Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation

Hey. Good morning and welcome to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee Four. My apologies for the late start, but I still beat all the other committee members here, I'd like to point out, but we had a budget update this morning and it started, and I, being a Budget Sub Chair, it's important to be there for the budget updates, so appreciate your patience.

Today we'll hear the Administration spending plan for the Climate Smart Agriculture and Biodiversity Chapters of Proposition 4. We'll also hear from the Department of Food and Agriculture and State Lands Commission. We have six items that are planned for presentation.

For each presentation item, I'll ask each of the witnesses in the agenda to introduce themselves before they begin their testimony. At the end of the presentation items, members of the subcommittee may ask questions, make comments, or request a presentation on any of the ten non-presentation items.

We'll not be taking a vote on any items on the agenda. After all the items are heard, we'll take public comment. For members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please limit your comments to the items on the agenda. You'll have one minute to speak.

If you have comments on specific budget augmentations not related to the departments before us, please refer to the Daily File for which subcommittee hearing the pertinent department will be before this committee. And with that, we're ready to begin for Issue Number One. If panelists would approach? Welcome, Assembly Member Rogers. All right, whoever would like to go first?

All right, I guess that's me. Good morning.

And I say this to everybody: we don't--we're worried about Workman's Comp claims for people leaning way forward, right? So take that microphone and bring it to you.

Perfect.

Bring it way to you, everybody. And you need to speak right into that thing. We want those people in the back of the room be able to hear it. So this young lady, she has a microphone to the side of her thing, so you might want to.

That's a good tip.

Well, then you got to move that over--your desk over a little bit so that--yeah. But you got to speak right into it. There you go. Good. Thank you.

All right. Good morning. I'm Arima Kozina, Deputy Secretary at the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Thank you, Chair and member of the committee for the opportunity to present our proposal for implementing the programs identified in the Climate Smart Agriculture section of Prop 4 for CDFA.

So CDFA, as you know, with the support of leadership in this Administration and the Legislature, has been able to make landmark investments to partner with farmers and advance climate smart agriculture across the state. To date, these investments have funded nearly 3,000 projects across 300,000 acres, resulting in the reduction of approximately 27.7 million metric tons of CO2e, the equivalent of taking 6.4 million cars off the road and saving 1.5 million acre feet of water.

And can you move your--move that closer in front of you? Move your notes over a little bit to your left. I'm sorry to micromanage. Now bring that over because you're not speaking into it enough. There you go. That's so much better.

I don't love hearing my voice that loud, so--and I would just want to mention, just to set the scene, this also has compounding community benefits for improving overall resilience of our food system, reducing the long-term costs of production, and improving access to local nutritious foods.

So the budget includes 131.8 million in fiscal year 25-26 for the eight programs identified in the--for further investment in the Climate Smart Agriculture section of Prop 4. This leaves 83.2 million remaining to be requested for appropriation in 26-27. We proposed essentially three funding timelines for these programs.

One is immediate implementation for existing popular programs, the second is an accelerated implementation timeline for new programs where we have existing capacity and relationships with stakeholders, and the third is implementation in fiscal year 26-27 for two new programs that will require more thoughtful development, engagement, and implementation.

Four of the CDFA programs identified in the bond fall into this first category: immediate implementation. For these programs, we propose spending funds largely in budget year as we can award the funding with kind of minimal modifications to existing programs in capacity.

These four programs are first $37.6 million for the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, or SWEEP, which promotes the improvement of irrigation systems on farms and ranches with the goal of conserving water and minimizing emissions associated with pumping. SWEEP is CDFA's longest running climate smart agriculture program, allocating $208 million in funding since 2013.

Those solicitations have all been--just for a sense of how popular these programs are--about 232 to 409% oversubscribed. Second, 35.9 million to the Healthy Soils Program. This program supports practices that sequester carbon and reduce emissions by improving soil health on our farms and ranches.

The Healthy Soils Program has awarded 206 million since 2016, and those solicitations have been 122 to 900% oversubscribed in our last solicitation. CDF requests the remaining $25 million in authorized grant funding in fiscal year 26-27. Urban Agriculture is the third existing program.

We request 18.8 million to support programs and projects aimed at enhancing the viability of urban agriculture and improve food access throughout the state. In 2023, the first round of funding for this program received $68 million in applications for $12 million in funding.

The final existing program proposes 19.9 million to fund projects that prevent or respond to invasive species that threaten California's agriculture, our natural resources, and unique biodiversity. As with the $5 million of projects funded in fiscal year 21-22, these projects would be solicited by and prioritized with input from the Interagency Invasive Species Council of California.

CDFA has proposed an accelerated implementation for two of the new programs in Prop 4. Per our proposal, these programs would receive approximately half of the funding in fiscal year 25-26--it's $9.3 million for each program--and the remainder: $9.2 million each in fiscal year 26-27.

These programs are the year-round Certified Farmers' Market Program for grants to support year-round certified farmers' markets, fisherman's markets, and tribal farmers' markets, and the Certified Mobile Farmers' Market Grant Program, which will provide grants to support the necessary infrastructure for certified mobile farmers' markets.

While we've had a certified year-round farmers' market program for some time, we have not administered grants to those certified entities and we're currently developing a certification process for mobile farmers' markets consistent with Assembly Bill 2786, which was passed in fall 2024.

We anticipate being able to accelerate implementation for these two new grant programs because of our previous certification program which has a strong nexus to those stakeholders and we have much of the capacity in place as we operate similar infrastructure related grant programs throughout throughout CDFA.

Finally, there are two new programs for which CDFA requests just $200,000 each in fiscal year 25-26 to establish each program and engage in thoughtful development. Development will require identifying program priorities, engaging in robust public comment periods, outreach to stakeholders, developing solicitation documents, and identifying opportunities for technical assistance.

Those programs are the Tribal Food Sovereignty Program aimed at enhancing tribes' food sovereignty through projects that focus on irrigation and water infrastructure, utility and power infrastructure, and food processing infrastructure, and then the Regional Farm Equipment Sharing Program, designed to facilitate equipment sharing among small farmers and ranchers.

We would request that an additional 14.7 million be appropriated for each of these programs in fiscal year 26-27 as we anticipate awarding these grants between winter 2026 and spring 2027. And I'll hand it over to my colleagues at Department of Conservation for the other two.

Thank you very much.

Is this good?

That works.

Great. My name is Shanna Atherton-Bauer. I'm the Division Director for the Division of Land Resource Protection at the Department of Conservation, and we administer the state's agricultural land conservation programs, including the California Farmland Conservancy Program, which is one of the programs I'll be speaking with speaking about today.

So the California Farmland Conservancy Program was established in 1995 to support the conservation of the state's agricultural lands, the acquisition of voluntary permanent conservation easements on agricultural lands under threat of conversion to non-agricultural uses, temporary purchase of similar agricultural lands, agricultural land conservation planning, and the restoration and enhancement of agricultural lands protected under conservation easements or similar long-term conservation agreements.

The program has historically been funded through a combination of one-time General Fund appropriation and bond funds and most recently has received $8.25 million from Proposition 68. Over the life of the program, it has received approximately $80 million which has resulted in the permanent conservation of nearly 60,000 acres of the state's agricultural lands.

The Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program was established in 2018 through Proposition 68 to fund the restoration and enhancement of riparian lands, oak woodlands, native grass--and native grassland habitat on farm and rangelands, as well as upland habitat on rangelands, regardless of the conservation status, and this program received an initial allocation of $8.25 million under Proposition 68 as well.

Proposition 4 allocates $15 million to the department to support continued work under both of these programs to protect, restore, conserve, and enhance the state's agricultural land. This year we intend that $2.2 million in funding proposed in the Governor's Budget would support acquisitions and restoration and enhancement work through the California Farmland Conservancy Program with state support costs to cover updates to the Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program consistent with the bond.

And then we would anticipate the bulk of the remainder of funding to be allocated in fiscal year 26-27 to be split between the California Farmland Conservancy Program and the Working Lands and Riparian Corridors Program, subject to legislative approval.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance. I'll briefly touch on a few additional programs. The Administration's Climate Bond Expenditure Plan allocates project funding for the Department of Community Services and Development's Low-Income Weatherization Program. This program has been funded by a mix of General Fund and Greenhouse Gas Reduction funds since about 2017, 2018.

We have also identified several programs as pending allocation. This includes the $30 million for the Department of Conservation's land access and tenure for socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, or tribal producers, $15 million to CalVans for the deployment of vanpool vehicles for use by low-income agricultural workers, and $15 million to the Department of Education for grants to postsecondary education institutions to develop research farms to improve climate resilience.

We do want to note that CDE does not administer funding intended for postsecondary or higher education institutions engaging in research, but we look forward to discussions with the Legislature about the intent for these programs to make sure that we are delivering on the Legislature's goals for these funding allocations.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Frank Jimenez with the Legislative Analyst's Office. Overall, we find that the government--

That guy knows how to talk into his microphone, doesn't he? Yeah, that's what we're looking for--

Many times in the subcommittee, so I've gotten used to the rules on the mic, but overall, we find that the spending plan is reasonable for this chapter, Proposition 4. As the Administration mentioned, several funding categories will use existing programs. For instance, CDFA intends to provide funding set aside for soil health and carbon sequestration through its existing Healthy Soils Program.

We find that the programs chosen by the Administration generally align well with the language included in Prop 4, and we find that utilizing existing state programs allows for the state to more efficiently distribute funds. However, the Administration also intends to allocate funding through several new programs, some of which begin immediately in the budget year, while others take a more phased-in approach to allow for more planning. The Administration indicates that the timing is based on the department's existing roles and familiarities with the funding categories.

