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

Alright. You ready? Hey. Good morning, everybody. Appreciate that you were able to fight your way through the crowd to get here.

It's a popular place to be this morning. Today, we're happy to have our colleagues back from the Natural Resources Agency. We have eight presentation items today. For each presentation item, I'll ask each of the witnesses in the agenda to introduce themselves before they begin their testimony. At the end of the presentation, members of this subcommittee may ask questions, make comments, or request a presentation on any of the non-presentation items.

We'll not be taking a vote on any of the items on the agenda today. After all the items are heard, we'll take public comment. For members of public who wish to provide comment, please, limit your testimony to the items on the agenda. Each member of the public will have one minute to speak, assuming we have enough time at the end of the agenda for one minute. And let's begin with issue number six, please.

Hi, Chair Bryan. Brian Cash from the Natural Resources Agency. I'm here to present control section 15.04, which doesn't sound very thrilling.

Wow.

But it is something that we've been working on for a while, And it's one of those things where you think, "why didn't we do this ten years ago, fifteen years ago"? It's a new operational efficiencies control-

Excuse me. I'm gonna ask everybody. If you put your document between you and the mic, it's hard. If you can pull the mic to the side of your document so we all, including myself, we have to be right up here. There's a huge difference between being here. I just want you to see the difference between being here.

Most of us are trying to speak like this, but in this room, we have to speak like this.

Got it. How is this?

That's yeah. That's good. I'm the one that has to lean forward. You guys can pull the mic, so I'm trying to.

Alright. So this control section, it allows departments to collaboratively fund projects at a landscape or multi jurisdictional scale. And it allows the Department of Finance to transfer these climate bond funds, appropriated by the legislature to designated primary state entities.

So if you have three different departments, four different departments funding a specific project, you would be able to instead of setting up grant agreements with four different grant agreements with one entity, you'd be able to transfer the funds to one of the state departments and to be able to do that. So, we're very excited about this. This is an efficiency. I know the legislature has been asking us "what are you doing to get more efficient?". Here's a good example.

Great. Thank you. Great. Seems like it makes a lot of common sense, but let's see what LAO had to say about it.

Morning, chair. Brian Metzger with the LAO. We found the proposed control section to be reasonable as a way to jointly fund those landscape and multi-jurisdictional projects that they spoke about, and it's consistent with language that's similar to what's in the bond measure itself, which we think is important. However, there is a notification and approval process for finance, but there's no notification process for the legislature.

So we would recommend the legislature consider whether it would be helpful to receive at least summary information about how this proposed control section is being used to kind of help track project funding and make sure that it's working as intended.

Department of Finance have any concerns about that request?

We, well, are happy to consider the legislature in notifying as part of the control section.

Great. And do you have any other comments you want to make?

No comments, but available for questions, Courtney Massengale.

Great. Well, as I said, I think it certainly makes common sense. Are there particular places in the bond that stimulated you to do this and say, "hey, we think on these particular parts of the bond, we're gonna need this multi jurisdictional approval process"?

Yeah. There are. It can be used across the board on the bond, and I think it'd be helpful in a lot of different sections. Bu the multi benefit land repurposing program, the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program, the Regional Projects with Cal Fire SNC, Sierra Nevada Conservancy and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the Forest Health and Watershed Improvement Program. We thought that those would be ones that would really benefit from this.

And in terms of how the funding- I wanna be clear on this- the funding will still go to each of the departments. Departments will approve a certain amount of funding, but then all of the reporting on that funding will come from one department?

Correct.

Okay.

And the funding will be transferred over to that department, the one department that's gonna be the lead department.

So when we see a summary for the end of the year, we have a department of "x". Will that funding be reflected in their expenditures or will it be reflected in the department that consolidated all the expenditures?

Correct.

Not in the other expenditures of the other department.

Yes.

But the revenue, we will have granted the revenue to the original department.

Yes. The appropriation initially goes to the other department.

Right.

And then through the Department of Finance, it's transferred over to the lead department.

Both the appropriation and the expenditure will be reported from the other department.

Correct.

Got it. Okay. Great. Alrighty. Staff, any other things else you wanna clarify in terms of this?

Right. Alright. Hey. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Appreciate having LAO run the traps on the on this also for us. Right? Okay. We're gonna go to, item seven.

And that's biodiversity and nature based solutions, for 2026 and 2027 spending plan.

Hi. Good morning. Manisha Kapasiawala, Department of Finance. The climate bond allocates $1.2 billion for protecting biodiversity and accelerating nature based solutions over the lifetime of the bond. This funding is allocated across various programs administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Natural Resources Agency, and nine different conservancies.

The 2025 budget act allocated $390 million across these entities for programs such as establishing wildlife crossings and corridors, restoring ecosystems, reducing climate change risk, and improving public access to nature and tribal nature based solutions. The governor's budget includes an additional $199 million to continue supporting these and other programs. Some new proposals and program highlights in the governor's budget include the following: one is priority habitat restoration and new public access opportunities across these projects for Salton Sea communities, and restoring and connecting wildlife habitats across the San Andreas Corridor.

I'm joined by representatives from the departments with allocations in this chapter, and we are available for questions.

I will turn it over to Dr. Jennifer Norris, executive director of the Wildlife Conservation Board, who'll provide a brief overview of and new updates regarding the board's work in protecting biodiversity and advancing nature based solutions.

Good morning, Chair Bennett. I'm Jennifer Norris, the executive director of the Wildlife Conservation Board, also known as WCB. WCB provides grants to tribes, governments, and nonprofits to support conservation investments statewide. Since 2022, WCB has received nearly $1.2 billion from a mix of voter approved bond and general fund sources to support biodiversity and nature based solutions projects. We have provided grants to partners in every single county and every terrestrial ecosystem for habitat protection, restoration, and wildlife oriented public access.

