Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Thank you everyone. The Senate natural resources and water committee will come to order. We're meeting here in Room 113, so we'll ask all members to get here so we can establish a quorum. We do have seven bills that are proposed for consent. Five bills are double referred, will need to be heard by another Senate policy committee should they pass today.

Some of these bills have recommended committee amendments. Should an author agree to committee amendments today for any of these double referred bills, the amendments will be taken to the second policy committee due to the processing time needed for amendments. Bills will generally be heard in file order. Senator Blake Spear has been waiting patiently, so we are gonna start with you, Senator, for SB 1135. Welcome.

Thank you, chair. Good morning.

Good morning. Good to have you here.

Happy to be here. Hello, committee members, staff. It's great to see all of you. I'm here to today to present SB 1135. SB 1135 will reestablish the California wildlife coexistence program to manage and promote human wildlife coexistence.

This program operated for three years and was discontinued in 2024 due to a lack of funding. The coexistence program within the Department of Fish and Wildlife is focused on managing and reducing human wildlife conflict through proactive, nonlethal strategies. It was a highly effective program. It was actually award winning as is demonstrated in this, publication from 2023, and it allowed a coordinated proactive approach to the inevitable conflicts that come when wild animals, particularly apex predators like wolves, mountain lions, and bears, live together near people.

Human population growth, habitat loss, and the growth of industry across California inevitably leads to interactions between humans and wildlife.

Recent headlines have described some of these interactions. For example, a bear living in a basement in Los Angeles and wolves predating on livestock in Northern California. As wildlife naturally migrates throughout our communities, we need a tailored approach. No two animal species are the same, and each has unique behavior patterns and territories. SB 1135 recognizes these differences and gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs.

The tools can include tactics such as FLAGRI, which is hanging flag strips that deter wolves. They can also include livestock guardian dogs, noise and light devices, conflict reporting, and other nonlethal responses. For example, someone calling a hotline and asking what do I do if I see a baby deer? And the person says you leave it alone because its mother will come back soon. It's that kind of interaction that people need to have.

By emphasizing proactive, nonlethal measures aimed at reducing the harm associated with human and wildlife confrontations, we can create a safe environment for humans and wildlife alike. With me today in support, I have Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation, a nonprofit fighting for conservation of our nation's collective national heritage, and also Pam Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation, proud to cosponsor SB 1135. As the Senator said, people and wildlife are increasingly sharing landscapes, and we're under growing pressures and cumulative threats like extreme heat, frequent drought, and intense wildfires that animals respond to by moving in search of resources to survive. These movements are further frustrated by barriers like roads, fences, human development, and other habitat connectivity challenges.

Over the last five years, wildlife incident reports logged by the Department of Fish and Wildlife increased by 31%, and calls, emails, and field contacts rose by 58%.

Science, fortunately, has produced a consensus that coexistence programs work to reduce conflicts, to keep people and animals safe, to protect property, and to promote biodiversity. Such programs educate and support community and property owner efforts to reduce and remove attractants like trash and food, shore up access to property and pets, keep a safe distance, implement methods proven to actively deter conflicts, and promote wild animals' instincts to stay wild.

But despite the need and demonstrated effectiveness, the successful three year program with trained regional staff around the state was not re upped when term limited funds dried up in 2024. As discussed at length in an assembly informational hearing in January and acknowledged by agency and department leaders, the absence of this effort is being felt acutely across urban, suburban, and rural California. A recent example is illustrative.

A statewide wildlife coexistence program, like established by SB 1135, could have saved Blondie's life. This black bear's death was preventable by deploying clear and repeated messaging to educate the community. When people came too close to Blondie and her two baby cubs, she instinctively swiped to protect them and was then proclaimed a public safety bear. CDFW decided the only way to keep the community safe was to kill her and send her two cubs to a rehab facility. That community is clearly, and understandably devastated.

And now, nonprofit wildlife rehabilitator, San Diego Humane Society, which strongly supports this bill, faces months of time consuming expensive care to raise blondies, cubs, stepping in for their mother to try to teach them how to be wild bears. When those cubs are rereleased back to the San Gabriel Mountains, they run the risk of facing a fate similar to their mother. We can and must do better.

This investing in cost effective proactive efforts only increases cost to address the negative impacts of conflicts, and those get paid by the state, local governments, families, communities, nonprofits, local law enforcement, ranchers, and animals. A broad and diverse coalition of organizations support this legislation and wanna see the state invest in strategies that are not just nice to have, but need to have.

We urge your support today.

Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your handy stickers there. Okay. Reminder.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, committee members. I'm Pamela Flick. I'm the California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, the other proud sponsor of SB 1135. Gray wolves are native to California, and they belong here.

From OR 7's arrival in late 2011 after an epic journey from Northeastern Oregon to our nine current packs of wolves. It's a remarkable it's remarkable that these ecologically important animals have naturally returned to our state under their own wolf power. But wolves have returned to a very different state than that of the nineteen twenties when they were driven to local extinction.

But wolves are adaptive critters and can survive and even thrive in challenging conditions as long as humans are willing to share the landscape with them. That social tolerance is key to successful coexistence as is direct support to ranchers and information sharing about best practices to reduce wolf livestock interactions.

California had the opportunity to do things differently when it comes to a gray wolf recovery, but the situation in Sierra Valley last year changed things for the worse. The lethal removal of the Bayomseo pack after they'd grown habituated to preying on livestock for over a year is a failure in our efforts to coexist peacefully with these wild animals.

The use of nonlethal strategies to reduce wolf livestock interactions, including human presence, managing attractants, physical barriers, predator deterrents, and livestock husbandry practices is more effective and cost efficient in the long run. Such conflict mitigation efforts should have been put in place well before nearly 90 livestock losses were incurred by a single wolf pack last year. It's imperative that proactive strategies be deployed early and often and at the landscape scale.

If one ranch does uses conflict deterrence and their neighbors don't, the entire effort can unravel. And that's why we support community wide adoption of proven practices. We must also ensure that the state when the state provides compensation funds, ranchers is all doing their part through proper and documented use of practicable proactive coexistence measures. We are working collaboratively with our counterparts at the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association and are optimistic that we are on a path to amendments that reflect a shared vision for this program. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. We will now have others in support. Anyone else, in support who would like to comment?

They're in the hall. They're in the hall.

Oh, in the hall. Okay.

Buying some time, mister chair. There are several folks outside. I'm Matt Robinson with Schagner, Antoj, Schmoeser, and Lang today. I'm here on behalf of the office of Cat Taylor and Tom Cat Ranch, both in support. Thank you.

Alright.

Hi. Jenny Berg, California state director for Humane World for Animals in support.

Anjali Ranadive, founder of Woman for Wolves. We've lost our connection to wildlife and nature by 60%, So it's more important now than ever to make sure that we safeguard our wild spaces and our wildlife. So we are in support of SB 1135. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. On behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, Audubon, California, California Wolf Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, Endangered Habitats League, Environmental Protection Information Center, In Defense of Animals, promise I’m almost done, mountain lion foundation, occidental arts and ecology center, resource renewal, and wild futures, we are in very strong support.

Thank you.

Tracy Izor with Woman for Wolves. With the dismantling of the US Forest Service, it's more important now than ever to protect our wildlife and fund those who our purpose is to here protect it in strong support.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Reena Hacme. I'm the cofounder of Woman for Wolves. SB 131135 is about responsible wildlife management rooted in coexistence, not crisis management. Let's let's invest in prevention, protect our wildlife, and choose coexistence, please. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Delfino on behalf of the California Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the California Native Plant Society in support.

Okay. Thank you. We will now turn to opposition. Do we have any lead opposition witness? We do.

Let's see. Yeah. Do you wanna make room? Sure. That'd be great.

Okay. Excellent. You each have two two minutes out.

Apologies. Legislation in support.

Okay. Just under the wire. You made an end.

Okay. Good morning, chair Becker and members. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association. We are currently opposed to this measure unless it is amended. I do wanna start out by saying that we are broadly supportive of the two programs at CDFW that this bill proposes to govern, the the, human wildlife coexistence program and the California wolf program.

That said, we are currently opposed to this bill because we're not quite there yet on elements of the wolf livestock coexistence and compensation program under this bill. We have proposed amendments to the author and the sponsors that would do a few things. First of all, we are supportive of the 50% set aside for nonlethal deterrents in this bill because there is demand out there for it. But when the fund condition of the compensation program gets particularly low, we want to set aside that set aside.

Additionally, we want to make sure the funds for nonlethal deterrents are used judiciously, so we have proposed amendments that propose to only require this where it's foreseeable that there would be wolf conflict.

Finally, we have proposed, as miss Flick mentioned, a practicability element to this legislation, and that would have some factors for CDFW to consider in determining whether or not nonlethal deterrence is practicable, including, for instance, the availability of state funding. We are negotiating with the author's office and with the sponsors. Those have been optimistic conversations, in the spirit of this bill. They have been collaborative and not confrontational.

We are hopeful that we will get to a place where CCA can at least remove our opposition, if not support this bill down the road, but we are not there yet on elements of the wolf livestock coexistence and compensation program.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Very helpful. Please go ahead.

Thank you, chair. Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau. Again, same here with a an opposed unless amended position, and I'd reiterate Cattleman's comments around practicability and reality. I'm optimistic again about the progress we've made with the supporters, of the bill.

And I would just mention that in a best case scenario, this bill, along with our joint budget budget ask, which Senator Blake Spear has, graciously put forward, you know, and with the work from the sponsors and our two groups, we'll hopefully find a framework, that is successful, for this program going forward.

I do just want to pause kind of on the comments there and just say a big thanks to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, who in the last two weeks, have rolled out frameworks for hazing, for county liaisons, and better information sharing, and options to reduce attractants on the land, which are all things that we've been asking for, all things that make this program better, all things that help our ranchers going forward.

So for that, I'm tremendously thankful to the department and director Hartle for her work. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you. Do we have others, in opposition? Anyone who wanna add on? I think we do have a few outside.

