic wildfire, sea level rise, and extreme heat, and ensures California meets its commitment to protect 30% of biodiversity by 2030.

Projects in the bond are designed to reduce future costs, such as making levee repairs that reduce future flooding damage, investing in forest management to reduce wildfire severity, and implementing projects that also address sea level rise in coastal communities. Additionally, much of the bond funding would be used for local government projects.

Providing state bond funds for local projects affect how much local funding is spent on these projects, and in many cases, the availability of state bonds reduces local cost. It is also critical to note that there is broad public support for a climate bond.

Recent polling data has shown that nearly three in five voters support a $10 billion bond, the strongest initial support for a climate or natural resources bond from voters in the last 20 years. We need a serious investment in climate solutions now before it becomes too costly and too late. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. And now I'll move to Kyle Jones of the Community Water Center.

Good afternoon. Kyle Jones, Policy and Legal Director with Community Water Center and also on behalf of the AGUA Coalition and want to thank the Committee for their work on this. Thanks Senator Allen for his work on introducing SB 867 and negotiating to make the bond that we have today.

California is a leader in recognizing the human right to water, but there's a lot of work that we need to do to fulfill that human right for all. I wanted to call out a few pots that are worthy of attention, that are moving the needle for communities on the ground.

First is the pots for groundwater storage, groundwater banking and flooding. I think taken together, this will help alleviate some of the worst conditions that we saw over the past few years, dealing with the whiplash that we now face. Right.

We are going from extreme drought punctuated by large amounts of water, and we need to figure out how to get that water in the ground. As the snowpack continues to disappear, our aquifers are the only place where that water can go in order to provide sustainability and a stable source of drinking water year over year.

Secondly, I wanted to note that there is significant funding for drinking water programs in the state. The 2024 needs assessment, developed as part of the Water Board Safer program, identified that we need a total of $15.5 billion to provide drinking water for all disadvantaged communities in California and that there's a gap of $5.5 billion in grant funding.

The Water Board has already spent down almost all of the 2021 infrastructure dollars that were provided by the Legislature and that we are facing the end of the bipartisan infrastructure law in about 2026. So, in short, we're facing a fiscal cliff where we no longer have infrastructure resources to move projects forward.

And that means for the communities that we're working in, they could be left without a solution. We spent years with funding under the Safer program to organize communities, community activists in places like Easterosi and Tulare county or Royal Oaks community in Monterey County, towards long-term drinking water solutions.

And without funding for infrastructure projects, we will never realize those solutions. So without SB 867, we could potentially squander the trust we've built with these communities. We need this bond in order to deliver our projects, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think we're going to move to questions. And just before Senator Dahle has this question, I think I want to make a statement and ask a global question because this is a, I appreciate this bond. It's very measured, it's very necessary. It really meets the climate crisis.

When I look at the categories for the bond, it matches my district perfectly for the fact that it's ground zero for many of these issues.

If you look at the most expensive fire in history, the Soberanes fire in Big Sur, if you look at flooding, the Pajero levee break was in this district and the need to do it. If you look at water climate is changing the water dramatically. And an overwhelming majority of the district does not import water from anywhere.

And therefore water recycling moves to the top. Of the two places that leases have been made for offshore wind. One is off the central coast and there is money in here for ports. The sea level rise. I represent just under a quarter of the California coast.

And we saw in the atmospheric rivers, just with the rising seas, what it did with wharfs, sea walls, just whole hosts of things. And so this is really necessary. Is there going to be a way? And I know that there's even.

The San Andreas corridor is one of the unique corridors for wildlife crossing both through the coast range from the coast to the central valley north-south. It gives real options for that. And I know it's called out in the bond.

Is there going to be a way that there's information that tells us, like if we want to turn around and make sure we explain clearly to everyone in the district what is there as they consider this?

Is there going to be information that's either district by district or calls out things so that we have a key that just doesn't rely on the fact that I sort of know those issues that, that people can look at the bond and be able to reflect out.

Yeah, I believe that document has been created. I mean, the challenge, of course, through all of this is we want to be as big picture as possible so as to maintain a certain degree of consistency and fairness across the board. We also are acutely aware of how everyone is really anxious to show benefits.