For instance, the two categories related to farmers' markets, CDFA does have a role in overseeing farmers' markets, so this is an area where it feels that it can begin implementation immediately. This is in contrast to the regional farm sharing equipment funding category where this would be a new activity for the department indicating that it needs additional time for planning. So planning will begin in the budget year with project awards in budget year plus one.

We find this to be a reasonable approach that allows for sufficient planning in new areas while allowing departments to begin implementation in areas where it does have existing programmatic expertise. While the overall approach appears reasonable, the Legislature may want to provide statutory guidance to ensure that programs, particularly new ones, are implemented in a way that best aligns with the Legislature's priorities and policy objectives.

This subcommittee has already started to do that with the inclusion of talking about previously approved legislation related to how the regional farm sharing equipment category could potentially be implemented, and then we also note that the Administration is seeking additional legislative guidance on three funding categories which Department of Finance went over, so the Legislature would want to begin thinking about how those programs should begin being implemented. But with that, happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you. Any other comments from the panel? Before I turn to the members for comments, I just have some introductory comments that I would like to make. First of all, I think we have to really appreciate the fact that we have voters in California that consistently approve these environmental-oriented bonds.

And so that's a trust that we have to tremendously value, particularly now when we have--this is really the only source of new funding that's out there, and so we want to be good stewards of these funds as they move forward.

And as I've mentioned before, the Legislature feels particularly strong about this because we weren't supported by the Administration in terms of going forward with this bond and the Legislature pushed this, and so we really want to make sure that we work with the Administration to properly handle the expenditure of these bonds. That's first.

The second thing I'd like to say is, I thought the write up this week for these was very good, and both from LAO and from the Administration, in terms of capturing the tone that we've been appreciating, which is you're actually asking, 'hey, we want to work with the Legislature to find out what you're thinking about here, etcetera,' I think that's really helpful and I commend that.

And I think that's the tone we've been trying to create all the time here, which is we should have some healthy disagreements, but we should recognize that we have to work together to actually do all of this properly.

And so with that, I just want to get it on your radar screen the issue about the regional tool sharing--farm tool sharing bill, and that is we in the Legislature passed AB 2313 last year and it provided the framework for the $15 million it in Prop 4.

The bill advanced through the legislative process but the governor vetoed it, and the governor vetoed it saying, 'hey, you need to do this through the budget because it didn't have funding.' And so we, we put it someplace to get it a budget, and that is in Prop 4 and you've been asking for guidance.

And I just want to go on record as saying the guidance we're going to be giving is the language of the bill that the Legislature already passed on this. We want to say that early so that we can work with you and hopefully work productively in terms of this. So I wanted to get that said.

We have a number of questions and I'll turn to my colleagues first and then I'll ask my questions after. Anybody have questions from my-- colleagues, you want to welcome Assembly Members Wilson and Petrie-Norris for being here? Did you start to have a question, Assembly Member?

Thank you. I just, I mean, there was a question listed and the agenda that I was very much interested in because of all of the conversation and discussion we had last year around the vulnerable populations and disadvantaged communities and recognizing--updating the language to see who that included.

And it was just a constant discussion and negotiating point to get that absolutely right, and so I do wonder, within the Ag Chapter, how-what is the approach given that quite a bit of it relates to specific programs and that actually target vulnerable populations, right, and disadvantaged communities. So I just wondered if you could speak to that.

Absolutely. I would just say that CDFA will develop its grant guidance in accordance with the language that's in the bond and the guidance from the Administration to provide meaningful and direct benefits of vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities.

Additionally, we typically utilize technical assistance providers at CDFA to assist in the application process, which has been really beneficial in assisting folks in vulnerable populations in accessing our grant programs and really understanding what it can do for them in their operation.

And so between that guidance and the technical assistance, we feel confident that we can meet the goals that were--and expectations--set out in the bond language.

So you're--just so I understand correctly--so your primary lean-to is the technical assistance and then updating the grant language to make sure you're targeting?

Exactly.

Okay. And then just to echo the remarks from the Chair in regard to AB 2313, as it did get all the way through the Legislature and to the governor's desk, I think that is absolutely appropriate to put that in trailer bill language to ensure that you have the direction and guidance you need as requested, that we do have areas intentionally of the bond that are broad and being a part of that negotiating team that was intentional to give the Legislature opportunity to provide additional guidance in the future, and this is one where we happen to have done it in the past.

And so I think it's a great opportunity to include that language, knowing that there's already support from the Legislature on that. Thank you.

Assembly Member Rogers.

Great. Thank you so much. So you mentioned how oversubscribed many of these programs have been. Is the intent to go back to folks who've already applied and we weren't able to fund with the new resources or are you going to reopen the grant applications or do a new grant application cycle?

That's a great question. The intention is to move forward with new solicitations because the needs that are on those operations may have changed and also the authorizing language from the bond might be slightly different than the requirements in past funding sources.

So we would move forward with new solicitations that would include a public comment period to make sure that we're meeting the needs of the folks that are presently looking for those types of funds, but we don't anticipate significant modifications to those programs and those RFPs.

Okay. And then some of this overlaps pretty generously with the GGRF. Are we essentially going to be--is the proposal to put additional dollars in for some of these programs from both of those two sources or are you going to coordinate the different resources in different ways?

That's a great question. For those four programs in particular, there's no funding in budget year for any of those programs, and all past rounds of funding, all of the money has been, has been expended. And so as of right now, there's no overlap between those two funding sources.

Great. Thank you so much. And then I'll just mention again--because I think it's a great program--when we look at farmers' markets, there's also a great fish-to-farmers' markets program up in Del Norte County that supports our local farmers, supports our local fishermen, and supports healthier foods. So I'll continue to plug that and until I see some funding somewhere for it.

So noted. Assembly Member Petrie-Norris.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. As the Chair, I think, really eloquently articulated, we, with this climate bond and the work that we've done in the past, want to make sure that we honor, I think, the trust that the voters have put into us, which means ensuring that we are delivering a bang for our climate buck, as it were.

The proposal before us recommends expanding some existing grant programs, which I think makes sense for all the reasons articulated. Can you help us understand what you have done in the past to track the efficacy of those investments and understand the outcomes that have been delivered in order to prioritize what programs should be eligible for incremental funding?

Absolutely. In terms of the third party kind of evaluation of those programs, I'm going to have to defer to my colleagues in the audience with our Office of Agricultural Resilience and Sustainability, formerly OEFI. I'm getting used to the new name, so I'll ask.

Can I speak here? Good morning. My name is Carolyn Cook. I'm a Assistant Director in the Office of Agricultural Resilience and Sustainability. In the past we have used some third party contractors to look at our programs.

Most recently Cal Poly and San Luis Obispo did a evaluation of our core programs and we have that report published on our website. A lot of what was focused on there is like, you know, the maintenance of those practices and continuing to like with soil health, soil health practices continuing to maintain those over the years.

And we can provide kind of more color on those in writing in a follow up.

Okay, that's great. I think it's just really important to, and I think that you all are on the same page, but for us to just keep sort of accountability really centered in the way that we are designing these programs moving forward so that we set ourselves up to be able to do a look back in five years time and really understand, you know, what programs have delivered the best ROI for Californians.

Absolutely. And I should note in terms of setting expectations that those third party evaluations primarily focused on our longer running programs. So SWEEP and Healthy Soils in this case, whereas Urban Agriculture, it only had one recent, recent appropriation. So the impact for those same with invasive species would be a little bit harder to determine.

But we can provide what information we do have for those programs.

Thank you, Appreciate that.

I was reminded of one thing by Rachel here. So the funding that's been offered through California Climate Investments, of course there's an annual reporting that we need to do on those. So a number of our programs receive funding from GGRF regularly, including the SWEEP Program, Healthy Soils and our Dairy Methane programs. Thank you.

Anything else? Okay, great. Thank you. So I'm going to rip through these questions fairly quickly because of our timing issues. So if you'll keep your answers as direct as as you can first, I'd just comment. I appreciate the fact that you're going out for new solicitations rather than just using an old list. Things have changed.

As you mentioned, Prop 4 may have some slightly different requirements, but conditions change and we want the best project. So we should evaluate the prior applications with, with those good projects. With regard to the California Vanpool program, curious of the question we have here that we gave you in advance. How much have you.

Has the Vanpool Authority received funding from the state before this and how much of the funding have you received and what departments receive those funds?

Courtney Massingale, Department of Finance. The California Air Resources Board received 6 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in 2018-19 for an agriculture worker Vanpool pilot project as part of the regional Clean Mobility Pilot projects. And then CARB awarded the funding to Cal Vans. And Cal Vans deployed about 154 15 passenger hybrid conversion vans in January of 2019.

Cal Vans later determined that the hybrid conversion technology was not well suited for the ongoing performance demands and the wear and tear that was associated with the continuous off road use to reach the agricultural sites. So the project is no longer operational.

So does the Administration have any thoughts about best ways to do this? I have seen the Vanpool programs in operation and I have concerns about whether they really are working the way that they are designed. And so I think we all have to kind of roll our sleeves up.

I've been asking semi Member Lori Wilson who helped and she had pointed out that came from the Senate side in terms of the request for the Vanpool. So we want to check with our colleagues in the Senate about that. But curious, any thoughts you have about what makes a Vanpool program work and what makes it not work?