Oh, just... Yeah.

Hi. Sorry. I'm actually in support of SB 1135. I'm Tara Dehdari. I'm from Woman for Wolves, and I just wanna say that.

Great. Okay. Okay. Great. Alright. We're gonna bring it back to the committee. I know we'll have some discussion here. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, number one, thank you for working with the opposition. We had a mountain lion bill last year that was something that Senator Alvarado-Gil wanted to do, which is basically some of the language that you have in this bill on deterrence and making sure that the wildlife doesn't come into the neighboring where kids play. Right? Where kids play.

We have the same situation with wolves, but you have been an author who has, even from coastal San Diego, you have worked with the North State and our law enforcement partners, our cattlemen, like, especially in Sierra View that have lost hundreds of livestock, baby calves. And I think that you've just worked really well, and I appreciate that very much.

I do wanna reiterate what the opposition said that we're not there yet. I signed on to the letter of support based on your request because I thought we would get to a place where the ranchers felt like that they really had a chance to have cattle survive. And it is a dollars and cents thing, but it's also a legacy thing.

You know, when these baby calves drop on the ground and then two wolves start ripping apart, it's not the prettiest thing you've ever witnessed. And when you live in that area, and I wish I could have put this in a picture that would be better. Permission to just show a photograph, Mr. Chair?

Granted.

When you live in that area, you wake up to things like this. This is, I don't know if you can see it, but it's a doorstep and there's a bloody mess outside the door. These people live rural, and they have to keep their outside working dogs that chase cows, that bring the cows off the hills so you don't take horses up.

They have to keep them indoors 90% of the time because the wolves will attack them. This is a 700 pound elk that was dragged onto this porch by a wolf that killed that elk on the front porch. This family has children that plays out in their front yard that they can't play out in their front yard because you never know when a wolf is gonna show up.

So I realize these wolves don't show up in south, south, you know, beach area in San Diego, but they do show up in my district and in Senator Dahle's district. There's, I track the calves. The ranchers send me information and photographs. And I do, I do think that we'll get to a place where because I do think you're being balanced.

And I'm not making fun of you if you're in San Diego, but I just think you're balanced. And if we could get you up there to where you can really see how the livestock operate and these wolves, and they're not puppies. They're probably as tall or taller than that table right there.

These wolves are not puppies. They are, they run in packs and they are very vicious when they go after, like I said, a baby calf on the ground. You know, the cow gives birth and they just start ripping that cow apart or they'll chase it down to complete exhaustion and then rip it apart.

So there has to be some compassion for that as well. I realize it's a dollar and cents thing for the ranchers, but it has to, we have to have some. I appreciate the fact on the funding letter to the budget request. I appreciate that California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Chuck Bonham is gone.

I think Meghan is the new director. I haven't had an opportunity to spend time with her, but I did spend a significant amount of time with Chuck Bonham and Secretary Crowfoot on the wolf situation up there. And, you know, we do need to keep them out of the residential areas. It's just a fact. You can't have wolves running on the playground at a school yard either where toddlers and tk people, tk kids are there.

It's just not safe. I do have a couple of questions just to ask. How does 1135 ensure ranchers are fully compensated for both direct losses and indirect impacts for fence damage and herd disruption? And I think that's what they're looking for. Right?

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Grove. What was the last part of the question? It was about full compensation for direct and indirect losses?

Indirect losses that impacts, like, fence damage and herd disruption. If these wolves will go after a herd and they'll plow through a fence just to get away from them.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the question. I do wanna note, as Mr. Wilbur and others have noted, including myself, that we're in communications with both the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association. Yeah. And I do too. Yeah. We have a, we have a good working relationship to say to say the least.

I do want to note also that in parallel right now, California Department of Fish and Wildlife is conducting an evaluation of conducting an evaluation of the Wolf Livestock Compensation Program. So there's two things that are happening kind of in parallel right now. We just completed the fourth or fifth series of workshops just yesterday in West Sacramento in their, in CDFW's office, and we are talking about all three prongs of the program.

So if you're not familiar, prong one is the direct losses for confirmed or probable livestock losses. Prong two is the reimbursement for nonlethal tools and strategies to reduce wolf livestock interactions. And then prong three is the indirect losses.

We haven't yet got to the indirect losses. That is quite literally the next thing on our agenda for our workshop that is on going to be on May 4. And we just scheduled that yesterday. So I have suggested to CCA, Cattlemen's, and Farm Bureau that we hold off on trying to get into the nitty gritty of the details on suggested amendments on 1135.

Because I don't want to get out in front of that collaborative and public process that CDFW is doing. So we are talking about it not just between our organizations, but a much larger working group, including ranchers, cooperative extension, the California Wolf Project that's being run at California UC Berkeley. And then CDFW has also promised to, committed to go out to the communities and hold public meetings.

We're also working on a survey that's gonna go out to both folks that have already participated in the compensation program and get their feedback on what's working and what hasn't been working on that program, and as well as potential participants that are in wolf country and the general public, because we're talking about taxpayer money. Right?

So we're trying to cast a very wide net to get feedback on the program and then integrate that into a set of recommendations to the department for what that program will look like going forward should funding become available.

I appreciate that you said CDFW would go out there. They have been out there. They have been out there, and and Wade Crowfoot has been out. The Secretary has been out there to really get a, to kinda get a grasp on this. Because I think that what we try to implement in this building, and if you have no idea what's happening out there, it doesn't work.

Like, I know that one of the that one of the things that you mentioned in your opening testimony was dogs. Like, dogs as a deterrent. The wolves eat the dogs no matter what kind of dogs they are. They could be Cane Corsos. They could be German Shepherds. They could be pit bulls, and the wolf wins. And some of these animals are family pets too.

Not just, you know, border collies and things like that that run the cattle operation, but or that participate in the cattle operation. So what we think, you know, you guys might think somebody in this room might think, oh, a dog will scare a wolf. A dog will not scare a wolf. It doesn't work. That deterrent doesn't work. But you can respond if you'd like.

Before we do that, let's just take a moment establish a quorum, if we may.

[Roll Call]

Okay. A quorum has been established. Please go continue with your questioning.

So I'll stop with my commentary, and I'll just go on to the next question. I just want you guys to know that what you guys think works here in this building, and it sounds like a great idea. It doesn't work on the ground to the people who have to deal with this.

So including mountain lions, it's not just the wolf situation, it's the mountain lion situation as well. But how do we ensure that 50% of the allocation for nonlethal deterrents does not diminish available resources for compensating verified livestock losses?

Like, how do we make sure that even though they're doing everything they can to deter it based on what the law is gonna say when this bill passes is what I'm assuming is gonna happen. How do we make sure that there's still reimbursement for the loss of revenues and a dollar and cents thing to the livestock?

Yeah. That's a great question. Thank you. And Mr. Wilbur actually spoke to this, and I made one word in my comment that talked about practicability. So we're talking right now about practicability of these nonlethal deterrents. So that is an ongoing conversation. You know, we haven't landed, just as they've said, but we are working hard to make sure that we come to alignment on that.

I also wanted to mention you have, you mentioned that you haven't spent any time with the new director, Meghan Hertel. I do wanna note that she also just recently went on I think seven county tour of Northern California and spoke with ranchers and sheriffs and other county officials and really went on a listening tour.

And we've heard really excellent feedback from the communities up there to that that just having her presence there and her listening ear has been really helpful. I urge you to reach out to her and spend some time there as well.

We've had a couple of meetings that we haven't been able to secure. One was my fault. One, she could, you know.

You're busy people, I'm sure.

It just didn't work out. And I know and that was based on the Rules Committee confirmation. But so I guess I appreciate that very much. What we wanna make sure is that there's dollars or resources set aside for that livestock loss.

How's it, and I guess, is there something in the bill or are you willing to put something in the bill that allows the local elected sheriff in that county to issue degradation permits like they do sometimes in other places where there is a public safety issue.

If you have a wolf, like, for instance, there was a degradation issued permit issued, I believe, I believe, for the mountain lion that dragged a kid off a bike, a path and took him out in the woods, killed him, buried him, and came back later to eat him. So that, once that lion, mountain lion attacked another a human and then attacked another human, that mountain lion is not safe. You can't scare it away. They tried tree and free.

They tried all these things, and it doesn't work, and it's still coming back after human taste. Like and then they were able to eliminate that threat for public safety. Is there anything that's gonna address the issue for sheriffs to issue degradation permits for public safety?

Not at this time because wolves have a different legal status than mountain lions in California. You know, they are protected under CESA, so a depredation permit is not allowable at this time.

Okay. How does the bill account for situations where nonlethal deference is not practical or feasible due to cost, terrain, or land use restrictions?

Yeah. That's the practicality thing that we're working on.

That's gonna be the next step. So I appreciate, I mean, like I said, I signed on the letter for the request because I think the author has really acted in really good faith. And Chuck Bonham was going out to those communities. I'm glad to know that Meghan is doing it as well.

So I do know that everybody's trying to figure out a way to solve this problem. And but we do have, you know, the wolf is an apex predator, and I know that it's protected. But it's if you have this livestock in this, if you had this wildlife in your schools, in your communities, in these communities that you guys represent, your constituents would be all over you to stop it.

They don't feel safe. I mean, like, that was a 700 pound elk that a wolf drove on their, dragged on their doorstep. So and those aren't outlier things. Those are things that happen almost on a daily basis. Not so much the elk, but the dead cattle and the dead calves, absolutely. So sure. Through the Chair. Go ahead. Oh, sorry, sir. Go ahead.

I just wanted to say that your description is making the case, and I think you know for this program. It, like, when this program existed for the several years it did, there were dedicated staff in the region who were working, not just on wolves.

But on all the different species and engaging directly with the community and providing that advice and technical assistance that they need. And it is the results of disinvesting in that is the experience that we're now having not just, you know, in your community, in Monrovia, in downtown San Francisco.

I mean, it's that's why we're so passionate about trying to put this program forward so that we're being proactive in on a species specific, kind of risk specific approach upfront to avoid and mitigate, keep conflicts from happening and escalating to these kinds of situations.