And I know that the water bond that I worked on in 2014 was significant because it was not a collection of earmarks, it was a collection of pots that was merit-based that you applied for, and I know the Senate went into this with that being an ethic that we really wanted to do, and I see it throughout the bond. And so I appreciate the fact that it's, you know, it's water recycling wherever there is the need, not calling out individual projects.

I mean, quite frankly, it's what motivated me to get involved in this whole thing in the first place when, I think it was Prop 18? Sorry, sorry. I'm sorry, Prop three, when--in 2018, right? Anyway, yeah. My numbers are flipping around in my head, which was a Christmas tree, and it was rightly, I think, correctly vilified on the editorial pages for being that Christmas tree approach.

And we really worked hard to try to minimize that as best we can. I mean, unfortunately, to better/worse is a result of a political process, but we really tried to stay big picture through this negotiation. But that being said, we're very anxious to make sure that members and their constituents know all the benefits that are going to be out there if we're able to pass this thing and the benefits really are nicely spread throughout the state in ways I think people will feel really good about.

Let me ask a few high level questions on behalf of all the people that would be asking if they were here. We'll get to Senator Dahle. What's your response to those that say this bond is too large and there's a question of affordability?

Yeah. When we first proposed, the course was 15 and we brought it down. I mean, the sad truth is that, at least according to some estimates, the annual cost of climate change is going to be 50 billion dollars a year by the middle part of the century. I don't even know.

Hard to get my head around that data point, but that's something that's being credibly argued by researchers. The need is massive, and I guess the thought here has been, how do we craft something that is going to be reasonable?

We've spoken extensively with folks in Wall Street and people in the bond markets so as to craft something that's not going to be--that's going to be taken seriously in New York and Wall Street while also making a difference. And that's been the needle that we've tried to thread here.

But as you know, there are people who are pushing for much higher bonds in this space because of how big the need is, and as we negotiated this, it was excruciatingly difficult actually to get it to land--

And not just much higher. I mean, people wanted a separate flood bond. It wasn't even in--

Separate Ag bond. Separate flood bond. That's right.

So a couple of other questions. You and I were on a climate working group in the Senate a couple of years ago and there was a real effort to make sure workforce development was a piece of this. How is workforce development relate to this bond?

Yeah, I mean, there's first lots of jobs in nearly every one of these line items. We've got a real focus on benefiting disadvantaged communities, and there's a jobs aspect to that as well. We've tried to maintain flexibility for the pots, but, you know, we've certainly--

The wildfire section, for example, there's some really strong workforce development language, particularly for the conservancies that I encourage people to take a look at. So that ethos finds its way into all sorts of different aspects of the bond.

And then a lot of the discussion of the lead up to the bond was in relation to the Governor's executive order with regard to 30 by 30. How does the bond sort of address or give opportunities in the 30 by 30 space?

Yeah, so that's primarily in the natural resources chapter, which is 1.2 billion. And it's all about trying to protect our natural resources at risk of climate impacts. It's geographically balanced. It's very much focused on the 30 by 30. It's chapter--what is it?

Well, just the biodiversity chapter, but it includes funding for conservancies, for Wildlife Conservation Board, which gets the bulk of it, some tribal nature-based solutions as well. It's focused on--and then the San Andreas corridor that you mentioned is in that chapter as well. So 30 by 30 has been--was very much in mind and this funding is going to help us meet those goals.

And then lastly, I know that there's a relationship many times to federal programs. Is there a way or an estimate of if the bond is improved, how it might unlock some federal money? What's the relationship? Do you have any--?

Yeah, there are all sorts of matches, and in fact, one of the discussions, it was a very contentious discussion relating to clean energy, had to do with ensuring that we were spending some resources that would help to unlock federal money.

We met extensively with folks who came out to, actually came from DC, from the Department of Energy, to talk to us about ways that we could access federal funding coming out of the IRA and the other infrastructure legislation.

And the IRA is the inflation reduction, not an organization in Ireland.

Yeah. That's right.

Just check.

Yeah, that's right. That's right. That's right. Better not joke about the IRA. But federal money was part of the thinking all through the bond, but especially there are real opportunities in the energy space, and we've met extensively with Department of Energy folks to craft this in a way that will maximize our opportunities.