Thank you for that helpful information. We don't have anyone here from the Air Resources Board today, so I think we would want to involve them in that conversation.

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you very much. The implementation timeline for CDFA for the tribal food sovereignty suballocation.

Absolutely. So in July 2025, CDFA plans to begin program development which includes identifying, as I mentioned, program priorities, public comment period, outreach to stakeholders, developing the solicitation documents and identifying those opportunities for technical assistance.

We would also want to work with our, with our BIPOC Advisory Committee and our Small Producer Advisory Committee as well as our Tribal Outreach coordinator. And then we anticipate soliciting proposals in September of 2026 and making award decisions in March of 2027. So the funding is anticipated to be fully awarded by May 2027.

Okay, thank you. And I believe you were answering the question and I think I just didn't catch the catch the answer.

But CDE is not in front of the Subcommitee today, but the Administration, if you can get us the answer, if you don't have it, can you provide justification for the slower allocation timeline for the grants to post secondary education to develop the research to farms to improve climate resiliency suballocation?

Yeah, sure. So as we mentioned, CDE doesn't administer the grant funding for post secondary or higher education institutions, institutions that engage in the research. So the Administration hasn't identity identified a fiscal year in which to appropriate the allocation because we're still actively discussing how to effectively administer the funding consistent with the bond language.

But any justification for why you're going slower?

I would say this is one of the areas where there are still some administrative kinks to sort out in terms of this is a role that CDE does not typically play in terms of providing grants. So.

Great. Thank you. All right. How many grants does the Department expect to be able to award with $20 million for the year round certified farmers market? Given the many allowable uses for the.

Bond language, this is a short one. I can promise you. We anticipate awarding about 150 grants in fiscal year 25-26 and about 150 grants in 26-27.

I'm sure none of them will be in Assembly Member Rogers area though. Great. Thank you very much. All right. Hey, thank you everybody. We're going to move on to issue two. Right? Huh? Great. All right, thanks. Thanks for your interest. Right, thank you. You're going to get that.

You're going to get that farmer's market in one of these things. All right, whoever's ready to go first.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Norris. I'm the Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board. Thank you for this opportunity. The administration's climate bond expenditure plan includes $197 million for biodiversity and nature based solutions.

WCB would use these funds to support projects that are helping us meet our commitment to conserve 30% of California's lands in coastal waters by 2030. 30 by 30. The state's nature based solutions, climate targets and our Outdoors for all strategy.

Since 2022, thanks to the Legislature and the Administration, WCB has received over $1 billion from a variety of sources to support our biodiversity and nature based solutions programs. These investments build on many previous similar state investments, including Proposition 68 and the Habitat Conservation Fund.

We have allocated nearly $900 million in grants over the last two years, funding projects that protect and restore habitats in nearly every county and every terrestrial ecosystem.

In 2024 alone, we granted $320 million for 120 projects to protect 90,000 acres of habitat through fee or conservation ease easement and restore 5,000 acres of grasslands, woodlands, wetlands, deserts and more. Nearly 60% of our projects provided direct benefits to disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged communities.

23 projects were delivered in partnership with California Native American tribes, including three ancestral land return projects, 11 that incorporated traditional ecological knowledge and restoration and design and five that will result in tribal access or co management. A few key examples, although I could give you so many more.

A $2.3 million grant to the Tule River Tribe to acquire Hershey ranch, which is 15,000 acres of their ancestral homeland in the San Joaquin Valley in Sierra Nevada. A $12.5 million grant to Pacific Forest Trust to acquire 10,700 acres in the Trinity Headwaters for the protection of upper watershed and ecosystem services and long term carbon sequestration.

A $4 million grant to the Big Sur Land Trust to help restore Carr Lake, which is a 67 acre wetland riparian upland habitat in the heart of the City of Salinas, which is going to provide a much needed park for a park poor community and of interest potentially to Member Rogers.

$8.5 million to save the Redwoods League for 4,500 acres of coastal redwoods in the Lost coast, with which once complete will lead to a 45 mile long uninterrupted access to the Lost coast, which is super exciting.

So we will continue to support projects like these and so many more with the proposed $197 million in climate bond investments of note. On March 13, we issued our draft strategic plan which will guide our work over the next five years.

It sets targets for projects that support large interconnected landscapes, including wildlife crossings, protect and restore sensitive or rare habitats for special status species, rentered ancestral lands to tribes, reduce and remove carbon pollution and provide access to nature for all Californians. We do expect feedback on that draft plan, so it will change, but the fundamental objectives will not.

Our strategic plan will be finalized at our August board meeting in time to guide our investments this year and continue to support our incredible partners throughout the state. Thank you.

Director Norris. Before we go on to the next speaker, I just wanted to say that, you know, all work is valuable. Some people sell trinkets and that's valuable, but some people get to be the Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board.

And that's not just valuable, it has to be one of the most satisfying jobs in California.

Some days I feel like I should pay the people of California.

I know what you mean. Yeah. So anyway, you're blessed just, just getting to work with all of this kind of stuff.

I agree. Thank you.

You're welcome. Our next speaker.

I'm Brian Cash, I'm here from the Natural Resources Agency and I'm representing the nine of our state conservancies. The conservancies were created between 1980 and 2010. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy being the first one and then the last one being the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Conservancy.

The conservancies focus on conserving land, protecting natural environment, whether that's for public recreational use, open space, habitat for the state's biodiversity and endangered species. They fund land acquisitions, habitat restoration, develop public access trails and recreation areas, and they manage public lands.

Before this bond measure, there were quite a few investments in the conservancies, most recently 175 million from the various climate packages from 2021 to 2022 for the Prop 4 for the climate bond for this section, there's $79.9 million that we're asking for this year in the budget and 320 out of the 320 million total.

And we worked with the conservancies to determine the amounts that they would be able to work with this year by looking at what they had actually had left over from the climate packages and then other bond measures and then the capacity of their staff.

Thank you. Next.

And then I'm next.

I'm also here representing our tribal deputy, Geneva Thompson, who runs the Tribal Nature Based Solutions program. That program was created in 2023 through significant consultations with tribes and at least 27 hours of office sessions. So there was a lot of work that went through with the tribes that helped develop the program.

It was not a agency led thing. It was a tribal led program. Funding was provided in the climate packages, $70 million and we received 57 applications and 34 of those were awarded funding and that was $100 million. $10 million is available in the climate bond for the same program and will be rolling out next year. Thank you.

Now. Thank you. Next.

Courtney Massengale, Department of Finance. We have no comments that are available for questions.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Sonja Peter with the Legislative Analyst Office. And good morning, Mr. Rogers. We just have a few comments about this chapter of the Proposition for bond which includes a fairly sizable amount of money for biodiversity and nature based solutions. 1.2 billion overall, of course,

It's 286 that that's being proposed for the budget year. Almost three quarters of this total funding is going to the wildlife per Proposition for languages, going to the Wildlife Conservation Board.

And a little bit of this funding is for targeted purposes for wildlife corridors for a couple programs that have pending allocations, the San Andreas Corridor Program and the Southern Ballona Creek Watershed Program, which of course the Legislature has an opportunity to work with the Administration on that to provide some statutory guidance for those two programs.

But the bulk of the funding going to the Wildlife Conservation Board is in a single allocation that would be distributed across about 10 or so of the board's programs. And these are established programs. They're existing programs with a good track record.

At the same time, I was actually noticing this morning that this allocation, 668 million, is the largest single allocation across the entire Proposition for bond.

And so at the same time, the Legislature may want, the Legislature is essentially being asked to pre approve the multi year spending plan for this pretty sizable amount of money that the board would spend across its 10 or so programs.

But the Legislature may want to have some additional details to ensure that the way that the board spends this money really aligns with the Legislature's priorities. At the same time, as mentioned already, the board does have a strategic plan that will be finalized this summer.

And that approach, the board will use that plan to inform its spending decisions. And that approach does have merit. Obviously the decisions will be made in a thoughtful and deliberative way.

All of this is to say that the Legislature might want to think about whether it would like the board to come back in subsequent years with a few more details about how it intends to distribute and prioritize the funding across its programs. Maybe have some reporting language about how that money's going to be spent.

As far as the other spending in this chapter, Proposition 4, specifically in terms of the conservancies, we think the approach that the Administration is taking makes sense.

The Administration took a look at current staffing capacity at available funding from previous appropriations, as well as the number of sort of shovel ready projects in determining how to allocate funding across the years at each of the different conservancies. So we think that approach makes sense.

Anybody else? All right, Assembly member, any questions?

Thank you. So with the allocation of the funding, one, where do we currently sit with our 30 by 30 goals? And two, do you have an estimate on where we'll end up if the spending is utilized?

So I'm speaking on behalf of the Administration here x 30 by 30 lead, but the current count is at 25.2%. That was a year ago September. So we're due for another accounting of where we stand. And I think the two new national monuments that were named, which is 700,000 acres, would be in our next update.

So that leaves roughly 707 million acres to go. No, I'm sorry, I got that totally wrong. 4 point million acres. 4.8 million acres is where we stand. Now it'll probably be about 4 maybe when the next report comes out.

And I would say, you know, like always, the 30 by 30 strategy really relies on a suite of approaches. It's not just state funding for land acquisition, it's also these federal monuments. It's also incorporating mitigation lands for all the infrastructure projects we're doing. Private funding.

So, you know, the Administration is on track to reach the goal, but it's not all going to come out of this one funding pot.

All right. Thank you.

So thank you. I have on the comment that LAO made with regard to the draft Wildlife Conservation Board plan that's going to come out this summer.