You have wolves in downtown San Francisco?

No. They had mountain lions and coyotes on occasion. Coyotes fairly frequently, mountain lions on occasion.

I thought you said wolf. Sorry. Okay. Well, I appreciate the author working with the opposition. I hope we get there. I really do hope we get there because it's something that desperately needs to be addressed, not only for, you know, wildlife. And I'm not against the wildlife, just something for wildlife, but we have to protect human population as well. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to answer ask those questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I wanna agree pretty much with the whole line of discussion. Maybe not all the all the specific requests, but everything that Senator Grove said. I represent the I think I'm the most northern state legislator on this committee, and livestock and the human and the and the WUI and all those things.

They're very real conflicts in my district. And obviously, if this were if Senator Durazo were running this, we would insist on a binding agreement. If we're gonna coexist with wolves and grizzly bears and mountain lions, they should have to sign on the on they should sign an MOU with us.

They can't. So that's, I mean, that's what makes this hard is that there's nobody on the other side of the table to agree. So we have to figure out how to how to coexist from our perspective and from the perspective of the various species that we cohabit, you know, we cohabitate with in the state.

So I appreciate the incredible complexity. I do think the Cattlemen and Farm Bureau, the issues that they've raised are reasonable, and we should be addressing. I'm encouraged by both the author's comments and the and the sponsors in terms of the progress on that work, because I think that is very important.

The other thing I would just wanna observe is that because we've typically framed this, and I think even in the open, we frame this principally as a this is happening because of kind of humans, us consuming habitat.

And so we're forcing species into smaller and smaller niches that are sometimes aren't viable. And then and so we end up with these conflicts. And all of that is true and has been true since these programs began. But we grappled with this a lot on the statewide 30 by 30 committee as well.

And, you know, as human caused climate change was identified as an issue back then, many folks in this room, many folks who were supporters of the bill and and several of us, you know, sort of forecast this was gonna be a much bigger problem. That if Stockton is seven degrees hotter, if most of Senator Grove's district and half of mine are six or seven degrees hotter, then that changes that changes the ecosystem in very fundamental ways.

And and so we I think we've tended to think about species and land conservation as sort of fixed in space. Like, they've always been here, and therefore, we need to do everything possible to make sure that we're not conflicting here.

But if the microbial environment and then everything up the food chain to the apex predators all depends on a climate that's six degrees cooler than it than it will be in Sanger or in Fairfield or or elsewhere, then that's not the right framing any longer because we should expect a lot more species movement that's unexpected.

And it isn't caused by a housing development, but caused by our failure as a as a species to address our contributions to climate change. And so the need for this is gonna become much, much more important than simply the traditional WUI issues.

But really the it is both the lack of food and the existing ecosystem, but also the fundamental ecosystem suitability for many of these species and the species underneath them on the on the food chain that's gonna cause this to be a much bigger issue.

So I'm very encouraged to see the work on it and getting ahead with it both with the bill and with the with the budget proposal, and congratulate the author and the sponsors for looking at this smartly and collaboratively to make sure that it actually works.

And thanks so much to Senator Grove for helping to ground truth this, because it's definitely possible. We know the strategies that will not solve it, but at least make it work, make it as solved as it can be. And I'm encouraged and hopeful that you're gonna get there as well.

Well, I'll just say for my part, yeah, Santa Clara County, which I represent, was actually in the top five for wildlife incidents in the recent CDFW data. And I'll echo, I wanna appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I knew we'd have a robust discussion. I've heard the Senator from Bakersfield talk passionately.

Well, I mean, in very, you know, it's a very serious incidents that have happened in in her district. Some of this we in Senator Richardson's grizzly bear bill, we we had some of this discussion previously. So but I think everyone commends you for your work.

And to hear the opposition speak about that collaborative work in a bill on coexistence is very heartening because I think, you know, we recognize really, I recognize the the desire for it. We talked about the kind of balance. Do we want to have some of that wildness in California? I certainly do.

But we do have to make sure, of course, that we do manage it with the people whose livelihoods and families. We don't want people afraid to leave their homes, essentially, which is one of the things I've heard from the Senator from Bakersfield in the past.

So we do need to take steps on this. I signed on to the complimentary budget request to fund the program opposed by the bill because of the importance. Again, I wanna thank you. So I will be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close?

Well, I really appreciate the engagement from the committee, and also from those who spoke in opposition to the bill, and the sponsors. We are really working on essentially a global response to this with the state, with all the interests that are affected, with those who care about protecting wildlife.

I think we will get there, and we're off on a really good start because we have identified what needs to happen, and we're working together through a series of many meetings and things to make sure that we get there. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Do we have a motion? Okay. Senator Cabaldon has a motion do pass to Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That is two to zero for now, on call. You will have another opportunity. Thank you. Your other bill is on consent. Thank you for joining us. Oh, look at that. Durazo, who's been patiently waiting.

Okay. I'm gonna ask for some quiet while we... Senator Durazo, welcome. Go ahead.

Is this on? Hello. Hello. Is it on? Okay.

Okay. Wow. It's noisy. Good morning, everyone. I just wanna start out by saying we have coyotes up and down my sidewalks in front of my house in Northeast LA.

I know. Anyway, good morning. Good morning, Mister Chair. Thank you for all your work and having the discussions with the opposition. Appreciate that.

And I don't wanna thank your staff. They worked really hard on this, and so appreciation to all of you. And good morning to all the members. For over two decades, California's Show Me the Water laws have established a mechanism to help local governments understand whether large scale developments have a reliable water supply.

These assessments look at whether a development project has been accounted for, in long term water supply planning, and if not, whether sufficient supply exists to serve the project alongside existing and future uses over a twenty year period.

Water supply assessments or WSAs apply to projects meeting certain requirements, including residential developments over 500 units or nonresidential projects that demand a similar or greater amount of water. Because WSAs have been in place for more than two decades, we have largely taken them for granted. But before these safeguards existed, California approved developments based on what was often called paper water, water that looked available on spreadsheets but did not exist in reality. The consequences were real.

Some communities were built without sufficient water to support the people living there, and residents were forced to go to grocery stores to purchase large bottles of water because the water they were promised at home was not actually available.

These harms disproportionately impacted poor communities and communities of color. WSAs give local governments, developers, and water agencies the information they all need to align growth with water supply. That kind of upfront clarity helps ensure a new housing and development can actually be built and operate as intended. A WSA was triggered when a city or county determined that a certain large scale development was subject to CEQA.

In recent years, as the state has streamlined housing and exempted some types of development from CEQA, the WSA is no longer triggered.

Meaning, some projects are no longer required to go through this important step. This bill ensures that as we continue to build much needed housing and other development projects, We are also equipping local decision makers with the information about the water supply to serve those projects. With increasing variability in water conditions, including declining snowpack and potential drought scenarios, Making sure California's growth is supported with reliable water is more important than ever.

At its core, this bill is about making sure water supply planning and land use planning continue to be linked together and that the WSA can continue as a tool for these local efforts. Mister chair, I ask for your aye vote. Members of the committee, with me today, I have Debbie Michel with the sponsor of the bill, East Bay Municipal Utility District.

Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members, thank you. I'm Debbie Michael. I'm a legislative representative with the East Bay Municipal Utility District or EBMUD. We are pleased to sponsor SB 1085. I'd like to thank the chair and also the committee staff for the thorough analysis.

I'd also like to thank Senator Durazo for authoring this important statewide bill. E. B. Mudd sponsored legislation dealing with water supply planning, including the 1983 bill, which put into place the requirement for urban water management plans, which are long term plans for water supply. There were multiple efforts in the1990s to link water supply planning and land use planning, including SB 901 by, Costa in 1995, which was the origin of the water supply assessment statute.

This was at a time when paper water was common. The 2001 Show Me the Water legislation recognized the importance of these two efforts. The land use planning and water supply planning are tied together.

EBMUD was involved in those two bills as well, SB 610, Costa, and SB 221, Kuehl. The water supply assessment process focuses on identifying the water supply needed for large scale development as the Senator indicated. Once the assessment is completed, it goes to the city or county to help inform their land use decisions on the project.

What we found at EBMUD is that early coordination with project developers through the the water supply assessment or the WSA process ensures that the water supplier can discuss the infrastructure improvements and related costs that may be necessary, any conservation measures in place, and whether recycled water is available to serve certain projects. Without the WSA, those discussions happen further along in the development process.

SB 1085 allows this process to continue even if the large scale development isn't subject to CEQA. And I would say that the legislature at the time, this policy was put in place in 2001, I don't think contemplated CEQA exemptions for 500 dwelling unit projects. So this this policy has important statewide implications, especially in light of the impacts of climate change and future droughts on water supply. EBMUD respectfully requests your aye vote on SB 1085. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I understand that we do have a fair amount of people who would like to add on here. So in the room and outside the room, so we will go ahead.

Mister Chair and Members, Matt Broad, Unite Here International Union in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members, Dennis O'Connor with Mono Lake Committee, also speaking for the Sierra Club of California, Clean Water Action, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and Restore the Delta. Senator.

Hello. Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Good morning. Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies in strong support. Thank you.

Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance in support. Thank you.

Jack Wursten on behalf of the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

David Quintana with Irvine Ranch Water District in support.

Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council here in support for the Senator.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Good morning, Chair and Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento and on behalf of my colleague, Ryan Ojakian with Regional Water Authority.

Good morning. Kyle Jones with Community Alliance of Family Farmers, the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program, Planning and Conservation League, Defenders of Wildlife and Trout Unlimited Support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman and Members. Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting registering support on behalf of California Environmental Voters. Thanks to the author.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Anthony Tannehill with California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members, Obed Franco here on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District in support.

Okay. Alright. We're gonna turn to opposition witnesses. Yeah. Can we make room there?