And I think one of the concerns people have is if this passes, how quickly will it get out the door? You have to do something with that federal money that might not make it really fast, but is this structured so that a lot of it will get out the door soon after?

It's all about maximal flexibility, which, by the way, sometimes will encourage us to get out the door quickly, and sometimes it encourages us to go slower. For example, rates go up and down. We don't want to have everything on such a strict timeline that we have to sell bonds in a way that would be disadvantageous for the state if rates are at a higher level. So there's a lot of flexibility built in.

In fact, these committees and our subs will be working extensively over the next few years if this passes, to really craft the rollout. But certainly making sure that we take advantage of federal monies going out the door would be a major factor in determining the speed with which we try to push for the energy funding especially.

Okay, thank you. Let me survey all the rest of the members to see if anybody else has any questions. Senator Dahle.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I want to just, I just want to maybe draw a little picture. I actually supported--Prop 1 was the first bond I ever actually publicly supported, which was a Rendon bill and when I was in the Assembly and, you know, it was negotiated and there was talk about storage, aboveground storage. I know that--

For water?

Huh?

For water.

For water, yes.

Because energy storage is his own thing.

Huh?

Energy storage, isn't it?

Yeah. So we'll get to that. So I think, I think, look, for me, it's about how we do it, and it's what we do after we say what we're gonna do, it gets done. That makes sense. So here we are. 12 year--was 2014. I think was 2014 that we passed the Prop 1. Here we are, you know, ten years later and we haven't put one drop of water in storage above ground. And I went out, told my voters I supported it in this Assembly, voted on 4 on the floor.

My constituents all voted against it and rightfully so. They should have because we don't have any storage, and here we are, and we had record budget surpluses, money committed, we had the federal folks on board, and we still haven't built sites or temperance flat. Apparently it's off the table now.

But sites is still a project that we should be building today, and I think that's unfortunate because we've seen, we've seen the extreme events. We've seen record snowfalls and we've seen record rains and we've seen all kinds of record fire at the same time.

So it's really hard to go back to your constituents and say, 'hey, you know, support another bond.' So let's just talk about the math here a little bit. Ten billion dollars. That's 10,000 millions when you break it down to like get it into something that somebody can get their mind around.

So we throw around billions like it's a million here. So the debt service on one billion dollars is 500 million every year. So that's a half a billion dollars that we're going to have for debt service and it comes right off the top of the budget.

But a billion is 1,000 million.

Right. So you got ten of those.

Right. Okay.

10,000 billion. Millions. I got it right. Trust me. I know this one.

All right, good, good.

I'm making sure you know it. It's a lot of money.

No, we're--

And it's in the--and it's a lot of debt.

I'm on the same page.

We just did five billion, which is 5,000 millions for a bond that barely passed. The voters have barely passed, which is the debt service on that is a quarter of a billion dollars every year right off the top of our budget.

So you got a quarter of a billion there, and if you do ten billion in this bond, you now have almost a billion dollars in debt service for these two bonds that were just put on the ballot, and there's other bonds we're still paying off. So I just want to draw a picture.

And the education bond.

And the--yeah. And we got an education bond coming. So I just want to let you know that everybody talks about bond. They think about, oh, it's not a tax. Well, it really is. It's a debt service you have to take care of. But the real point I want to get at is what are we getting for our bonds? What did we get? What do we get out of these projects? On top of that, we're getting taxed at the cap-and-trade.

There's a whole cap-and-trade pot that was supposed to take care of climate change, which we're paying for at the pump every time we put a gallon of gas in our car or we flipped the light on in our house. So, you know, Senator, I know there's a need, but--and you said it's kind of broad. I actually like it to narrow it down and say what we're going to do. What's the actual project?

I don't--I mean, the one bond that stands out in my mind, or the one ballot initiative that stands out in my mind was the bullet train initiative that is carving out literally five billion dollars every year to go to the bullet train that does, in my mind, nothing for the climate.

And so I think we have to be really wise about how we are going to pitch this to Californians. So you got 5 billion already passed in the last election. You got this ten billion dollar bond, and I don't know what the amount for the education bonds--another ten?

Yeah.