We would definitely like to review that plan and I think we definitely are interested in making sure that with all of the allocations, not just the Wildlife Conservation Board, we want to make sure when it comes to Prop 4, we're getting updates next year.

We're not going to just approve funding now and say there you go, take off. So just want to make sure that you're aware of that as we move forward and then on.

With regard to the strategic plan approach for expenditure of 176 million, LAO points out that might be pretty difficult to spend 176 million if you don't find out until halfway through the year whether you're going to be doing that. Can you respond to that? Do you guys feel like you do have that capability?

Yeah. Thank you

Welcome, Assembly Member Daily

I'll wait.

Thank you for the question. First of all, the strategic plan draft is available now for comment, so we really look forward to hearing from the Legislature about any changes they want to see. That's really great timing from my perspective. I think we'll be well suited to spend those funds.

We have actually a backlog of projects from the previous allocations that we could fund with this money, although we do want to open it up to a new round when we have some confidence that that we're going to be able to spend this summer.

So we're beginning the process of pre applications now and fully expect that we will have suitable funds to spend throughout the year. Great suitable projects, I should say.

And this is a question for this panel, but it's also, if you'll please, Department of Finance, if you'll take it back. We have now both with issue one and issue two, we've received a number of, I think very appropriate and appreciated request for feedback from the Legislature.

Is there a type of guidance that is more helpful than others for you? What kinds of things?

So that as we're preparing our comments, I don't think you'll have any hesitation on our part to say we want this, this and this, but it would be helpful to know if you said, you know, if you would if you would give us guidance in these areas or if you gave us guidance this way, whether it's timing or requirements or something else creative that I'm not thinking about. It would be helpful for us to know that because we will be reaching out to the legislators and letting them know about all of these programs that are potentials and my guess is we're going to get a potpourri of of input and it'd be helpful if we know what form having it come in is helpful for you guys, etc.

Right. So in the spirit of cooperation wanted to make that request out there. To jump down, the equitable and access to these funds. The commitment that Assembly Member Wilson asked about with her questions earlier is pretty essential to maintaining support.

There's no question that some of these things only got approved by the Legislature because the focus was going to be on low income and vulnerable communities. So I just want to emphasize that as we move forward. And so how about the administration?

What's the administration done to approve disseminating information and increasing accessibility of information about outcomes measured in the nature based solutions for people? Can you help us with that?

Brian Cash from the Natural Resources Agency. The Administration has done quite a few things to spread the word about nature based solutions.

In 2022, we released the Climate Strategy to outline what nature based climate solutions are, kind of define what they are, what they look like, specific climate benefits that they actually deliver and then identify priority solutions on every landscape around the state.

In 2024, we released the Nature Based Solution Climate Targets which reflected and reinforced much of what we had heard through a long period of public engagement on drafting these. And then In December of 2024, California had invested with all the climate funds that we had received at $9.3 billion since 2020, in nature based solutions to help out.

And then there's continued reporting as Jen was talking, as Executive Director Jen Norris was talking about on 30 by 30 and also on nature based solutions, how we're doing towards achieving those targets.

The question about, as the Director pointed out, not all the 30 by 30 land is state act, state acquired land, but of the land that the state is taking that they're responsible for, what kind of confidence do we have that we have the funds to make sure we maintain that land properly? That's a good question.

That's a good question. Take that one?

I can try. You know, I think that is an ongoing issue that was raised throughout the 30 by 30 strategy process. You know, we, we protect the land, but then how do we steward it in the Long run.

And I think that is a looming question, you know, what that will cost and how we will make those investments. We're lucky to have partners throughout the state that take on a lot of that responsibility. A lot of land trusts are doing an amazing job as well as our RCDs and others.

But I think, I do think that just candidly that's a, that's an ongoing challenge that we need to work on.

Well, it takes me to the next thing, which is it appears that with the cuts, potential cuts, coming from the Federal Government that they may not be able to maintain the migratory bird wetlands, the federal wildlife refuges is there.

Do you see anything in the Prop 4 bond that could be allocated really critical resource and not one of those things that you can turn on and off when you want? Have you been able to see anything in Prop 4 that would help us keep those wildlife refuges?

Yeah, so we've, we've obviously been having conversations with our partners already about those issues. You know, WCB has invested a lot in the state wildlife refuges to make sure that the water is reused multiple times. We've been putting in perfect purple pipe helping with water efficiency so that those can function better and longer throughout the season.

So I'm hopeful that that will be part of the solution as well as easements on rice fields, for example, that keep water on the land for those birds.

But I can't, I can't speak to how we'll solve the federal problem, but we're definitely working on the state lands and the, and with the private partners as much as we can.

Anybody find anything in Prop 4, you know, the biodiversity and NBS funding, any of that, could any of that be used for...

I know under, Brian Cash again, I know under the water section there's money for the Natural Resources Agency for wildlife refuges and things like that throughout the Central Valley. It's similar to a program that we had with the Central Valley Project, CVPIA, that we had under Prop 68 that we were able to fund.

And so you think Prop 4 that, that...

I think that funding will help out.

That's, that's a potential. Yes. Department of Finance.

Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance just wanted to underscore that while there may be some similarities in Prop 4, there's no way for the state to provide a one for one backfill to potentially lost federal funds.

Well, I thought you guys were going to guarantee that for everything. Right? Okay. Yeah. Obviously, given the magnitude of federal in every area, we're not going to be able to provide it one to one. The question is, can we provide the critical life support for some of these, some of these programs as they go forward?

All right, thank you very much. We're ready for issue number three.

Thank you.

You always tell me if you don't get the question asked that you want to have asked before I go on. Yeah.

This nice easy topic here, Trailer Bill Language and Climate Bond Amendments.

Thank you again. Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance. The Governor's Budget includes Trailer Bill Language to ensure the effective implementation of the climate bond. So we've proposed a couple of technical amendments. The first, to directly appropriate climate bond funding for the purposes specified in the bond in lieu of providing the transfers to the special funds identified in the bond language.

These changes do not alter the authorized purposes of these funds and are intended to prevent the co mingling of climate bond funds with other revenue sources in those special funds, which we believe is more administratively efficient, more transparent and allows for better tracking of bond expenditures.

The Administration also proposes to exempt the development and adoption of program guidelines and selection criteria needed to effectuate or implement climate bond programs from the Administrative Procedures Act.

Unlike previous natural resources bonds, Proposition 4 does not include an exemption from the APA which requires agencies to adopt regulations to implement bond funded programs which are then reviewed by the Office of Administrative Law.

The Administration's rollout plan is predicated on an exemption from the APA so that program guidelines can be updated and published as efficiently as possible while still providing opportunities for meaningful public engagement. Without an APA exemption, we expect the implementation of programs will be delayed by a year or more in some instances.

Even for programs that have shovel ready projects. And as with previous natural resources bond measures, guidelines for new programs and revisions to existing programs will still be developed in a transparent manner, providing opportunities for public engagement on both program design and priority setting before final program guidelines and solicitations are published. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Sonja Petek again from the Legislative Analyst's Office. I'll sort of get to the bottom line which our office does recommend approving the governor's proposal for the APA exemption for Proposition 4.

We do want to acknowledge that the Legislature has had some concerns about the number of requests for exemptions from the APA as well as from the Public Contract Code in recent years. In the context of Proposition 4, we do think there are several reasons that make this proposal reasonable.

First of all, the approach as already mentioned, does have pass precedent. Previous resources bonds also had exemptions from the APA. Second, the Administration has committed to conducting a transparent process and including the public. Third, we think this exemption could create some efficiencies.

So for example, there are programs where the guidelines largely just need an update to make sure they're consistent with Proposition 4 requirements. And going through the entire regulatory process could be a little burdensome in those cases. And then lastly, we think that the exemption could get the money out the door faster, so it could be more expeditious.

Despite these advantages, there are some trade offs. We, we do recognize that the APA exists for a reason and these it provides some important guardrails and requirements in terms of a public process.

So although we do recommend the Legislature approve this exemption, it could also consider potentially putting some language either in Trailer Bill or Budget Bill to ensure that the Administration does include the the public in the process of updating guidelines.

So just for example, the Legislature could require that the Administration publish proposed guidelines online, allow the opportunity for public comment, et cetera, those types of things.

And then on the second point or the other two changes to the Proposition 4 language to appropriate the funding, there are two cases in the bond where the funding goes to a special fund rather than to a Department directly. Throughout the rest of the bond, the funds go to a Department.

What the Administration is proposing is to instead of have that funding go to a special fund that it would go to the Administering Department. We see these as technical changes and have no concerns with those.

Great. Thank you very much. I'm going to. Do we have questions? I have a number sort of representing the Assembly side, which is a little bit different than the LAO side with regard to this.

The Assembly, you know, since I've arrived here, consistently expresses frustration in terms of how much information they get back from agencies in terms of how much, how dollars are being spent. So this is a sensitive issue for the Assembly from the standpoint of asking for an exemption.

And so I think almost certainly, and this is a direction that I'm now announcing publicly that I'm giving to staff, we will want to give some directions based on the suggestion from LAO regarding the type of public outreach, etc. Assuming that we go along with this APA exemption request.

But, some guidance about, you know, things need to be online, the regulations and there needs to be a clear public. And I think that the Administration is sort of verbally committing to that. But this way we would know specifically some of those things. But a fundamental question is we get a lot of these requests.

A year ago the Legislature made a suggestion to the Administration to why don't we Just change the APA so you don't have to keep asking asking for the exemptions. In other words, let's get the efficiency that you're looking for and still make sure that we get a fair amount of the transparency and guidance.