That'd be great. Thank you. Excellent. Go ahead when ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors, representing the California Building Industry Association. We appreciate the time the author's staff has spent with us, regarding our concern with the bill. However, we remain opposed at this time. CBIA has no objection to planning for future water needs and verifying that housing developments have sufficient water supplies.

I'd like to emphasize that under, current law, even for projects that are exempt from CEQA, no housing can be built without a verified water supply. This bill, as drafted, creates unintended consequences that could slow down the very housing projects the legislature has worked hard to streamline. First, we don't believe the legislature overlooked water supply assessment, when it enacted AB 130 and SB 131 last year.

The decision to exempt, qualifying housing projects from CEQA necessarily included a WSA requirement, which has always been embedded in the CEQA process. SB 1085 would chip away at last year's policy choices.

Second, WSA is not the only safeguard water agencies already water agencies already prepare urban water management plans, projecting water supply demand, and the subdivision map act requires a binding water supply verification before a map with more than 500 units can be approved. The WSV, the water supply verification, like the WSA, includes a twenty year analysis including dry years, but isn't just a forecast. It has legal teeth. Third and the final point, extracting WSA from the CEQA process creates legal uncertainty.

Under current law, you cannot sue over a water supply assessment by itself.

You can only challenge it as part of a broader CEQA lawsuit. Under this bill, the water agencies will be required to create a document and provide it to the lead agency for review, and the review process, the CEQA process for CEQA exempt projects doesn't exist, and the agency is legally in charge of a value is is not legally in charge of evaluating it.

CBIA is concerned that WSAs outside of the CEQA process will become an invitation for more lawsuits undermining last year's CEQA reforms, adding costs and delays to critically needed housing projects. We don't object to providing water agencies with notice when housing projects are proposed so they can undertake water supply assessments. We do object to having them be considered as part of the project approvals that are exempt from CEQA.

So it's currently drafted the bill as a step backward for housing supply.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Are there others in opposition? No. Okay.

We're gonna take it back to our members for discussion. Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thank you, Mister Chair. I was alive, I was in and around this building when when these bills were originally passed twenty something twenty five years ago. And they were in response largely to and the reason why they applied to such large developments is is we had one, the legislature was very concerned about growth in total, kind of the opposite orientation that we have been in the last several years where housing development was seen as a problem to get under control.

I mean, we should be very clear that that was California's that was California's orientation for for for for quite a bit of time, and we've we've seen the consequences of that. I was a part of that movement too, so I I accept for responsibility. It was the right thing to do in terms of trying to protect the environment and communities, but it also had consequences.

But we saw and even even in in this county, in Sacramento County where we're we're sitting, we saw lots of major projects, mainly kind of sprawling subdivisions outside of existing jurisdictions coming forward with large water, needs and with pretty shaky, water supplies being verified for them. And so the the two bill the Costa bill and the Kuehl bill were important steps forward to try to to get a handle on that.

Obviously, now we are in a different position in terms of of housing production. Housing production is not something we're trying to disincentivize. So I think the the the, you know, the issues that the BIA has raised are are important ones. I think the the and they you know, these these assessments don't apply to folks who have private water services, which is my district my district has everything. I know Senator Durazo's district is the same.

We have some some cities and counties that that depend on private water companies, investor owned, some that are municipal districts, which despite the name are not cities, you know, like their East Bay MUD. There are other special districts. And then, many where the water the public water system is a function of the city. Sometimes the county, but but definitely the city. And those are all very different circumstances.

And so I think that and and, you know, I think an area of concern to me is, I'm not sure what without the litigation and everything else, like, what's the point of these assessments in some cases, but the one area that I think is very is is the most problematic is for those where the where the city and county are the same as the water system.

So if I am the mayor of my own city and we have a a project, a a large residential project comes in, remember, we're we're really mostly talking about infill projects because that's where AB 130 applied to. So it's no longer out in the middle of nowhere. Who knows where the water is? So it's an infill project.

It's in my RHNA list. It's in my housing element that we're gonna build here. I've built my general plan around it. So the project comes in, and so now I write I write a letter to the water public water system saying, pursuant to the Kuehl/Costa or the Durazo bill, now I and please provide the water assessment. And I put that in the mail, you know, walk it downstairs in city hall, put it in the mailbox, send the letter off.

The next day, I go to the mailbox and pick up a letter, and it's it came from the city. But now, I'm the mayor in charge of the water system, and it's saying, please tell us the whether there's water available. It's the same people. Right? And that's because the the the city is the one that operates the water system.

So, of course, the city's already had to do the urban water management plan. The city has done the water system master plan that is the basis for its impact fees and everything else. It's done the water assessment for purpose of of its general plan and therefore its housing element in the first place. So there's no I'm I'm asking myself to do an assessment of what I've already assessed.

So this particular situation where the the public water system and the city and county are the same thing, there's not there's no value being added.

I understand I absolutely get the the the East Bay MUD example because in that case, the they're different entities. And so we we have five cities in my district, I'm served by East Bay MUD, that are making decisions and are reviewing permits. They are not they have no idea. They can't make commitments about the water supply or deliverability without getting an assessment from East Bay MUD. So in that case, it makes sense, and that's very common in California.

But it's equally common for the city to be the water purveyor and and directing them to conduct a a separate study when they already must, and particularly as as the the witness said, pursuant to the Subdivision Act- Subdivision Map Act, they can't approve the project without a hard water, water connection already.

So I think that's I I'm I'm not totally convinced about the overall bill, but I but I'm I but I but I get where the author's trying to go and and absolutely wanna continue to work on it.

But this one the area that I think is the is very problematic here is the creation of this extra set of layer of processes and studies that aren't needed because when the municipal, when the public water system is also the permitting agency for the project in the first place, they already have all the information that is necessary in order to make that decision. And doing an additional study is simply wasted time and and and money and delay in the project itself.

So I I I had a brief conversation about the author, but right before the hearing, and so, obviously, there's questions to be resolved, and so just encourage and hope that that you'll continue to to to explore some of these issues and try to assure that we're we're getting this as precise and tight as possible so that we're getting the water information that is necessary to make to bring that land use and water connection together without without sending folks on on on missions to do work that they is not is not necessary and costly and and imposes delays on the housing that we need to build. So

Would you like to comment on that?

Sure. I I just wanna say, obviously, our intention is to lessen, not increase. And I think that's really important because when there's when there's coordination up front, when there's early coordination between land use and the water use, that is supposed to help the efficiency of the process not increase, you know, bureaucracy or other steps. So that's our intention. I don't know if, Debbie, if you wanna Miss Michael Wanna add add to that.

Sure. Thank you, Senator Cabaldon for the question. Yeah. I I think you're right. It is very important for the the special districts in California.

We we don't know when those projects are moving forward at the city or county level. I will say that for cities and counties, we we do have some city support, from, various jurisdictions. But the way that the water supply assessment works and and really what the Senator does is doing with the bill is trying to leave the water supply assessment statute intact because it has twenty five years of sort of proven track record of of, enabling conversations at the outset of the planning process.

But for a city, if a project moves forward, they can just use the urban water management plan to ensure that the precise amount is accounted for in that urban water management plan. That's written into water supply assessment law.

The one way they can turn around the the water supply assessment more quickly is by doing that check against whether the water is included in that long term planning document.

So Yeah. I I get that, but there's no there's no conversation if the if if the city of West Sacramento has got a project in front of it. There's no conversation that needs to be induced. So I I appreciate what you're saying, but they they they shouldn't be doing this at at all because they're the they are the answer to their own question.

There's no dialogue or negotiation that that has to happen because the in in that case, like which isn't uncommon, that they they they are the holder of the information and the decision maker on the housing permit in the first place, and they're they're already aware of that.

So having them go through, even if they have an expedited way through an assessment process, they're still doing an assessment that doesn't provide any value to them, to the project, or to public engagement because the public engagement's on the project itself by the same jurisdiction that is considering the water plan.

Okay. Okay. Any final thought on that?

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay. Senator Stern.

Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, mister chair. Oh, thank you, mister chair. I think we come from different lands, land too much water and land of not enough water, and so you sort of reflected in the orientation.

It almost seems like maybe not duplicative, but sort of excessive to be studying, you know, where your water comes from when you have too much water and it's overflowing and you're actually trying to manage flood risk. And that's the that's the trick with landing these bills of of statewide impact, right, is how to tailor them to a diverse set of regions. I think when from a Southern California perspective for me on this bill, I'm I'm I'm desperate for it.

This is this is crucial, and I'm really excited you brought the measure forward because I don't wanna have to go up north and take more of their water unless or maybe not take it, buy it, or borrow it.

Steal it.

First of all Steal it. Some would say steal it. No. No. No.

No.

Yes. Coexist with it with dual missions. We wanna be able to be self sustaining in Southern California, and we want to be able to have our own water security and and rely and and really make those urban water management plans more and more robust.

So, you know, my hope with this this measure is not to to sort of add new layers or have unnecessary studying, but in fact, just improve the urban water management planning, which, you know, in the in the LA region, we're going hard for recycled water. I mean, we have a we have the most aggressive vision in the West.

And so precisely because we don't want to have to try to reach north and to reach to all these other places and to haul this water from from the East and or from from lakes that are threatened. And so I think this is crucial, and I think, you know, the development community is very creative right now, and the kind of develop the kind of, projects we're building are more and more efficient.

But what we don't want is sort of just an unintended consequence of what is important streamlining maybe on the on housing development side to somehow undercut our broader water security strategy. So I appreciate the the the sort of the northern perspective on this, but, sort of wanted to bring that and and and thank you for the measure. I I'd love to be added on at the appropriate time.

I don't know if you're amending the bill today. Are you are there a no amendments day, but whenever is the appropriate time, I'd love to be added on and just help keep working through some of these regional, you know, differences to make sure that we've got a really efficient process, but also that we're we're we're building in this the state in a way that's not gonna leave us dry for, in in decades to come. Yeah. So

Thank you.

That's all I got.

Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. Thank you, mister chair. I do I do wanna thank the author for collaborating and working again. That always doesn't happen in this building, so I thank the author for for working with the opposition to try to figure out solutions that will work out.