So there's 25 billion dollars that has to be paid for over the next 30 years, which is double that. So that means that we're adding, it basically is a double of the original bond, the amount you have to pay over the time. So I'm skeptical of what I'm putting on my children. What are we putting on our children?

You're talking about 25 billion dollars. 25,000 millions this year in these three--we already got a quarter of it. We got the 5 billion. So I really am wanting to know, what are we actually going to get? What projects are we going to go to?

I mean, we heard about storing water in the ground as an example, and I'm trying to do it in Siskiyou County right now, but I got the fish folks fighting me, I got everybody--I got farmers that are willing to do this, but we can't get it done. Even when we have huge events with extra water.

So, anyway, I just wanted to, I want to ask, this is pretty broad. There's not a lot of--from what I'm seeing, and I'm not at the level of detail you are in the middle of this, but I just want to put it out for the Californians to know that there's a lot of debt coming, and at the same time, we have budget deficits. We're seeing businesses leave California and somebody's got to pay these bills, and we're strapping our children. So you have any comments on the--

Yeah, well, look. I think the guiding light this entire time was for me and every conversation I had with the folks that were negotiating on behalf of the, the Senate, was in order to justify putting this into this bond, is this going to be the kind of thing that our children 20, 25, 30, 35 years from now will feel good about the fact that we invested in now?

It's an expenditure that is truly going to benefit future generations. That's what bonds are supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about putting in place basically starting the investment.

With all due respect, Senator, I'm having a hard time justifying telling my 24-year-old son that we're building a bullet train on the back of him right now. But that was, the same story was said when we were building that. This is for the future. We're going to show the world how to do high-speed rail.

And he's going to be paying for that. He's still paying for it if it'll ever get built. Same thing with Prop 1. My kids and someday grandkids are going to be paying for these debt. The issue is, you can make that statement, but what are we getting for it? We don't have very good track record of deliverables for bonds. If they're so, I'd like to see it.

Oh, I mean, there's, I mean, we can, we can certainly--there's lots of, lots of really worthy projects, including many in your district that have been invested in previous bonds.

Well, I would say there is a special call out for conservancies, but that's a different--

Yeah, I'm gonna make a comment, but I'm waiting, and it was gonna--do you have anything you'd like to say in answer to--

Well, I did, I did want to just talk about the financing because at the end of the day, the way that we--the best bond management tool is not to issue bonds until the cash is needed for projects. That's in part because as a result of provisions in federal law, issuers can't sell bonds and invest the proceeds at an interest rate high enough to cover debt service costs. So I think it's important to mention that. It's different than other types of budget debt.

But look. At the end of the day, we can go through each and every one of the line items. Some, quite frankly, I think are stronger than others. I think there's lots in here that you'll find really valuable. We know we've got massive challenges with regards to water infrastructure.

It's by far the biggest part of the bond, we know people care a ton about, about this, and in fact, there's actually a special call out specifically for water storage, and you mentioned the sites project, which is certainly a priority of the Governor's and something that he's been working to try to expedite.

So, you know, there's conveyance money. There's, you know, there is a significant amount for groundwater storage, but that's going to help everybody. There's safe drinking water money. There's significant water recycling, which is going to--for areas, urban areas, which will dramatically reduce the demand from districts like yours. That will help statewide.

But we know that costs money to invest in. So all those kinds of investments, I think we're all going to, I do think your children will be appreciative of. I mean, quite frankly, we're all seeing the impacts of the lack of investment from previous generations in various aspects of our infrastructure, and we're all struggling as a result.

I mean, certainly look at the farming community in Central Valley and all the challenges they're having to access enough water to do their work. So this bond was framed with that in mind every step of the way. Now, you know, I like some line items more than I like others. Let me be real honest.

This is the product of a lot of cooks in the kitchen, but I think that the vast majority of the investments here are going to be things that our children will be thanking us for. But I do think it's going to take some really smart and wise management as we go forward, including really smart engagement with Wall Street and all that.

I will say on sites, you bring up sites, the biggest holdup on that has been no local cost match. And that's something that could be addressed here. But I think from my understanding, almost all of the 3 billion, it was like 2.8 billion in Prop 1 has been spent, and--

And we still don't have a project. We're still hundreds of millions away from getting it on the ground. I mean, the Governor just took out 500 million out of this budget. It was supposed to go to sites.