Do you wish to comment on the fact that we made the suggestion and nothing has come back to us from the Administration yet at this point in time?

I would just note that our request was really considered within the context of Proposition 4 wanting to be responsive to the voters, which is why we're only seeking the APA exemption for the climate bond funding.

Is the Administration interested in modifying the APA so that you don't have to ask for exemptions in the future?

We appreciate the legislatures on this comments and are certainly open to discussions regarding that.

Yeah, it, it. I, I don't have all the background on how often and all of that, but it does seem like it might be, might make sense. On the other hand, most of the bonds had the exemption written into it.

So this also could be the fact that it wasn't written into this bond, maybe reflecting the administration's frustration with with that it might be why it didn't get put in there. So it's probably something that if we can have a healthy, professional, productive conversation, we might be able to avoid some of this as we go forward.

Mr. Chair, I would just add the things that the LAO is proposing and the things that we've talked about are consistent practices that we've done in the past with all the other bond measures. Posting guidelines for at least 30 days for public comment, having public meetings where people throughout the state, especially now with the new technologies we have where people can participate online, it's really increased the amount of participation.

So we look forward to working with the Legislature to figure out how, you know, if we need to put it in Budget Bill Language, Trailer Language, you know, we're open to working with you on that.

Thank you. And I appreciate that LAO didn't find any problems with your request to have the funds go to the administrating agency rather than special district. But for the life of me, when I've been reading this, I'm going, what's, there's some language there.

And just what's the difference, what's the difference between going to the agency and going to the special thing?

What I'll take a stab and then Mr. Cash can jump in. So from our perspective, directly appropriating the funding to the administrative departments helps to prevent the co mingling of bond funds with other revenue sources in these special funds.

When you think about it from a budget act or a budget galley perspective, what we're proposing is that any member of the Legislature, the public, can look at the budget act and understand what funding is being appropriated out of the climate bond to a Department for a specified purpose.

When you transfer climate bond funding into a special fund, there may be other expenditures already authorized from that fund. So it's not quite as transparent as directly appropriating climate bond funding for the specified purpose.

But aren't the funds commingled in an agency also?

Potentially. There are many other, there can be multiple revenue sources and expenditures from those special funds. I'll let Mr. Cash speak to why we believe that it's really important to have clarity on the climate bond funding and expenditure side.

Yeah, with bond funding, once the funding is transferred into another fund, it's considered spent by the by bond council. So that can muddy the waters a little bit because you're actually technically spending it twice, you're transferring it. That's counted as an expenditure. But then it's hard to track from the fund afterwards where that funding is going.

And it's much cleaner to just, okay, we're appropriating it to the Department, and then these are the things that are funded from it. It's kind of muddying the waters, if you transfer it somewhere else.

You may not be able to answer this, but why do people in the bond actually designate particular places where they want the funds to go? Special funding?

That's a very good question.

I didn't take you. I think it's because they're really. They want to make sure. You know, there's some kind of guarantee that it. That it goes there. So that may be something else.

The bond language itself actually says what it can be spent on. So, yeah, I would just. That does a good job of.

So we may want to clarify that as we're putting putting together the next bonds. You know, particularly in. In this particular area.

If I'm still around, I'll make sure we do that.

Thank you. Good. Alrighty. Any other questions, staff? All you needed. All right, so we're going to move on to issue number four, Advancing farm to school.

I'm going to kick this off by saying this is one of the programs that I really enjoy seeing being implemented in schools. But I have a lot of concerns about whether we should be doing this program given our budget situation. So it's not like you're talking to somebody who's hostile.

I love this program, but should this program be funded with new general fund dollars or should we, with the Prop 98 funding that we have that is, has the ability to fund this, should we be doing it through Prop 98? That's the question.

So I wanted to identify that early so that you had a chance to try to address those concerns. Right.

Wonderful. I'll do my best.

Turn this now. Well, just to see how it bends. Just bend it so that it's towards your mouth. There you go. Good. All right. Thank you. It all comes down to the fact that you just insist on having that thing way over to the left and stuff, that you won't move your notes. But that's all right. Yeah.

Well, as you know, Arma Cozina, California Department of Food and Agriculture. Thank you again for having me. As you noted, CDFA's Farm to School Program is, it's a special one. It was initiated in 2021 to create equitable access to locally grown climate-smart foods and hands-on education opportunities to all California students.

With just three rounds of funding since then, the California Farm to School program has been able to reach 49% of California school children. We've been able to scale up the Farm to School network and develop the Farm to School roadmap to success.

The largest component of the program is the Farm to School Incubator Grant program which most folks are the most familiar with and that provides competitive awards to projects that cultivate equity, nurture students, build climate resilience, and create scalable and sustainable change. The grant program has four tracks to create change across the food system.

Track one, the K-12 procurement and education track which funds individual schools or districts in California to establish or expand existing Farm to School programs. I'm going to skip a little bit because track three is the Farm to Early Care and Education track. Basically the same as K through 12, but for even littler kids.

Track two is the Farm to School Technical Assistance track, which funds technical assistance to help California school food authorities and California producers implement resilient and sustainable Farm to School Programming.

And track four, the Farm to School Producer and Food Hub track, which would increase production, processing, and or distribution capacity to sell California-grown or produced whole or minimally processed foods to the California School Food market. The program has grown significantly in the past funding cycles, showing increased demand and interest from stakeholders.

In 2022, $58 million was requested for $25.5 million in available funds. In 2024, $122.6 million was requested for an available $52.8 million in funds. Just speaking a bit to, you know, why now. We want to make sure that we're capitalizing on the demand and momentum for this program.

As a result of ongoing funding allocated in 2022, we were able to hire 16 regional leads as part of the California Farm to School Network to further support schools whether they receive funding from the incubator program or not in their efforts to access local, climate-smart foods and build capacity in their school nutrition education programs.

The program was also able to work with partners at the University of California to conduct a third party evaluation of these two components of the program and determined that these actions alone had resulted in increased procurement of California grown or produced whole or minimally processed foods, continued use, expansion and adoption of Climate Smart agricultural practices, improved economic opportunities for a wide range of California food producers, and expansion of Farm to School education and nutrition activities, especially in prioritized communities.

In consultation with stakeholders, CDFA developed the Farm to School Roadmap for Success which takes into account those early successes and makes recommendations as to how to finish scaling this program and reach our goal of reaching 100% access and education for California school children.

To further this program, as you noted CDFA requests $24.9 million general fund in fiscal year 25-26 to continue this program and address some of the gaps and next steps that were identified in that Roadmap to Success.

The funding would be used to sustain the proven economic, environmental, and equity benefits of the Farm to School program, including 20 million for the California Farm to School Incubator Grant Program Fund to more projects across all four tracks of the program. $3 million for Climate Smart Agricultural technical assistance.

This ensures that there are a sufficient number of producers throughout the state implementing the Climate Smart agricultural practices that are prerequisite for accessing the Farm to School market and that technical assistance is distinct from the technical assistance that's provided in the Farm to School Track 2 of the of the grant program.

One is about implementing the practices that make you eligible and one is about accessing the markets within the Farm to School program.

There's also $1.9 million for the California Farm to School Network programming which will support capacity building and networks between school nutrition providers to ensure that these projects are sustainable and scalable for the diverse needs of California students. We just note that if this request is denied, it will harm California's highest needs students and local farmers the most.

Those that have been consistently trying to access the farm to school market.

Thank you. Next.

Erin Carson, Department of Finance. Nothing to add, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. LAO?

Frank Jimenez again with the Legislative Analyst's Office. In this proposal, $22 million would support new grants from the Farm to School Incubator Grant program, continue an existing program assessment, and support additional statewide outreach.

We find that these activities align with the state's recent efforts in this area and likely continue the progress in enhancing farm to school efforts across the state. However, given the general fund constraints, we recommend that the Legislature weigh this proposal against its other spending priorities.

As we've mentioned before in previous subcommittee hearings, this new discretionary proposal, the way the Administration makes capacity for it is by taking actions across the budget and that includes shifting previous one-time augmentations for climate programs to Proposition 4 bond dollars. So the Legislature will have to view this proposal within that context as well.

However, to the degree that the program remains a high priority for the Legislature, it could explore potentially supporting this funding with some of the constitutionally required funding that the state needs to provide to schools through Proposition 98.

We find that the Proposition 98 side of the budget has more capacity for discretionary proposals as compared to the non Prop 98 side. While likely not all of the 22 million would be eligible to be shifted over the Proposition 98, some components in our opinion likely would be eligible.

However, as part of this proposal, $3 million is set aside for Climate Smart Technical Assistance grants. We recommend that the Legislature reject this portion of the funding based on our conversation with the Department.

The grants would not directly support the implementation of farm to school practices directly, such as capacity grants for farmers to meet procurement requirements for schools. Rather, the grants would promote the adoption of a wide array of practices across all farms across the state, regardless of their current or planned involvement in farm to school efforts.

We find that this is a big distinction in a year which the Legislature has limited General Fund dollars and wants to be very targeted in how it spends those dollars. Overall, in our opinion, we find that the technical assisted grants are broad and not well targeted and that's why we recommend rejecting it.

But happy to take any questions.

Great, thank you. Like to point out, as I said at the beginning, I think there's lots of support for the concepts embraced in this program, but I do think that this year in particular new funding request, which in many ways this is new funding.