And I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

Okay. For my own part, just wanna thank you as well. We put this bill over, you know, at my request, really, to keep working on it. You know, I will say I've had some heartburn on this bill because we did just go ahead and do streamlining. And, you know, in my view, if we're saying housing's a priority as a state, then housing needs to be a priority, and then we need to figure out the water.

You know? And I do and I I I appreciate the comments, from Senator Stern as well, and it gives a perspective, you know, why and so some of the reasons you're doing this bill and why this bill is needed. But I do think there is additional work to do. I do appreciate you you've been engaging in those conversations. I know there's conversations as late as yesterday evening.

Maybe I'll ask the opposition. For the record, do you feel confident that conversations are are moving in the right direction?

I think I think the the sponsors and the author staff understand where we're coming from, and we've proposed several possible avenues of reaching agreement, but I haven't gotten there yet.

Okay. But having productive conversations is what I understand.

That's fair to say.

Okay. Well, I wanna thank, again, thank the author for for having those conversations and the sponsors. I do believe there is something to land here. I know we as recent as yesterday, we talked about a number of different options in the in in in our committee and with our staff. I guess to the author, I mean, I think it's it's not your intention to kind of open up these projects for lots of lawsuit potential when we just went through streamlining. Is that is that accurate to say?

Absolutely. We passed what we passed. This is different, you know. This is about making sure that, in fact, we're far more efficient. We have all the information in front of us so we could make these kinds of decisions that we didn't have to worry about maybe in the past.

We do have to think about them now. And so our you know, my goal is not to bypass the efforts that we're making, whether it's for housing or any we have a lot of big projects that, you know, some of us are involved with. So it's not to bypass that or it's not to shove those in the in the trash. It's about making sure that when we do build these projects that we have sufficient water. That's the goal.

Yeah. Yeah. So I think, you know, what we're working towards is something to indicate, you know, this is really a planning you know, this is for planning purposes. So I think if we're aligned there, I think we can, you know, move forward in that spirit and continue the conversations. And, again, I just wanna be clear, you know, nobody want you know, the big urban the big sprawl projects, those would be subject to CEQA anyway.

Right? So I think what we're really talking about are the big the urban infill projects. Those are the ones that I'm concerned. That might be more than 500 units. Those are the ones that that, you know, we've been concerned about here.

So I think with that, yeah, just know, it's a little unclear if this bill could expose a project, increase litigation risk from a group challenging adequacy of a WSA, and I think that's what we wanna work forward, work on going forward. I think we can get there with time on agreement how to minimize that that risk of litigation. So, with that, I will invite you to close.

Thank you, mister chair and members, and I respect for last year, I vote.

Okay. Please call the roll. Oh, we need a motion. Would definitely like to move the bill? Senator Stern will move the bill do passed to local government.

Senators Becker?

Allen , aye. Cabaldon?

Becker, aye. Senator Allen?

Aye.

Aye.

Cabaldon aye. Grove?Stern?

Aye.

Stern, aye. 4 to 1 on call.

Aye.

Okay. That is 4 to 1. We'll leave it on call. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you, mister chair.

Hey, Senator Richardson. You've been waiting very patiently.

Happy birthday.

Oh, yes. That's right. I know we had a we had

It's very exciting. Happy birthday.

Dear Laura. Happy birthday. To you.

And Senator Stern and Becker too.

We have a row right away.

Where's your guys' pretty sash?

I am. Yeah. I'm gonna borrow that out.

Yes. Yeah. Next year. Next year.

I'll I'll use whatever resources necessary to

Yeah.

Get my stuff through.

Yeah. Okay. I know we're this room gets a little noisy in transition time, but we appreciate we'll give our full attention to Senator Richardson. Go ahead.

No problem. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'd like to start off by thanking Senator Becker, Edith as the consultant and all the team. I kind of believe with my legislation, no actually means maybe. So so thank you for your patience in working with us.

And I'm happy to accept the amendments that have been provided by the committee. I wanna start off by stating that currently, California has a wildfire mitigation program, and it's, conducting a home hardening pilot program only in six counties, inclusive of Lake County, Siskiyou County. I'll just pass on the others. Suffice to say that all of the counties are in Northern California and one in San Diego.

And it's not ironic by that that our leadership has been in the last few years in Northern California and San Diego.

So today, what we're hoping to do is put aside boundaries of state representatives and actually look at what is the need in the community. In January 2025, Los Angeles County experienced extremely dry conditions and high winds. These factors, long recognized as key catalysts for wildfire outbreaks, resulted in two of the most destructive wildfires in California history. The Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire consumed more than 38,000 acres of land and destroyed over 16,000 structures and displaced just under 13,000 households.

Following the fires, the Office of Emergency Services, Cal OES, and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection highlighted 10 counties with the highest wildfire risk and social vulnerability.

Los Angeles ranked ninth out of all 58 counties. In light of the Palisades and Eaton fires, SB 1270 formally codifies that the legislature's intent to expand the California wildfire mitigation program to include the top 10 counties, irregardless of members and leadership and so on, that those counties with the highest wildfire risk would be identified by Cal OES and Cal Fire. The four additional counties that would be included are Riverside County, Calveras County, Los Angeles County, and Tehama. I probably said that wrong. I apologize.

Thank you for you wonderful people who represent it. This bill also directs that any unspent pilot program funds remaining after July 1, 2029 would be returned to the state for redistribution to the counties ranked 7-10 and requires that financial assistance prior to being prioritized for these counties upon future legislative appropriations or additional federal funding. More plainly stated, if additional funds are available and this, legislation goes through, those 7-10 counties would be prioritized.

And then once we pass 2029, it would fall in the regular order and all counties would participate. We're doing this because the funds that were currently allocated have been, completely allocated to all the counties.

And so we wanna make sure that the plans that they have taken, they have an opportunity to bring them to fruition. As we continue to rebuild and fortify our communities that were ravaged by the Palisades and Eaton fires, Home hardening assistance is a critical component that must be considered to provide a sense of relief to homeowners, cities, counties, and insurance companies. SB 1270 will help to ensure residents living in high risk communities are able to benefit from the state's wildfire mitigation program.

With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I promised Mister Wiener I would be fast.

So it's up to you from here on out.

Okay. And no lead witnesses. So I think we do have some some Me Too add on testimony.

Senator Richardson and her staff's work on this bill. We had some slight but very important concerns, and I believe those amendments will alleviate those. So we stand in support today. Thank you.

Good morning. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Okay.

Julianne Broyles, on behalf of League of California Cities in support with the amendments. Very appreciate, the willingness to work on this bill with the author. Thank you.

David Quintana with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We have an interim support, but we'll have a full support in May when the board meets.

Okay. Okay. Opposition. Anyone in opposition? No opposition witnesses?

Any opposition me toos? Seeing none, we'll bring up. Yeah. Bring it back to the committee. Any comments?

Senator Stern.

Yeah. Just briefly, I know this bill involves Cal OES. So in my emergency management chair hat on, You know, I appreciate the author's work to to rectify some of these historic inequities in the wildfire community hardening framework. We have state funds also beyond just the FEMA/HMA dollars that are also really critical here. I think my my biggest I think the challenge we've all got to sort of overcome going forward is how do we how do we how do we harden?

Do we try to go for big dollar projects? The 11.5 million we've pushed out the door have sort of been for larger retrofits that are very expensive, and your money's gonna burn up quick if you do that. I'd rather cover more ground, and I appreciate that you're trying to expand the aperture. I think, frankly, the 10 counties aren't enough. I think that, you know, whether in Napa or Sonoma or in Ventura, that they're gonna want a piece of this.

And the problem is that when we're spending it in very, very large chunks, the money goes away quickly. So what I'm opening is through your legislation and your leadership here, but also through the budget process and through our bond funds and some of the other, funds we're gonna be pushing out in this arena through OES, that we find better ways to scale this money.

And so in other words, rather than doing, say, for example, a $200,000 project to removes to retrofit someone's deck that's wood and you turn into composite, to instead make sure that 500 homeowners have mesh on their vents so that embers don't get in. You're gonna be able to scale this at a to a much wider range and to cover much more risk if we allow and push for those sort of smaller dollars for more people as opposed to bigger dollars for a limited tranche of people.

So I think you by expanding the aperture here with the bill, you're already pushing in that direction, but I just sort of wanna prelude to where I hope this hardening conversation evolves to as the year goes on.

So happy to move the bill at the appropriate time, and thank you for letting me make the comment.

I I wanted to pick up on on Senator Stern's comments and maybe pose it as a as a question. So so we had a pilot to learn and we've expended all of the pilot now, right, or?

Allocated.

Allocated. Okay. Thank you. Allocated all of the pilot. So we're we're learning from the pilot.

What's the thinking about continuing to have this be geographically focused?

Like, that that made sense for a learning project, but why so I'm curious as to as to as why you've chosen to do that as opposed to make it recognizing what what whichever approach we take, the money's gonna be limited, but it could be, you know, which are the which projects are the most cost effective in the in the in the ways senators should set or, you know, some other metric other than just straight straight geography?

Permission to answer. Actually, to both senators. Frankly, I would have no objection if the program applied to everywhere and whoever had a project that needed it would submit their project. It would be evaluated and the funds would be allocated. That would be my ideal.

Frankly, though, since this is legislation and we're impacting six other counties, I didn't wanna reach too far, frankly, because those six counties may now feel, well, okay. We thought we were gonna get, you know, x amount more. Now we realize if everybody else is in, we might get a little less. And so I really didn't wanna get into that fight. I felt that, with what happened last year, the case was clearly made that fires can happen anywhere.

They can happen in Los Angeles. They can happen, in Paradise. They can happen anywhere. So our point was just to really evaluate a more reasonable number. Top 10 seemed reasonable, but I would not be opposed and I would defer to the chair in this committee If at some point through this process, you want to extend it, I have no objection to that.