Well in sites, I mean, I know they just--so there's this big streamlining on CEQA--

Somewhere there has to be a question and an answer as opposed to a colloquy. So I'm going to take that as a question, and why don't you do a final answer?

Okay. I mean, I know, so on sites, we streamline CEQA review for sites, challenges were processed within four months. So that process is moving forward, and so, I mean, everything always takes too long around here. But, yeah. Sorry.

Are you--no. I want to wait till you're done.

No. Senator, please.

Okay. Because I was going to make a comment about the financing, but I will make a comment about that at the appropriate time, and on the financing, let's look at the global picture of the state budget. Investments are for things you can't do that jump it ahead.

And the measure is, is your bonded indebtedness not more than five to six percent of your total General Fund budget? This is totally within it. That is why. And you mentioned the schools. The schools are literally jobs. It is investments.

It is people that will be employed for a 40 or 50-year building or repair job for schools that will match the enrollment. On this bond, and I just look at it in terms of the climate changed in my adult life, and we are trying to do significant investment to get ahead of it. You know better than any of us about fire, and when I visited the Dixie Fire, the places that they had cleared, the underbrush not far from the Town of Greenville did much better.

And if you look at the CZU Fire in my district, the places that they were prescribed burned or underbrush cleaning, that's where some of the people attribute the fact that their houses survived to that. It was true in the fire that jumped over Christmas Valley in the Tahoe area. There was certain by Echo Summit prescribed fire and cleaning that safe houses. The fire investment here does that statewide in a way that it does that investment and tries to catch up.

I mean, that's the thing. The cost--

And I know, too, that that is true with the sea level rise and what goes there because it has just changed dramatically. I mean, given the fact that I have a highway that keeps falling in the ocean and hasn't been open all the way through Big Sur in 18 months, even though we're on target, we're close.

It is, how do we look ahead to do that? And that's what this bond does. And as I mentioned earlier, with water recycling, which is everywhere, that is a chance to have a water source for everybody everywhere in the state that deals with the fact that the snowpack is declining, precipitation patterns are changing.

This is a series of investment that your son and grandchildren, which you hope for, will actually see. They will see with the level of investment here. And that's why, within the amount of money that's available in the budget you make--and I just know there's one little village, San Lucas, in my district, that has water quality problems that far outstrip the ability of the people there to fund it. And so that's what you have to do.

We have moved from 1.6 million people without safe drinking water in the state to one million in a relatively short amount of time, but we have that million to go, and we have more in jeopardy because of the changing climate. The investment level that is here is what will really make that difference.

And so I think that this is totally appropriate for bonded indebtedness, it is within the parameters of the state budget, and it does long-term things that we will see the outcomes of. Although I suspect this is a discussion we will be having in the next few months.

And so the Chair of the Committee has returned. Every single member while you were gone asked questions. And so there's still public comment unless you have questions, and I'm going to turn the gavel over to you.

Now that we have a real Chair. I'm just kidding.

Yeah, I move we adjourn.

I just want to say I'm not opposed to--look, I sat on the Sierra Conservancy for seven years and we did do a lot of work. I'm not going to say that we haven't done good work with bonds.

I'm going to challenge you the whole way through, though, that we, that you demonstrate to the public that we're really going to do the right thing here and we're actually going to get on the ground stuff accomplished because our track record, in my opinion, is not that great.

And we spent, and we spent a lot of resources. We can appoint to those projects that were good, but the big statewide projects--and as far as fire goes, we've done about everything you can do. We only control the private property in California.

The feds have 60 percent of the land base in the Sierras that this is not going to affect. So I just want to throw that out. I want to throw those things out. So I will be challenging the fact that this is a lot of money and our track record, I don't believe, has been that great when it comes to giant projects in the state that we actually deliver to help out all of California.

I take it that was not a question but a comment.

Well, it's a challenge, I think, for all of us, if this thing passes for us to do the due diligence that it's our responsibility.

Thank you. I guess I'll just follow up first just by noting that, thank you to Senator Laird for taking over the gavel while I was gone. I mean, I'm going to echo his comments. You know, we take out home mortgages because that's a large upfront cost for something that we need. We need housing, right? We take out certain forms of long-term debt because we have long-term challenges.