We've been funding this with one time funds and now we're, you know, this becomes sort of a new funding request, has to compare with all the other new funding requests and all the new funding requests have to compare with cuts in existing programs.

And we will have severe cuts in existing programs, almost certainly based on how things are shaping up at this point in time. So I would hope the Administration would work with us to at a minimum see how much of Prop 98 funding could address parts of this program.

And so the parts that aren't are the only parts that we are actually having the conversation about coming from Prop 4, I mean coming from the General Fund rather than, rather than the present Prop 98.

So we have a number of questions along that line, but that's the thrust of what I would like to have us explore carefully try to keep the program going through the nutrition aspects of the CDA program, you know, the existing, you know, school nutrition funding programs.

But with that we have these questions here, but I have Assemblymembers. Connolly.

Yeah, good morning. In addition to kind of the overall question, I did want to drill down on the technical assistance component and picking up on the LAO's comment, which I had a question along those lines. So the current proposal includes $3 million for technical assistance grants that do not directly support producers in the Farm to School program.

So what is the, and you talked about this a little bit, but really what is the rationale behind allocating this money to General technical assistance instead of to specific producers in the program?

That's a great question. So the Farm to School program kind of supports California climate smart agricultural practices in a couple of ways. One is it creates that market for those products and the other one has to be enabling capacity in that pipeline. Right. So we've been able to reach 49% of students.

All of those producers that are involved in the program to date have implemented climate smart agricultural practices. And so to scale up to 100%, we're creating that market demand. We need to make sure that there are producers in the pipeline that are doing these practices and have the capacity to then apply to the program.

And so while it's not specifically targeted, it would kind of work in conjunction with that program to ensure that there are the requisite number of producers that can participate in these programs, particularly in areas of the state that we have not been able to access yet with the Farm to School program.

Okay, yeah, I kind of get that. I still, the LAO's comment is still kind of in mind, are there other, are there other funds that do the more general capacity building as well that would be happening anyway?

We had one round of funding for this climate smart agriculture technical assistance program. And so based on that funding, we would be able to scale that up to reach about 3,000 new producers and help them to implement these practices. So about $1,000 per new producer that we, that we assist to get them into this pipeline.

There's no funding for that program currently, so this would be the only way to reach those producers.

Okay, well, let's, we'll keep talking about that one.

Well, I want to follow up because that's when I first read the $3 million. It was before I'd read the, read the LAO comments. I just went, this is not, you know, I'm not sold yet, okay, on this.

But are you saying that you need about $1,000 to bring, to have each one of these areas, each one of these producers have the technical expertise to be able to supply these products to the school?

So there's technical assistance within the farm to school grant program that helps producers that want to access farm to school markets to do, to check the boxes, if you will, for the things that they need to do to access farm to school. However, to apply to our program, you need to check certain boxes as well.

And one of those is to be using climate smart agricultural practices. That's one of the explicit goals of the program. And so this would be even before that piece to make sure that there are farmers in the pipeline that are using these practices so that they are eligible for these programs and to access these markets.

And that's the $3 million, about $1,000 a producer to get them into the pipeline.

Yeah, that's based.

Tell me, what is it that it helps? How does it get them into the pipeline?

Absolutely.

That's what we're, we just don't understand.

Pardon me. Yes. So this helps them to implement new practices like healthy soils practices or improved irrigation, reduced pesticide use. Well, integrated pest management practices that, that would then allow them to say, I'm using climate smart agricultural practices. These are climate smart foods that are eligible for entrance into these markets.

So you give them funding to implement the actual best practices?

Give them the knowledge and expertise to implement whatever practices work for their operation.

Yeah, instead of calling it technical assistance grants, it just, you know, I can see why you'd call it that. But LAO, you look like you're ready to say something.

Yeah, I think just to provide some clarity on the distinction, I think all the members are kind of picking up that there is a difference between the technical assistance for the 3 million versus the technical assistance that CDFA would do internally within the farm to school incubator grant program.

Correct, these are not technical assistance grants that help the farmers expand their capacity, saying I want to grow more produce of X so the school can procure it from me.

CDFA in our view is trying to incentivize farmers that may want to do farm to school practices and support schools to use particular practices such as adopting healthy soil practices that sequester carbon and that may have some benefits on the climate side and may help farmers in other areas.

But when it comes directly to supporting farmers and building capacity to directly support schools and increasing the amount of food that they can send, we find that these technical assistance grants don't align with that.

But if that is a requirement to participate in the program, doesn't that then increase capacity if we have bring in 3,000 more producers? Because you can't be in the program unless you're using those climate-based practices?

Yeah, we're happy to work with the Department to understand the full requirements for a producer to become eligible in, you know, providing food to schools.

But in our view, the distinction in that, you know, whether a farmer produces food with a healthy soils practice versus not, at the end of the day, the main intent of the program is to get California grown fresh produce into schools.

So I think that distinction, you know, may matter to a certain extent, but in terms of the overall main mission of the program, we find that it doesn't necessarily support that directly.

And I'm, and I probably disagree with that. Okay. So I probably say I want the stuff coming to the schools, coming from healthy soils programs, et cetera. But that's exactly the value of this Committee hearing. We need to hear this from LAO. We need to hear this just so that we can drill down.

So appreciate this a great deal.

Just to double confirm that it sounded like you hit the nail on the head. These are requirements to then participate in the food to school program?

Yes. Currently 100% of the producers that participate in the program implement climate smart agricultural practices. At some point we need to make sure that there are those producers available.

All right, Assemblymember Rogers.

Yeah, so I think given the information, I think especially unless we get clarity that says otherwise, I'm fine with the 3 million for the, the technical assistance.

My question really is about is there any threat still out there from the Federal Government to curtail funding for this program that then makes it so that we are either having to backfill again for of other resources or that makes the program unusable to begin with.

So that's a great question. Federal programs that are focused on local foods for schools and hands on food education have been cut. Impacted programs include the local foods for schools and childcare centers. That was a $70 million cut. And the USDA Farm to School Grant Program which was a $5 million cut.

Stakeholders do fear that there will be additional cuts to national school meal programs which would cause harm to students, reducing access to school meals not having a direct impact on this particular grant program.

We would say that due to these federal cuts, these state programs like the Farm to School program are even more important to make sure that these foods are available in our farm to school programs. But those federal programs are distinct from from these funds.

Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to trying to get at, is this one where the more we can do the better or is there a certain threshold of funding that we have to have in order for the program to be even somewhat operational?

The more. This is one of those scenarios in which the more, the more money we have, the more we can scale up the California specific farm to school program. It's not contingent on federal funds being available.

Okay, great. Thank you.

All that being said, it seems like you you've given some good justification for the $3 million for the technical side of it.

But I want to go back to the big but just as the question came with all the federal cuts, etc, the question is should this be funded this way or should as much of this as possible be funded from Prop 98 funding? I'm having trouble. We have every, Assemblymember's making requests for new expenditures.

The governor's making requests for new expenditures. All the new expenditures are going to have a real difficult time competing when we have cuts in existing programs.

So I want to emphasize that it's going to be difficult for us to get there on this on this program as just a new General Fund when we do have enough funding in Prop 98 right now to meet all of the demands.

And so we do have the capability of doing as much of this as possible through Prop 98. So appreciate LAO coming up with that as a potential suggestion. Yes, ma'am.

Jamie Gonsales, Department of Finance regarding Prop 98, we were just going to say the package included in the 25-26 Governor's. Budget reflects the administration's K through 14 priorities given the available Proposition 98 resources. However, with that said, we're happy to review any proposals that are provided to us.

Great. Thank you thank you very much. All right. We're ready to move on to issue five, State Lands Commission. And because of our timing and starting late, we're going to ask you to try to keep your comments relatively brief as we dive into these two very specific topics. Bolsa Chica and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

No, the Ricon--

Oh. Oh, that's the next one. Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah. State Lands Commission. Yeah, Bolsa Chica only, right? There we go. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam--Mr. Chair. Apologies. I'm Sheri Pemberton. I'm the Chief of External Affairs at the California State Lands Commission. A 950-acre Bolsa Chica coastal wetlands is the largest wetlands restoration in Southern California history.

It was created in 2006 through a partnership with state and federal agencies and mitigation funding from the Ports of Long Beach in Los Angeles for expansion. The commission owns over 1,200 acres of the wetlands and is responsible for them. About $165 million has been invested in the wetlands to date, including over $100 million from the two ports as mitigation.

The original funding has been depleted, but ongoing operation and maintenance, including critical annual dredging to keep the inlet open, are necessary. Without funds to maintain the wetlands, the inlet will close and that will result in catastrophic losses to wildlife habitat and increased liability to the state.

There's no other available funding other than through this request. The commission is a landowner and is requesting about $4 million over the next three fiscal years for those operation and maintenance and critical dredging costs.

We're also requesting $330,000 for a sea level rise adaptation feasibility study to protect the habitat and wildlife and oil operations and the surrounding neighborhood from flooding. Bolsa Chica is below the mean sea level owing to oil drilling, subsidence, and is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, so this funding is a critical first step to assess adaptation measures to keep the wetlands operating in the years to come.

Thank you. LAO or Department of Finance?

Yeah. Zach Lierly, Department of Finance. Nothing further to add, but happy to answer any questions.

Sonja Petek with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We've reviewed the proposal and spoken to the department and don't have any concerns with the proposal. We really see this as a state obligation.

Thank you.

Okay, great. I have some concerns with the proposal and some questions. My first question is, if we have a significant problem because of land subsidence from the oil drilling, are the oil companies--those that have profited from taking the oil out and causing a negative impact--are they on the hook at all for any of this?