I frankly feel it should be based upon what is the need of the area. And if a area can demonstrate, for example, in Senator Smallwood's district, there's a old oil field in Kenneth Hahn Reserve, and it butts up against, you know, homes. You know, home hardening should happen there. In my area where, Palisades Conservancy, it abuts against naval housing. And when I say abut, I'm talking like 10 feet, 20 feet.

I'm not talking about half a mile. So I would have no problems with and I really believe legislation should be in this way, is that whatever needs it most should have the project. So, I would respectfully ask that we would continue this bill out. However, if you would like us to reconsider it being broader, I'm okay with that, or if you wanna stay where it is. But I concur that it really should be any project, any geographic area.

It should be where the need is, where the risk is, that, you know, the additional vegetation could potentially cause greater harm.

Through the the chair. I I very much appreciate that, and and and I'm I'm gonna support the bill today on on on that on the basis. It's hard for me to to go back to my my community. We had we had fires last year also in in Napa and Sonoma, just as an example, and say, hey.

We're we're just not eligible because of of of a bill, not because not because the need's different, but I but, so I I appreciate that and and and and and hope that you'll you'll continue to look at doing that as we go forward.

And also just to to underscore what what the Senator Stern's point, I I think, which is that, there we we will not have enough money for all the need. And so thinking about because the need can be scaled and and the both the scope geographically is so big, but also the need can be scaled if if each as you said, each project is a million bucks or 200 we'll we'll never get there.

So, you know, if the process for how these funds get awarded or allocated pays attention to need, but also what are the most effective, promising, efficient practices that will induce changes in the market and what have you. And also recognize that, you know, as you know, we're not we're not talking about there's really not that much point in in $10,000,000 hardening my home if everybody else's home around me has had hasn't hasn't had the basics done.

So we're really so we want to encourage through the through this program the the cost effective things that will that will reach universality more than faster than they will reach perfection in any single property as you're as you're going forward.

I I hope you'd consider putting a performance basis on this so we can so we can learn how to make the kind of market changes that Senator Stern described as well.

Yes. So permission through the Chair? If it'd be the will of the committee, I am once you all decide, I'd be more than happy to accept amendments prior to going to a probs about if you chose to expand it to all counties. And I would also be more than happy to add an amendment that said that this program group would reevaluate and maybe provide a little more direction on the types of programs that they would want to consider.

Meaning, considering a larger scale of people versus larger projects.

So if that be the will of the committee, I have no problems with accepting amendments along that line because I concur with them.

We have a we have a big enough stock in emergency management, so

Yes. Where we could do it then.

We know that.

Yes.

Okay. Oh, great. Well, first, I was trying to clarify where we are. I have a couple comments and then turn it over for you to close. So this bill recognizes the high wildfire risk.

And again, I just wanna thank you so much for your passion, your leadership. We've spent a lot of time, discussing, this bill. And it recognizes risk faced by Riverside, Calaveras, Los Angeles, and Tehama Counties, the top seventh through tenth ranked counties for wildfire risk and social vulnerability by the Community Wildfire Mitigation Program. The amendments to this bill encourage additional state and federal funding to go towards providing home hardening retrofits to homes in Riverside, Calaveras, Los Angeles, and Tehama Counties.

Amendments will be taken in emergency management committee, next week, the ones we've already agreed to due to legislative timeline.

Sounds like there'll be some additional, discussion. But, again, I wanna really thank you. I mean, this home hardening is something that cuts across actually a lot of committees, you know, that you've seen. The insurance committee, how do we make sure when people home harden that they actually get rewarded for that? That's the goal we're I'll be working towards.

I had a bill around, you know, community wide mitigation. Again, as Senator Cabaldon said, if just one house does it, doesn't really help. How do we encourage the communities? There's an education component. I know I've done a couple, you know, home hardening town halls and just, you know, really, there's a whole education component as people understand what's what's really effective.

We're also waiting for the governor, a long delayed decision on on on zone zero and defensible space, and we tried to get some money for that. So this really is a really wide ranging discussion, but you've really focused us on areas of need beyond the the first six that have gotten that initial money, and how are we going to fund them? How are we going to help them?

And I really appreciate you bringing the discussion forward and representing these counties, but also speaking, broader about the issue. So thank you.

With that, would you like to close?

As a good Senator, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1270.

Okay. So we have a motion, from Senator Stern. It's, do pass to emergency management. Please call the roll.

Senators Becker?

Aye.

Becker, aye. Seyarto? Allen? Allen, aye. Cabaldon, aye.

Cortese? Grove? Grove, aye. Stern? Stern, aye.

Alright. You're all on call.

That is 5-0. That's on call. I'm gonna turn the gavel over to Senator Grove for a moment.

Okay. Senator, Senator Wiener, you're up with SB 895. You can proceed when ever ready, Senator.

Thank you very much, madam vice chair. Colleagues, I'm here today to present, Senate Bill eight ninety five. I appreciate the committee's collaboration with us in this important legislation.

Peter, I apologize. It doesn't sound like your mic's on.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, madam, vice chair. Thank you to the committee for hearing this important legislation, which is a, to support scientific research, in California.

Okay. Sorry, sir.

Can I ask you guys to take your conversations outside, please? Thank you, Senator Stern. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, madam vice chair. Colleagues, health and scientific research is an integral part of California's economy and our culture. It is helps us, cure disease, it improves our environment, and it bolsters and improves the lives of millions of Californians. Research in California has directly saved millions of lives around the world. It's made foundational contributions to the invention of major technologies including the Internet, CRISPR, and AI.

It's discovered chemicals responsible, it's discovered which chemicals are responsible for holes in the ozone, and it has sequenced the human genome. That's all happened here in California because of our commitment to science. Scientific research constitutes nearly 6% of California's GDP, and California contributes roughly one third of all US investment in research and development. One third. The next highest state sits at 6.8%.

For all these reasons, top research talent comes to our state from across the world to work at our leading institutions and to make homes for themselves. From biotechnology to medicine, agriculture, climate, AI, and beyond, California is the global leader.

Research and development contributes more than $200,000,000,000 annually to our economy, and the sector directly employs nearly 700,000 Californians. In 2024, California researchers patented more new technologies than all other 49 states combined. Research supports local economies, it creates strong middle class, often union jobs that benefit entire regions.

Yet despite the clear benefit and importance of research, the federal administration, this administration has attempted to stifle what is in essence a golden goose, not just for California, but for our country. The administration under president Trump has sought to cut billions and billions of dollars in research funding, both by taking a wrecking ball to various federal science agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, NOAA, National Science Foundation, the CDC, and so forth, and also cutting scientific research at universities here and around the country.

Unfortunately, the courts have rejected a number of those attempts, but they and Congress has, in a bipartisan way at times, pushed back because scientific research is not a partisan issue. But we are still seeing cuts, we're still seeing a reduction in grants, and we're still seeing politicization of research and a broad chilling effect on scientific research.

We are seeing and we are at risk of a major brain drain from this country and from California as scientists wonder if they have a future here, and we are seeing them go to Europe or Canada or other places that are happy to have them because scientists make countries stronger and better.

In 2025, the NIH and National Science Foundation funded 22-25% fewer grants compared to the ten years prior. Research requires a stable funding environment to manage multiyear projects. If researchers don't know year to year whether funding will continue, they will take their research elsewhere. If California does not retain our top tier science science talent, we will lose our pipeline to life saving research and to major industries in our state.

SB 895 proposes to double and triple down on California's global leadership in science, and to ensure that research continues here regardless of the ups and downs of the Federal Government.

This bill will place a $23,000,000,000 bond on the November ballot, and will create a California Foundation for Science and Health Research to oversee those monies and others, public and private, that will come into the foundation, and will enable us to continue that leadership. The measure also includes very innovative provisions to ensure that California can recoup the benefits of this research happening here for our general fund, and also for lower drug prices from drugs that are discovered as a result of this research for Californians.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and with me today to testify is Nicole Garrido, a PhD student in civil and environmental engineering at UC Berkeley, and also a member of UAW local forty eight eleven, one of our sponsors. And Hal Collard, MD, MS, at UC San Francisco he's UC San Francisco's vice chancellor for research. So you see also is a cosponsor of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Your witnesses have two minutes each. Please continue.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is, Dr. Hal Collard. I'm happy to be here as a proud native Californian and as a long time physician scientist, and, currently as a vice chancellor of research at the University of California, San Francisco. Thanks for giving me a few minutes to share why the University of California believes that SB 895 is essential to the future of California scientific community.

As a Senator mentioned, the Federal Government has been the financial lifeblood of America's scientific research since the nineteen fifties, a model that was made possible by a broad consensus across the country that federal investment in science improves lives. In California, this investment enabled the growth of our world class research universities and institutes and led to the scientific breakthroughs, many of which were mentioned that have and continue to revolutionize health and well-being.

It's also provided over 50,000 good paying California jobs, generated an estimate $15,000,000,000 per year in California economic activity.

It's over $2 per every dollar invested. Unfortunately, this funding is under threat. In fact, it's already compromised. America's support for science is diminished. I spend a lot of time in Washington talking with members of Congress and agencies, and this is being actively discussed and questioned.

And we're seeing that in some of the numbers that were just mentioned by the Senator. SB 895 can change this narrative. It will ensure that California's scientific community navigates today's choppy federal waters and will provide California with an expanded opportunity to invest in the scientific priorities of the state. SB 895 will sustain and create new jobs, enrich our economy, and ensure that California remains the world's leader in cutting edge scientific discoveries.

For all the reasons noted above, the University of California is in strong support of SB 895.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next witness.

Good morning to the chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to to speak today. My name is Nicole Garrido, and I'm here in strong support of SB 895 as a member of UAW 4811. I'm a third year civil and environmental engineering PhD student at UC Berkeley in the lab of professor Lisa Alvarez Cohen. I'm also a proud born and raised Californian educated entirely by our public education system.