And it seems to me that we know right now, and I think the overwhelming majority of Californians know and strongly believe that we need to address certain long-term challenges, both because we have failed to invest in infrastructure over the last 50 years in a meaningful way in this state and in this country, but also because climate change is posing massive challenges to our basic way of life.

And I think it is not a partisan point. It's something that everybody believes in, that we have to address fire risk and water conservation needs right now. And to do that upfront would take an enormous amount of money from our General Fund, money that we don't have.

So I applaud Senator Dahle's point about oversight and trying to make sure the money gets out the door in an efficient and thoughtful way, and certainly we always want government spending to be efficient, but this strikes me as something that I think there's large agreement on that we need right now, that we need to address.

And I've heard some of your soliloquies on the floor, Senator Dahle, about the need to address fire risk, about the need to address our water concerns here in the states. So I don't know how we do that without a bond. I think this is appropriate.

I just also note that we don't, we're not here to discuss the education bond, and whatever issues we might have with that bond or anything else are outside of the scope of this hearing. So I guess with that, you know, maybe you'd like to respond, Senator Allen, or any of the other witnesses on the panel.

Yeah, I mean, obviously, I agree with you. I mean, we do, I will say by historical standards, the extent of our current debt service obligations is actually pretty low. I mean, there was a point, I think right now it's in the threes. There was a point, it was almost nine percent about ten years ago.

This would put us in the fives within 25-26 and then it will come down from there, if we do all three of the bonds. All three. So the capacity is there. We shouldn't go into this lightly. I absolutely agree with you on that.

And I think ultimately your comments really are, if anything, an admonition to the people around the table to ensure that if we do move forward with this, we're going to really work hard to ensure that the dollars are well spent and that we're really focused on doing right by future generations in these investments, and that's what, I think, at the heart of what you're arguing, and I don't disagree with that at all. I passionately agree with it, but I'd love to hear--I know we--

Let me turn that into an actual question, which is, in the absence of this bond, maybe you could kind of provide a comparison of what our fire prevention and water conservation effort and flood prevention efforts might look like if we don't get this bond passed.

Well, I can just start by saying that we don't know where the funding is going to come to continue providing the drinking water programs apace in a few years outgoing, and that means the residents that we're organizing with are going to keep drinking water that is contaminated by nitrates and they're going to keep taking showers that are going to cause cancer because there's 1,2,3-TCP. And so these small projects, these consolidations, since they've first been enacted, the Water Board has gotten over 100 consolidations done.

We need resources to keep them going, and if we don't have that, we're really worried about how we can keep getting that million number down in time in order to make a difference in a lot of folks lives.

Yeah. And I'll just mention and reiterate what I said in my testimony that historically, we have funded our natural resource programs through general obligation bonds, and you'll see a peak when we get some funding from these bonds and then we go down to really low numbers of the total percentage of the state budget that is dedicated to natural resources. So these bonds are how we fund these programs in the State of California.

Thank you very much. Before we allow you to close, I think we're going to now take public comment, unless there's any more questions or comments from anyone on the dais.

Not anyone. A member.

Sorry, a member. Thank you, John. With that, we will welcome public comment. In the interest of time, each comment will be limited to one minute each. That does include jokes, so that--

Longer than I thought.

One minute. One minute. I'm sorry. One minute.

My name is Alfredo Redondo. I'm here on behalf of the Irvine Ranch Water District as well as the Yuba County Water Agency, both in support of the proposal and very especially supportive of the dam safety funding and resilience funding that's made available in the fund. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kendra Harris of the Climate Center. Just want to express our support for this measure. Thank you for all your hard work on this.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rico Mastrodonato with the Trust for Public Land, offering our support, and also speaking on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund. I couldn't say it better than the Chair Min did. We're not keeping up with the impacts of climate change, and the planet is getting hotter, and there's nothing in the foreseeable future we can do about that. And last year was the hottest year on record. This past April and May were the hottest months of May and April ever on record, and this is going to keep getting worse and more prolonged.