So that's a great question. I don't know the answer to that question offhand. Our understanding is that the commission is the landowner and the entity responsible for maintaining the wetlands and keeping them operational and functional, has the responsibility to look long-term at planning and adaptation to protect the wetlands and is responsible for that planning that's necessary for adaptation.

So if you could look back to when we took the land, when the State Lands Commission acquired the land, if there was any transfer of liability, you know, for the, from the, from those who again profited from taking that oil out to sit here and now have us--over and over again, we see the taxpayers getting stuck with the impacts of private profit sucking a resource like this.

Yeah, I will confirm, but I believe the oil operations are outside of the actual wetlands and under or on land owned by private property owners.

Still, whoever, whoever's profiting by exploiting a resource should be responsible for the environmental impacts of that, I would offer. But my question is, I support the study to, you know, that you talk about in terms of the study to see what can we do as we have sea level rise, etcetera, because without, without a plan, I don't see this long-term sustainable.

I think Bolsa Chica, you know, wetlands, we will--won't have it as a wetlands unless there is a credible plan, and if we, and if the plan--the plan may say there's nothing we can do, right? So I just want to, want to go on record that not this year am I going to say, 'hey, we should stop everything at Bolsa Chica. We're the landowners. We have liability and, you know, responsibility to do this.'

But we, we need to ask ourselves the hard question, be the adults in the room and go, 'hey, is this, is this a sustainable investment?' My question, one of my questions is, what liability do we have if we didn't maintain Bolsa Chica as a wetlands?

Well, I'm not, I'm not an attorney. I understand there are overarching serious legal potential consequences if we didn't maintain the wetlands.

Could you get us that information, please? Could you ask your staff to do that so, so that we can put that in perspective, you know, as we move forward with this?

Yes.

All right. Assembly Member Rogers? Assembly Member Lackey? All right, we're going to move on to Issue Six: Rincon Decommissioning Project. Oh, the same panel. Here we go. All right.

Yes, thank you. So this item involves decommissioning a former offshore oil and gas operation in Ventura County known as Rincon Island, but also includes an onshore facility and onshore pipeline connections.

The commission became responsible for Rincon Island and the associated oil and gas development about a decade ago when the former oil and gas operator filed for bankruptcy and deserted their leases, leaving the state responsible for the remediation and eventual decommissioning.

Since then, the commission has plugged and abandoned 77 wells and prepared an environmental impact report to decommission the island, onshore facilities, and associated infrastructure. The island's connected to shore through a causeway that arcs over the ocean. The commission is requesting about--requesting $12.5 million to fund the decommissioning consistent with the project analyzed in the environmental impact report.

This would be soil remediation, groundwater remediation, removing soil, disposing of it both at the island and the onshore site, and the online pipeline connections. We have a little bit of funding left from money we called on from the bond that the former operator held and through a settlement we negotiated with a prior operator, but not enough for the full decommissioning cost. It's estimated at about 22.5 million.

So we're requesting an additional 12.5 million to bridge that gap so we have sufficient money to restore the site, clean it up, abate the hazards, and ready it for future use.

I think you just answered one question when you told us what you're going to do: restore the di--clean up. Okay, good. Anything from Department of Finance or LAO?

Yeah, Zach Lierly. Nothing further add, but happy to answer questions.

Great. Okay, this is another classic example. The oil companies came in, ripped all the resource out, took the profits from that, and then declared bankruptcy and left us, the taxpayers, stuck with, you know, with doing this. This, this resolves the funding, but gap gets us to the 22.8 million I think it is that we need.

But what kind of assurance do we have that that's going to be enough? I mean, with price of everything going up, does the State Lands Commission feel fairly confident with this number or are we likely to see cost increase?

Well, we feel confident, but one potential thing that could affect the eventual costs is the Los Angeles wildfires and increased demand for resources and equipment that we would be bidding for to complete the project. So there's the potential for those costs to increase depending on demand and reduced resources.

So once you get this cleaned up, what's the commission's--what's the Land Commission's role in any future use of the island?

Yeah, so once we have it cleaned up, then we would receive and analyze any applications for future use. We would still be the landowner, so we would be responsible for issuing any new lease that authorizes a use for the, for the island and the onshore facilities, and then we would also be kind of operating like in a caretaker role and just protecting public health and safety until there's a new lessee.

And tell us about your relationship with the Coastal Band of Chumash Indians. When did that begin? What do you anticipate the relationship evolving into, if anything?

Yes. So those discussions started around 2022 and culminated in a memorandum of understanding between the State Lands Commission and the Chumash Band where we commit to work together to explore a co-management framework for the island in the onshore area.

It's a framework, it doesn't obligate either party, but the idea is that we would diligently work to see if we can achieve that, that goal of co-management. What that might look like, I'm not sure, like an educational, kind of like visitor-serving amenity, open space, but it's something that we are--together with the Chumash Band--committed to seeing if we can make happen.

Thank you. Members?

Yeah, I just want to make a statement that--and share another perspective on what happened here in the Rincon Ridge in that the oil industry, we say they exploited the region at making a profit. There's nothing wrong with making a profit when you're actually getting a product that services our public.

There's a great use, and I know that this bugs a lot of people, but there is a great use for oil and there's a demand for oil. We will never become an oil-less society; maybe for fuel, but we need it for other things, and to characterize the believing of this industry in that region because they couldn't make a profit anymore.

And why do you think they couldn't make a profit? It wasn't because the demand's not there. It was because of the regulatory burdens that we imposed as a government. So that's another perspective that deserves to be shared and be thought about. That is a reality, and I just feel that that perspective needed to be shared.

Thank you. I'd like to share another perspective to your perspective, which is part of the legislative debating process, and that is, whenever somebody is taking a resource and having environmental impacts, those environmental impacts should be viewed as part of the cost of the cost of acquiring that resource.

Because we are a market economy, we allow somebody to charge the price that the market will bear. And if that price is high, they make large profits. They are completely free to decide to do this or not do it. And when they decide to do it, we don't go in and say, 'okay, we're not going to let you make any profit off this.' They make tremendous profits.

Now they can make those tremendous profits and not pay for the environmental damage or not set aside money for the environmental cost or they can make a choice to do the appropriate thing, which is set the funds aside from their profits for the environmental impacts that they're having. If they don't set those things aside, there's no reason why somebody should, somebody else should be picking up those environmental costs.

And that's what I would use as the term 'exploiting a resource.' If you take the resource and you don't pay the true cost of taking the resource, you are, from a public standpoint, sticking the public with the bill. That's an exploitation. But I see you hit your light, so I'll give you the final word on this one.

Well, I just have a quick response to that. What's really up for debate is what's the true cost and where those environmental regulations really justified? And I think that's up for debate, but it's not up for debate because the ship has sailed.

Plugging a well so that it doesn't continue to let oil seep into the ocean is--

Well you use an obvious example.

But it's one of the things that--it's one of the things that we have been stuck--but we've been stuck with it. We are paying that cost right now.

But the debate, the debate goes back and forth as to whether or not those other regulatory demands were justified and we're really having a environmental impact that really posed a threat. That is up for debate and--

Sure. Great.

It was up for debate, let's put it that way. And there was a, an agreement on your side.

I look forward to some more healthy debates with you on those. Thank you very much.

I'm happy to do that.

And because I can, because it's fun, I think what I'm hearing from the Chair is that the cost of doing business, the regulatory aspect, is priced in to the profit model. The price of mitigating or remediating the impacts are not priced in because that company is no longer there.

And so we can agree or disagree on whether the regulations were priced in at the beginning appropriately, but we also have to agree there is no company paying for for the remediation. Now it's the taxpayers that are paying that remediation.

Right. And what we agree and disagree on was the predecessor piece was that those were not justifiable expectations.

Great conversation. Thank you. Non-presentation items. Do either member want to pull anything off of the non-presentation items?

I think this was the non-presentation.

The--all right. Great. So with that, we are going to open this up to public comment, and those of you that agree with Assembly Member Rogers and me get to speak first and those that don't--here we go.

Good morning, Chair and members.

By the way, for the record, that was said in jest, all right? For my colleague, right. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and members. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. Thanks for the opportunity to speak this morning. I'm here to support the Administration's proposed trailer bill to exempt the funding programs under Proposition 4 from the APA process.

We as an association typically engage in these kinds of processes and we feel like the current process works very well and the APA process would just delay the funding getting out to the projects that need it, so we strongly support the administration's TBL.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Beth Olhasso, on behalf of WateReuse California. Echo the comments of Ms. Hall on supporting the APA process. As you know, there's a robust water recycling funding program. We can get that money out very quickly to very needed projects, so we support the trailer bill language.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members, Horacio Gonzalez, on behalf of NextGen California on Issue Four. We are in strong support of the governor's proposal to invest in the Farm to School Program and in particular the incubate--the Farm to School Incubator Grant Program.

This is a program that has been oversubscribed every year it's been offered, including in its most recent year by well over $76 million. Eighty-four percent of the schools that participate are Title 1 and over 94% of the farmers that benefit are small or mid-sized. The need for this funding is unquestionable and we encourage you to please include it as you finalize the Assembly's budget proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Rico Mastrodonato with the Trust for Public Land. I'm here to urge your committee and the Assembly to think about the 24% that's going to biodiversity and habitat. Is that keeping up with the biodiversity hot spot? California actually is one of six in the entire globe.