In my research, I study the fate and transport of toxic chemical contaminants, including PFAS in the environment. The work that I and many other scientists do generates the scientific knowledge California relies on to understand and protect public health, ecosystems, and natural resources. Over the last year, California's research institutions have been destabilized by federal funding cuts and legal uncertainty. Because federal grants support a large share of university research, these cuts do not just affect individual labs.

They disrupt the union jobs and the technical capacity California depends on.

Just a few weeks ago, my own lab felt those cuts directly when a five year federally funded project on PFAS precursor bio transformation was cut short with two years of work and about half a million lost. Federal funding instability also impacts the workforce pipeline that trains researchers. As a first generation undergraduate at UCLA, I relied on the NIH funded maximizing access to research careers or MARC program to remain in school during the severe financial strain my family faced during the COVID nineteen pandemic.

When that program was placed on hold last year, I saw how quickly federal cuts can close pathways into this work. SB 895 would help California stabilize research funding at a time when federal cuts are already disrupting scientific work, union jobs, and the lives of people that make it possible.

This is important for this committee because California's ability to protect the environment, respond to contamination, and steward natural resources depends on sustained scientific capacity and workforce. I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you.

Okay. Excellent. I understand we do have a number of folks in for previous bringing them in.

Good morning, Chair and Members. AJ Mendiola on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis in support.

Hi. Emily Holland on behalf of the Public Health Institute in support.

Good morning. Jia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support.

Thank you. Mark MacDonald on behalf of the Consortium for Developing Leadership in Science in support.

Good morning. Cloe Le Gall-Scoville for Student Services and Advising Professionals at the UC in support.

Good morning. Erika Bustamante on behalf of Stanford in support.

Good morning. Isela Bravo with Cruz Strategies on behalf of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support.

Mr. Chair and Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Alicia Yaffe. I'm with CAPS UAW Local 1115. We are the state scientists union, and I'm here in support. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Ben Cox, assistant project scientist at University of California Davis and UAW 4811 member in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. George Osborn for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, co-sponsor in support.

Nico Molina on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support. Thank you.

Khalid Mahmood, UAW 4811, resident of Berkeley, California, strong support.

Hi there. Brianna McGuire, scientist at UC Davis, member of UAW 4811, resident of Berkeley, in strong support.

Hi there. I'm Emily Weintraut. I am a resident of Woodland and a member of UAW 4811 and a teaching assistant at UC Davis, and I support.

My name is Carolina Rios. I am a graduate student researcher at UC Davis, a resident of Davis, California, a UAW 4811 member, and a strong supporter.

Thanks, Chair Becker and Members of the Committee. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Northeastern University in strong support.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in strong support.

Hi. Amy Fletcher, a researcher at UC Davis and statewide treasurer for UPTE-CWA 9119 and a strong supporter.

Hi. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME in strong support.

Hello. Agnes Henning with UAW 4123, the CSU student workers, in strong support.

Hello. Justin Garcia, Vice President of CAPS UAW Local 1115 on behalf of the local union in strong support.

Hello, everybody. Patrick Dexter, international rep with United Auto Workers Region 6, representing the nine western United States, in strong support.

Hello. My name is Victor Quiroz, assistant director, UAW Region 6, nine western states, in support.

Good morning. Jared Giarrusso-Khlok with the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research in proud support. Thank you.

Chair and Members. Nate Solov on behalf of several organizations in support that couldn't be here today. The Parkinson's Association of San Diego, Parkinson's Community Los Angeles, Parkinson's Association of Northern California.

Greater Fresno Parkinson's Support Group, Parkinson Network of Mount Diablo, American Parkinson's Disease Foundation, the Parkinson's Foundation, the California Academy of Sciences, and the San Diego Natural History Museum. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. On behalf of our 29,000 members who work in the CSU system, we're in proud support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Chris Morales on behalf of the CSU Office of the Chancellor in support.

Chair and Members. Marissa Hagerman with TrattenPrice Consulting registering support on California Environmental Voters. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have anyone in opposition? Do we have a lead opposition witness? Anyone else who hates science? I'm kidding. No. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Let's bring it back to the committee. Senator Stern.

Yeah. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Wiener, for standing up for science. And the role of of research right now is more critical than ever. I'm co-author of the measure. So I'm excited to see it come before us today. My concern is less so about the four corners of the bill and more so about sort of how the funding administration could be impacted by some of the sponsors.

We've seen one of your sponsors, UAW 4811, strike in recent years over and create, basically, an environment where Israeli students aren't welcome in the union, where they struck in favor of BDS and trying to boycott any association with that country or its right to defend itself.

And my concern is that if they're sort of the sponsor of the bill that the kind of important PFAS research that you're doing, if it ever integrated with, say, an international consortium that's doing PFAS research, where right now there is really important PFAS work going on.

From a number of universities around the world, Berkeley, but also Hebrew University and others. That somehow that this could be sort of should end around our anti BDS laws and somehow allow that union to wage a protest and block that kind of funding.

I know that's one particular issue, but I guess I want the rest of the world desperately needs American universities to be doing research in an open minded way that doesn't try to take the politics of the moment and insert them into in what is supposed to be a much more open approach.

And so say, you know, efforts on PFAS or in climate science, in renewable energy, any area where it may touch, say, a university in Israel, that that's that wouldn't be subject to pressure or discrimination in any way. So I just wanna make sure.

Yeah. So I wanna be clear. This, the foundation, the institute that this creates is not, this is a statewide institute. Right? It's not the that we have a broad coalition. I'm proud that UAW, UC, CSU, Stanford, we have an amazing coalition. And I wanted to say, for the record, not just specific to this bond, but about science funding in general.

In general, last late last summer, I literally had leadership from UAW and UC together in my in my office to lock arms as they were gonna fight back together. And, obviously, there have been, you know, there it's a union that's employed. There are times when there's organizing efforts or even disagreements.

That's normal in in labor management relations, but we all came together to do that. And I'm really so grateful to all of the supporters, including UC and UAW, for saying whatever disagreements anyone has, we wanna protect science.

And what's happening out of DC is not acceptable, and California needs to step up. And so California's laws and rules will will apply here. People have a First Amendment right to to advocate and protest in in any way they think appropriate.

But this institute is gonna be governed by California law, and it's gonna collaborate with universities around the world. But first, of course, we gotta create it, which means the legislature and and the voters and bonds are always hard.

So the beauty of this bond is that we have really gotten this big tent of everyone together, and you can see it just in the number of like, more than a third of the legislature is co-authoring this bond.

And I'll use this opportunity to say that as bond discussions happen in this building, because we know how this goes, bonds compete. And it is so important that this bond get oxygen and see the light of day and get through because I wanna see a bright science future for California.

Thank you. I'm just hoping, and your sponsors are welcome to comment, but I just don't want this to be, unlike the how federal research funding has become politicized, for this somehow to be subject to the same pressure. And so I think that's to elevate this in the way you're talking about is I think why you've designed this pretty well, and I was looking at the board composition, for example.

And it seems to be, you know, pretty well focused, but I just, yeah. I would hate for this to be sort of pulled back down into those divisive kind of issues simply because in the spirit of international collaboration that there may be some overlap. So sponsors welcome to comment, but I'll be keeping an eye on that going forward.

You like to try any other comment from the...

I could comment. I do not believe we struck about Israel. The last strike that I know of was two years ago. Recently, we negotiated a contract with the UC successfully avoiding a strike. And I would say I would stand behind that, that we're ready to talk and negotiate and, like, save science and bring money for that.

But generally open to working around the world with whoever is leading science. Okay. Thank you. Any other... Senator Grove.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, you're not wrong on a lot of the points that you're making, that science and research is... Why are you laughing at me?

You're not wrong.

You're not wrong on most of the points that you made. You're not. You're not wrong. Science and technology and research is is vitally important to our STEM programs, to health and wellness, to saving lives. Agree with those points that you made.

I do wanna echo the comments that my colleague just made from Calabasas, I believe, is where he's from. But, you know, the and it is interesting to me that the UAW, that's the United Auto Workers Union. Right? Is that not what, is that what not UAW is?

Yeah. But UAW...

Represents UC employees. That was...

Represents around the country a lot of science researchers, and it's been a sort of a leading voice in scientific research.

The auto workers.

I mean, that's yeah. Yeah. I mean, a lot, we have a lot of unions that start with their name and they grow from there. Yeah.

I didn't know that. That was interesting. And then but I guess that with the UAW, there were videos of UAW employees from the UC system and students on these campuses, echoing my colleague's comments in a little stronger way.

But, you were blocking Jewish students from going on campus and blocking them from going into their classrooms and blocking them. And these are taxpayer resources that, you know, we're providing you to do research and you mobilize individuals on campus.

And I get there's a free speech issue, but there's also a definite hate issue against Israel, Jewish individuals, and the community at large that believes that faith. So that does concern me, just like it concerns us. And I realized that the author is Jewish, and that my colleague from Calabasas is Jewish, and also Mr. Allen is Jewish. So I do get that, but I do have a concern about that to voice.

Listen, we the last few years have been have been tough for many, many people here and around the world. But this is like this is something an area where we have everyone has locked arms in a I think in a very powerful way to understand that people are going to have differences and they're and that is normal.

And obviously, I have had my own opinions over time, and which I've take fire from all sides on at times. But I but ultimately, this is this is about science in California, and we and I think it's a very powerful thing that we have students and faculty and researchers and universities and unions.

And all of the Parkinson's world, and it's just like this huge coalition that's come together and said whatever disagreements we may have around collective bargaining or wages or or anything else, we all want to fund science.

And that's the powerful thing about this bill, and I'm really proud of it. And I'm grateful to both the UC and UAW for coming together as co-sponsors of this bill. That, how often does that happen? Not very often, and I think it's really and I'm really grateful for that.

No. And it doesn't happen very often. And I did start out by saying I agree with a lot of your points both that the UAW, and even your PFAS research. I did some research because of water restrictions to the Central Valley. I represents the Central Valley, and a lot of our farm water to produce the food we eat goes out into the Bay Area.