If we do not have this bond, we will fall even further behind in protecting our most vulnerable communities from heat and flooding, and in addition to the 800 miles of coast that we need to protect. So I want to thank the author and all the people that worked on this in the Senate, and thank you, Chair Min, and strong support.

Thank you.

Terry McHale with Aaron Read and Associates, representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. In 30 years of doing this, what I've discovered is that we need to have a comprehensive plan. We need all the different stakeholders working together, and I think that Senator Allen has done a tremendous job of bringing everyone under the same roof.

I do share Senator Dahle's concern that the money be spent appropriately, and I do think that there are safeguards within this that can make sure that happens. Thank you to everyone for their hard work. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And it's Dahle. I learned that just two weeks ago.

Good afternoon. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust, also in strong support. Appreciate the work of the author and the other folks who are involved. Echo a lot of the comments from the dais that it's going to be critical that we spend this money strategically and effectively. It's a lot of money, and we're going to turn and ask it be not nearly enough money as we're looking back at what we should have invested ten years from now. So strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Jarred, on behalf of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the California Institute for Biodiversity, and Climate Resolve, in support of this bill. We really appreciate the investments, including the investments for sustainable Ag, protection of biodiversity, and extreme heat.

Thank you.

Hi. Analise Rivero, on behalf of CalTrout and Trout Unlimited, here in support of this, with particular appreciation for the dam removal funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nicholas Mazzotti, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, in support of the bill. Thank you to the author. In particular, we'd like to thank the author and others we've been working with on the provision around state-certified local conservation corps. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Julie Lecheski, on behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and East Bay Regional Park District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Kayla Robinson, on behalf of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. Just want to thank the author and everyone for their hard work on this and for coming together to get a climate bond together. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Members. Kai Cooper, on behalf of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition, in strong support. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Kim Schneider, on behalf of the City of Sacramento, Placer County Water Agency, Sacramento Area Sewer District, Natural History Museum of LA County, San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, California Academy of Sciences, California Invasive Plant Council, Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority, and Outward Bound Adventures, in strong support. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters, in support. We just want to say that thank you so much for your efforts on this. For context, we were part of the Climate Bond Now Coalition, which our shared priorities for about 180 organizations were around 23 billion. So we think a ten billion dollar bond is kind of the starting point and really appreciate all the efforts over the past months to right sizes to make it happen. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Liv O'Keeffe with California Native Plant Society. On behalf of our organization and our 36 chapters, we're here in strong support and gratitude for the work on this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tomas Valadez with Azul, in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Meegen Murray with the Weideman Group, on behalf of RWE, in strong support, and we really appreciate the investments in port infrastructure, particularly. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Samantha Samuelsen, on behalf of the Conservation Fund, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Abigail Smet, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation and Sempervirens Fund, in strong support, and especially supportive of the provisions for state parks funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. Megan Mekelburg, on behalf of CalVans, which is the vanpool authority that provides farmworker transportation to and from work from their homes. There's 15 million in there, which we really, really appreciate. Also just want to say thank you to the author and say a strong support from about 75 other organizations who have also submitted a letter of support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Reed Addis on behalf of Save the Redwoods League. Thank you for all your leadership and work on this. It's desperately needed. Without this bond passing, the projects we're working on will come to a halt at the end of the year, so thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Cynthia Cortez with Restore the Delta. I want to thank the authors and also want to say that the bond provides essential funding for flood protection, environmental conservation, and support for disadvantaged communities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of California Fairs Alliance and Western Fairs Association, in support of the fair infrastructure resources. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Erin Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance. Wanted to express our thanks to the Senator and the Senate working group for all of the work that they've done in this bond. We're really pleased to see the amount of funding in there for water projects, namely groundwater quality and supply.