We're losing habitat, heat, wildfires, loss of ag space, development, and we're falling behind the habitat curb and biodiversity. And 24% of what's available does not seem to reflect the urgency of that, and with regard to Issue Four, advancing Farm to School, I'd like to see that coordinated with CAL FIRE's Green Schoolyard Program, which incidentally is out of funding, and we urge you to find that in the GGRF. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Abby Halperin with the Center for Ecoliteracy, and on behalf of over 70 other organizations that support the 24.9 million for the Office of Farm to Fork and the Farm to School Grant Program. As my partners at NextGen have mentioned, extensive evaluation has been done on this program and the results are clear: it is effective.

I want to address the broader discussion about Farm to School in the context of the other school meal programs, and Farm to School, while a smaller program is the only school food program that directly funds farmers and the only school food program that directly funds food education.

So we see it as a distinct and complementary program that helps direct more of the 4.8 billion dollars of state and federal investments in school food to spending on California farmers. And in light of the recent National Farm to School Program and local food schools funding being canceled, this leadership is more important than ever. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Louis Brown. Three quick issues. First, on behalf of California Fairs Alliance and Western Fairs Association, we appreciate and support the the money in Prop 4 for resiliency at fairgrounds. Second, on behalf of California Citrus Mutual, we support CDFA's request for Prop 4 monies in invasive species.

And then finally, we ask on Item Number Two, when we're talking about monies for habitat and other critical spaces, that we provide some flexibility in there for working ag lands, and the California rice industry provides 500,000 acres of critical habitat for birds, salmon, garter snakes, and we believe that those properties, those industries should be available for those funding. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Bennett and members. Megan Cleveland with The Nature Conservancy. I have just two points I want to make. First, the Governor's Budget proposes using Prop 4 funding to backfill 32 million in prior commitments to WCB, so we respectfully urge you to reject this backfill and ensure that Prop 4 investments are additional and provide the greatest public benefit.

Second, we urge the Legislature to provide robust investments in fiscal year 2025-26 to the Wildlife Conservation Board. WCB's programs support projects and activities that are critical to achieving the state's climate, biodiversity, natural working lands, and outdoor access goals, and WSB also has a really strong track record of efficiently allocating funding to projects across the state.

Providing a robust allocation of Prop 4 funding to WCB in the first year will allow the board to continue its legacy of funding projects that support climate resiliency and biodiversity protection. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Michael Chen, on behalf of Audubon California, here to show some support for a budget request for WCB and Department of Fish and Wildlife. We are requesting approximately ten million of Prop 4 dollar bonds to augment a program that's within CDFW called BirdReturns.

BirdReturns is a program that we work on in partnership with Nature Conservancy, Point Blue, and the California Rice Commission. The program incentivizes private landowners to flood their fields that are not in use to produce more habitat for migratory birds. This program has been credited with bringing sandhill cranes in California back from the brink of extinction. We urge your support on this request. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Leumer, on behalf of Pacific Forest Trust, Audubon California, Trout Unlimited, Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, and Mojave Desert Land Trust, supporting the funding for WCB and biodiversity nature-based solutions. This isn't a nice to have.

It's a need to have, especially if the state's going to meet our climate goals and our 30-by-30 goals. We oppose using the funds for backfilling General Fund gaps. As was noted in previous comments, backfilling reduces the amount of progress we've made with the bond.

The note in the agenda for fire resilience on state lands and climate-resilient watersheds are 100 million less for progress that we can make in these areas, but otherwise we're supportive of the bond dollars in the budget. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Joe Devine with Platinum Advisors, here on behalf of the California Emergency Resiliency Response Fairgrounds and Venues Association. It's a trade association of around 15 to 20 fairgrounds and event venues across the state. We express our strong support for the $40 million in Prop 4 designated for fairground infrastructure.

This funding is essential for facilities and consistently serve as the backbone of local emergency response, hosting evacuation centers, staging areas, and community shelters during wildfires, floods, power shutoffs, and public health emergencies.

The funds will help fairgrounds modernize aging infrastructure, installing resilient power systems, upgrading communications and broadband capabilities, and improving public safety features, ensuring they remain operational and responsive when our communities need the most. However, the 40 million is just a first step. Across the state, fairgrounds face hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred maintenance.

Protecting and fully appropriating these funds is vital not only to maximize community resilience, but to ensure these assets remain viable for future emergencies. We respectfully to urge you to preserve this allocation in full and consider it a foundation for a long-term investment strategy in California's emergency-ready infrastructure. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of American Farmland Trust and the California Certified Organic Farmers. We support the Administration's Prop 4 climate smart agriculture expenditure plans specifically related to healthy soil, SWEEP, equipment sharing, and farmland conservation.

Related to equipment sharing, we support the Chair and Assembly Member Wilson's request that trailer bill language is drafted to reflect the program guidelines outlined in AB 2313. Additionally, on behalf of the CC--on behalf of CCOF, we ask that the Legislature and CDFA urgently find money in their collective couches to support CDFA's organic transition program. Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm Alexandra Levy, on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumers Association. As the Legislature continues extension of cap-and-trade, it's critical that GGRF expenditures are also reviewed. Funding must be prioritized for actual emission reductions, particularly methane.

Too many programs are not delivering real GHG reductions and proven cost-effective programs should be prioritized. The current climate smart ag budget proposal is woefully inadequate and lacks funding for the three most effective programs. We encourage the Legislature and Administration to provide significant ongoing funding for livestock methane reductions, the FARMER Program, and FPIP. Each of these programs are highly cost-effective and should be the primary focus of climate smart agriculture going forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Council of Land Trusts and the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. Like to echo the comments from The Nature Conservancy, support robust funding to the Wildlife Conservation Board, and also urge you to reject the backfilling proposal from the Administration.

Lastly, we'd just like to urge the use of block grants. Both my clients have a proven track record of responsibly and efficiently putting dollars on the ground through a block grant system. We've seen this been working better and better from the Administration and we urge that going forward.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Dan Jacobson, representing AltaSea at the Port of Los Angeles. Just to talk on Issue Number Three and the governor's amendments and the APA issue, we're agnostic on the APA and that specific issue, but do emphasize the need for speed on getting those grants out.

And in particular, in Santa Monica Bay and up and down the coast of Southern California where the ocean is being inundated with the toxic sludge that is coming off from the fires, those are having an impact on the ocean and on the marine wildlife, and the grants that are in Prop 4 specifically would go to address those, but we need to be able to move those out quickly. So urge that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon. Jamie Fanous from the Community Alliance with Family Farmers or CAFF. We represent 8,000 small and underserved farmers across the State of California, here to comment on Issue Number One. We are in strong support of the following Prop 4 investments: funding for the equipment sharing and Farmer Cooperative Program.

We strongly support the Legislature's commitment to provide clear language on how this funding should be used as well as the $18.8 million with CDFA's Urban Agriculture Program and the $200,000 to support the Tribal Food Sovereignty Program. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network. We're a network of 50 or so organizations across the state representing anti-hunger, sustainable ag, and farm worker organizations. We support all Prop 4 CDFA programs, investing in our regional food systems and climate smart ag, but wanted to specifically call out support for the Tribal Food Sovereignty Program and thank you for your comments on it today.

We have a number of Indigenous Steering Council members, part of our network, and to our knowledge, the Tribal Food Sovereignty Program would be the first program in CDFA's history designed specifically and exclusively for tribes, and to that end, we encourage the department to conduct robust outreach this year including formal government-to-government tribal outreach and close collaboration with the governor's Truth and Healing Council.

And lastly, our network also supports the Farm to School Program and its unique nexus of farmers and hunger which means dollars spent have an impact on multiple issues at one time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and lingering member. My name is Brian Shobe. I'm with the California Climate and Agriculture Network, and just want to first support the Administration's proposal for Prop 4 spending in the Ag Chapter. I wanted to take a moment to respond to Assembly Member Petrie-Norris's question and add to CDFA's response about program evaluation.

We support independent program evaluation and wanted to note that the Cal Poly evaluation that was referenced found that three out of four farmers who participated in CDFA's programs are planning to continue the practices that they adopted as part of those short-term incentive grants after the grants end, so it is leading to durable changes.

And then second, just referencing the ARB data, the CDFA climate smart ag programs are all in the top 20 in the GDRF programs. Lastly, CalCAN is asking for the Legislature to increase funding for the Alternative Manure Management Program also known as AMMP.

This has benefited a number of small, mid-scale, and organic dairies in a number of members' districts on the committee. Demand in the last year was 50 million, which was three times more than the funding available, and there's only seven million proposed for this budget year.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Bennett. Mateo Kushner with Community Water Center. I'd like to echo the support for the proposed APA exemption, which will ensure that funding be dispersed quickly for frontline organizations that are focused on developing and implementing the necessary climate projects envisioned by Prop 4. We appreciate the ongoing dialogue and engagement.

Thank you.

Chair, thank you. Matthew Marsom with The Roots of Change. I want to echo the comments made by my colleagues at CalCAN and also the California Food and Farming Network and also Roots of Change is in support of the proposed investment for the Farm to School Program.

On Issue One, we do have continued concerns regarding the Farmworker Housing Component Low-Income Weatherization Program, specifically the delay the Administration is proposing on the implementation of those funds.

We understand the rationale provided in the documentation today, but we're going to continue to work with the Administration and appreciate that members of this committee who have been looking into that issue understand the rationales related to procurement issues and contracting issues, but this is such critical funding and these populations are obviously impacted by extreme heat, wildfire, smoke, and other issues, and it's necessary that we distribute these funds as intended by the Proposition. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other public comments, this meeting is adjourned.