And I noticed that 91% of my research, 91% of the fish in the Bay Area are contaminated with forever chemicals like PFAS, and that's because of the wastewater treatment plants in San Francisco that haven't been upgraded, and they're literally flushing their waste out into the ocean, which is contaminating the fish.

So, that was interesting to learn too, and that you were someone who follows that. So I do. I do believe that you've made a lot of points. I agree with the fact that we should fund science and research, and what this and the funding of the bill, if that makes sense.

And the people of the state of California being able to vote on it is better than us making the decision that we're just gonna tax them again. But I don't think Californians can afford this, to shoulder this, no matter the benefits. But we're spending $130-135 billion on high speed rail that will not be built in our lifetime.

And not to throw another controversial issue into this bill discussion, but it will not be built. My youngest granddaughter is two years old and it will not be built in her lifetime. And it's $135 billion and you're asking for 23 billion.

We gave 25 billion to them over the last couple of years. I mean, there's a better way that we can spend our money. And I and I realize that's a controversial statement, and I realize that you have no control... Well, actually, you did.

You were the Budget Chair when all this happened. So but I do I do agree with you that we need to fund science and technology. I just don't agree putting it on the ballot and saddling it to California taxpayers is the answer when we have the highest affordability, non affordability rates in the entire nation. Sorry.

I appreciate that. What I what I will say, big picture, we are the fourth largest economy in the world here in California. And if you look at the just we have led the world in so many spaces over time, technology, entertainment, so many, agriculture, solar in Kern County. Right? Like, so we and we are the largest state, fourth largest economy in the world.

We should be able to fund scientific research, have a good transportation system, have a great health care system. We should be able to do all of these things. I just think we should have a can do attitude in California. I know you have a can do attitude, and I think we should, as a state, have a can do attitude that we can do these things.

And I agree with you, but this year we're facing, you know, a 30 plus billion dollar budget deficit. In some cases, it's even higher than that. We have companies leaving the state. Our highest income earners are leaving the state. And I know we disagree in that that you don't think they are leaving the state, but they have announced it publicly.

Leprino Foods, HP, you know, go down the list. So I just I think that there's a better way we can spend our money. I agree. I just don't agree with saddling the California taxpayers alone for the $23 billion, but I do agree that it needs to be funded. I wish we could figure out a different way to do it. But thank you for letting me make comments. Thank you for the engagement, sir.

Senator Cabaldon.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to all the folks that came to testify. I think at least 70% were constituents of mine. The impacts on UC Davis, they obviously, there are impacts on our pushing back the frontiers of knowledge on so many of these key issues that the author and that the testimony has taken, but it's also had devastating impacts on the community and the infrastructure.

And as has been said, we can't just turn it off and on because we're losing, we're losing researchers to other, to other institutions and to other states or folks that choose not to go into the into the sector. We are, as the author said, we are the fourth largest economy in the world because of our investments in physical infrastructure, aqueducts, roads and transit, in universities, but also especially because of our investments in research.

So it's absolutely it's you're this is the right this is a righteous cause. I do like, in design questions on this. I just wanna to kinda join some of the conversation that's been happening. First is on just on the and maybe maybe you could describe.

The committee analysis laid out the federal cuts to research in dollar figures. And I think it it maybe was just coincidence, but the federal cuts that are listed in the analysis added up to almost exactly the same number that's in this bill.

And so I'm curious if, you know, if one question is, like, why $23 billion. If that's equivalent to the entire cut to federal that's proposed in the federal government to research, recognizing we're not gonna do a bond every year, of course. But why that would be an even for California, that's a very large bond number, and particularly given some of the capacity issues that Senator Grove has ID'd.

So, as with all bonds, it doesn't, it's not like you do a bond that all gets issued on day one. Right? This will be over years. It'll be spread out. And so it's not intended nor would it be appropriate to issue all those bonds in a year.

That's true with any bond. It takes years and years. And there are some bonds that, you know, that have even years and years later have not been fully issued. And so there's that. In terms of the amount, that was, you know, early on, we thought that that over time would not be able to compensate for everything happening from the federal government.

But would be enough for us to have robust research funding in California. Of course, it's not like 23 billion is magical. If we're able to make this happen, there will be a lot of give and take as there are with bonds in general. Yeah.

The other design question, and it I guess it touches on what Senator Grove and Senator Stern were asking about. But so I think more fundamentally, California's world leading investments and success in research have been because we have, at the state level, almost entirely invested in research agnostically. Right?

We haven't had a state agency or state department or committee or in the budget process where we said, University of California, do research on the following 17 things. And that's important both because we're not good at it, at making those determinations, and also because it's subject to lots and lots of other motivations and incentives and what have you.

So California has been distinctive in our recognition that that basic research in particular, but even applied research has to be, you know, it needs to be generated by the by the opportunities that are at the frontier of knowledge, not just our desire, what we hope will happen.

But where, you know, where is science at today, but that has to be led, by scientists, and NIH and other federal agencies are designed in the same way. And so the notion of a of, like, a of a board or a committee that has something other than pure operational functions does concern me.

And even and so I just you know, I wanna as the bill moves forward, please think about, like, the board has a patient advocate and healthcare provider, like, you can see already that it's designed to lead to particular emphases and investments and what have you, and that's not what a board should be doing.

That's not that's not what's made California so strong in the research space. And I recognize it for the purposes of a bond measure that goes before the voters, kinda laying out wildfire safety, bio med, like, these are important things, and we want voters to be able to put basic research in the lens of what matters to them.

But we really have to avoid state government or one of its committees kind of making like, this is this is our most important need. Let's go do that without understanding that it's not just the need, it's where are we at on the frontier of this of the acknowledgement.

Design matters, I mean, that we the voters approved the regenerative medicine bond years ago. And the theory there was a little bit different, which was that a bond was appropriate because what we were buying with the bond wasn't just the research itself.

What we were doing was buying basically and for to be crass, buying world leading market share in this space. That we're gonna make California the center of regenerative medicine by making a big investment all at once. And therefore, a bond that we're gonna pay back for 30 years, like a mortgage, was justified because the benefits were gonna keep coming.

So I just, you know, I understand the reason why the bill is structured this way, but really just, you know, as you go forward, please, please, please, you know, let not create a a state mechanism where any of us or any committee is making judgments about where the research is supposed to be happening, and leave that to the successful model that California has pioneered around the world of letting basic research being led by scientists in financing too.

Any comments on that?

No. Again, the I am confident that if we're able to get traction, which we're hoping to do, there will be plenty of conversations about structure. And and in terms of the subjects in the bill, those are not exclusive. We want this to be want this to be broad.

Okay. Well, for my part, co-author of this measure as well. I appreciate you bringing it forward. I think what we've seen, many people have already commented. I won't reiterate around the cuts and how important science is to the world, but also to, all this is to our California economy. I will say, you know, of all states, Texas has sort of shown the way where they said, hey, you know, we wanna put money into a fund.

And they started, I think, started with 50 million. They've added a 100 million a year, and I've heard reports people say that's that, you know, that itself has been transformative for the for their ability to keep researchers in the state and, you know, again, shows the power of sort of state models.

So we are the leader in science and this I think this bill will help keep us that way. Appreciate all the other comments. I think we can all agree that also global free collaboration with scientists around the world is important, so appreciate all those comments as well. But happy to support this. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you so much. I wanna thank both of my witnesses and our co-sponsors, and I really wanna reiterate how powerful it is to have UC and UAW working hand in glove on this measure, and it shows that science is something that is unifying and can bring us together.

And I will say that for me, when I look at what's happening in this country around science, and I was recently or last fall having lunch with a the daughter of a cousin of mine. I can't remember. Is that second cousin or first cousin once removed or maybe whatever you call it. A young woman who she's an absolute, since she was a child, like a genius on math and science.

And she's about to complete her applied physics PhD at MIT, and her partner, he's finishing his physics PhD at Harvard, and they are just and they're working on the most interesting things that are gonna make humanity healthier and better. And she said to me, we might have to move to Europe because there's no funding for us here. That's what this is about.

So over the last year, as I have spent so much time at the UC talking to Nobel Laureates, but also even as inspiring working with grad students, researchers who are doing these this amazing work and just starting their scientific trajectory where they are going to do brilliant things and cure diseases and just make the world better.

And I want them to do that in California. I want it to be here, and I want us to continue to lead. And whatever happens with the federal government, we should take our own future in our hands, and SB 8095, this science bond is an opportunity to do that. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Do we have a motion? Senator Stern. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That is 5-0. That bill will stay on call.

Thank you. Thank you, colleagues.

Okay. Senator Allen, would you like to present SB 1297?

Senator Allen, please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present this bill, and I, I wanna also thank the committee staff for their work on the bill, and I accept the committee's amendments. So, as proposed to be amended, this bill incentivizes regional entities, or their designees under the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to begin bringing together more public entities, nonprofits, and other private entities, such as insurers and utilities, to form regional wildfire public private partnerships.

And we've been talking about wildfire mitigation, hardening, etcetera. And this is about trying to create better systems to address some of the, the, the big picture problems that we've been discussing both today and in previous hearings.

The idea is that these partnerships will work together to, to develop wildfire mitigation projects that reduce risk and results in, in avoided losses from several different perspectives, that of public entities, nonprofits, insurers, utilities, fire-related folks, and other impacted private entities. As part of the planning, participants will discuss and agree upon different levels of funding, each, you know, is willing to commit to the projects.

The planned projects would be eligible to receive seed money from state revenue bonds in coordinating with the Ibank, and the partnerships will enter into a repayment plan so that the bond funds are repaid over time. You know, as, as you know, right, as we've discussed, wildfires have become increasingly more frequent, more destructive in our state, and the most recent large fires in my district, you know, caused $30 billion in, in losses.

In the '25-'26 fiscal year, our state spent $4 billion on wildfire related activities, the vast majority of which is going toward firefighting and suppression, with only 10% going toward prevention. But it's estimated that the annual need for mitigation alone is between 4 to 7 billion in statewide needs, according to the recently released SB 254 report by the California Earthquake Authority.