Almond Alliance has partnered with our partners at Western United Dairies and DWR on an innovative program called LandFlex, which is helpful in times of flood and drought and protects the communities that are in danger of overdrafted basins. And we're hopeful that if the bond moves forward that we receive some funding for that program. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Capitolo with the California Water Association, statewide association representing water utilities regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. Thank you, Senator Allen, staff, everyone who worked on this. You've probably heard me talk about it, others talk about it. Our nation at large is very much behind in replacing necessary infrastructure for drinking water, so this will go a long way in helping get us where we need to be. So thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Paneraya Avdis, on behalf of Invenergy, also known as Even Keel Wind, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Delta County Coalitions, a big thank you to Senator Allen and the Legislature for passing, you know, seeking to pass this bond. Funds are nothing short of critical for delta maintenance, so we really appreciate this and urge your support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Dan Cha, on behalf of the Port of Long Beach, strongly support the offshore port, offshore wind port infrastructure monies which will lead to a significant return on investment in terms of good paying union jobs and the long-term reliability of the grid. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

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 Trust, Oceana Ocean Conservancy, Monterey Bay Aquarium, and NRDC. I think it's fairly obvious why we'd be supporting this bond and appreciate the hard work by the working members, by Senator Allen, and urge an aye vote when it comes to the floor.

Thank you.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the County Boards of Supervisors of Riverside and Ventura Counties, here in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good afternoon. Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities. We had a support if amend position on SB 867, and we are really pleased with the tremendous amount of work that has gone into the bond. We are a bit saddened to not see funding for organic waste removal from landfills to reduce methane emissions, as well as transitioning public vehicles to clean fleet, but we will keep charging forward with those climate initiatives.

And we are extremely, extremely pleased to see funding for stormwater, water recycling, water conservation, wildfire prevention grants for locals, for cities and counties, sea level rise, extreme heat, and parks funding. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jaime Goh, on behalf of Resources Legacy Fund. We are in strong support of this measure and just wanted to thank the Senate, Senator Allen, for the leadership in making sure that this comes together, and we look forward to helping make sure it gets across the finish line. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senators. Matthew Baker, Planning and Conservation League. Just want to appreciate all the work of the many interests that went in to bring this forward and thank you. Strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez, on behalf of the California Wind Energy Association. Want to thank the author, the working groups, and all the staff for all their work on this. In support specifically of the funding for the ports, the infrastructure that's desperately needed. If we want to actually develop offshore wind, this is the next critical step.

Also want to thank you for the funding for transmission. We've heard a lot in the last couple of years about the need for transmission if we're going to actually meet our goals, so thank you for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Council of Land Trusts, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, Peninsula Open Space Trust, Big Sur Land Trust, and Sonoma Water. Really want to thank Senator Allen, his staff, everybody who's worked so hard on this bond for many years now to get us to this point. We obviously need it. The comments from everybody who spoke before me have laid out how imperative this is, so we really urge your support as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Jonathan Clay, here on behalf of the County of San Diego and the Port of San Diego; support for a variety of reasons, but main one for us, as a region in San Diego is the cross borders and the border rivers funding which is very needed for our projects that we're doing along the Tijuana River. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists, in support, as well as the Food and Farm Resilience Coalition, the sponsors of Assembly Wilson's AB 408, a coalition of 17 agriculture, farm worker, environmental, public health, and food security organizations in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of Equinor, which is an offshore wind developer. They have a lease off the Central Coast of California. Appreciate all the hard work that went into this, someone said, for numerous years, and really appreciate the investment in ports, which, as was stated earlier, is going to be needed to actually get offshore wind going. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, I will just remark that that was a remarkably efficient set of presentations and maybe a good sign of the efficiency of this bond should it get passed. With that, I want to thank Senator Allen and the panelists for providing their overview of the water and wildfire bond.

I want to thank everyone who offered public comment during the public comment period. Proud to be a co-author of this particular bond act, and look forward to a more robust discussion tomorrow when this measure is taken up on the Senate Floor. With that, would any of you like to make any closing remarks, any of my colleagues on the dais or Senator Allen? Senator Allen?

I appreciate very much all the discussion and all the hard work that's gone into this. I certainly don't take this work lightly and I don't take the concerns that have been raised by my colleague lightly. We do know we've got enormous challenges on our hands and they're going to be costly.

And this whole thing was crafted with a mind toward putting up in place upfront investments now that will help us better prepare for the enormous challenges of the future. That's what this is ultimately all about, and I'm really hopeful that not only we'll be able to effectively make the case to our colleagues, but also to our fellow Californians that this is a worthwhile set of investments, it's going to make life better in the future, and I hope we're all going to move forward with this and get this thing passed in November.

Thank you, Senator Allen. With that, this joint informational hearing is adjourned.