We've supported seven ancestral land return projects and helped return 38,000 acres of culturally significant land to California Native American tribes. Additionally, since 2022, nearly 60% of WCB's investments have provided meaningful benefits to underserved communities. We are proud of our accomplishments and excited for the work ahead. The administration's 2026-2027 climate bond expenditure plan includes $111 million to WCB for biodiversity and nature based solutions investments.

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

As you are aware, WCB was delayed in dispersing our 2025-2026 Prop 4 funding while we navigated the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Thanks to the passage of AB 107, we are now moving forward with Prop 4 grants.

In February, we awarded $30 million across several high priority projects, including planning for wildlife crossings on Interstate 15 and State Route 62, habitat restoration for pollinators across multiple coastal counties, spring habitat for migratory birds, and meaningful access to nature for the underserved community of Watsonville. We are actively developing nearly 30 land acquisition projects throughout the state. As you know, they have a fairly long lead time, but those are coming to fruition.

And nearly as many habitat restoration projects for the conservation of rivers, forests, wetlands, deserts, and more. If approved by our board, we will expend nearly all of last year's $256 million allocation by the end of the calendar year, and then we'll turn to the many high priority projects waiting in the queue for FY 26-27 funds. As I'm sure you are aware, the demand for WCB funding exceeds what is available by many times.

For context, we opened our application portal last April for Prop 4 projects. And by the June, we had we had received nearly $1 billion in requests, which is a good thing to have.

Lots of conservation to do. We have a small but incredibly efficient and effective team and know we will be able to report on more amazing accomplishments this time next year. What's being requested this year is what we reasonably believe we can expect to get accomplished with existing staffing on our current workload. We're proud of the work we do with our partners, and we look forward to the year ahead in protecting California's natural world. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else?

Brian Metzger, LAO. We find the overall approach taken in this chapter of Prop 4 to be reasonable. We think it balances the demand for these solutions with the capacity of the wildlife conservation board as well as the conservancies. One program to note is 30 million of the proposed 111 million for the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats will be granted to DWR, for priority habitat and public access projects at the Salton Sea.

And funding those projects likely makes sense given the tight timeline for the state to complete nearly 30,000 acres of habitat projects by 2028.

We also would note that WCB is awaiting direction from the legislature about the geographic scope of the San Andreas corridor program, for which it proposes $20 million in '26, '27 of the total 80 million that's in Prop 4. And so to the extent that the legislature has specific priorities about, you know, the reach of the San Andreas corridor program, now would be the time to specify those.

Well, thank you. Few few comments before I get into questions. And number one, Mrs. Norris, you're right to be proud of what the WCB has done. But I think you're also you also have the best job in California to be able to allocate and create sort of the permanent acquisition of land and preserve the nature that we have here.

You hark back to Teddy Roosevelt and creating all those national parks and how many generations have benefited from that.

And California and Californians are wise to keep making this investment by approving these climate bonds and these environmental bonds, you know, that we've had go forward. I know there's a lot of times people have concerns about them, but the demand is is enormous. And so congratulations to you and your efficient team at Wildlife Conservation Board.

And our partners who bring us all these great projects. They get the credit.

Yeah. Great. And that certainly is true. And it's, I think, something that California should really be proud of.

I agree.

Just what we've done with Wildlife Conservation Board. And specifically as LAO has brought up the San Andreas corridor program. And a few things. One, my overall concept is if we expand this too much, we dilute sort of the ability to get the maximum bang for our buck.

And then particularly if we expanded into areas where the land acquisition is going to be very expensive per acre, I think that that's probably not, from my standpoint and my input from a legislative standpoint, will be not to to expand into areas that are going to drain a lot of the dollars when we have such a big footprint that we're trying to deal with.

I've also had request to slightly increase the the allocation from 20 million to 25 million out of the 80 million. So not change the 80 million, but just accelerated some. Curious whether you have any concerns about going from 20 to 25 million as we move forward.

I don't have any concerns about that. I think, obviously, it's up to the administration, but my understanding is there is a fairly coherent set of partners with a strategic vision for that part of the state, and the work that they do will be this year, next year, ongoing. I'm sure we can find a way to get those projects accomplished through.

Thank you. Department of Finance have any concerns if we went to '25 from '20?

Good morning. Andrew Hall with Department of Finance. Obviously, we don't know any of the details on that yet, but we're happy to work together. No immediate concerns.

Okay. Great. The $30 million for the Salton Sea project. We identified this in here. That's a fast acceleration of spending at the Salton Sea.

So my concern is just to make sure that we are efficiently spending those dollars that we're not throwing dollars forward, etcetera. What kind of assurances can you give us that this rapid acceleration in terms of Salton Sea expenditures going to be handled efficiently and appropriately?

Brian Cash from the Natural Resources Agency. I think we can assure you because the states completed already 3,896 acres of the 14,900 acres that we need to finish. And then there are 8,000 acres of projects that are already in the pipeline underway and then 3,630 acres that are funded and where they're working with the contractor to begin construction. So things are moving very quickly there and efficiently. So don't think this will be a problem.

Feel comfortable. And then second question that we had there for you is will these, projects count under the 40% disadvantaged?

Most definitely.

That's great. Alright. Appreciate it. Assemblymember Rogers, is with us here today.

And do you have any questions? We're on, issue seven because we're waiting to cover issue one until the Assemblymember Ransom as our guest arrives. Anything on issue seven? Great. Thank you.

Alrighty. So that's issue six and seven. We promised we promised Assemblymember Ransom that would try to wait, so we're gonna go to eight unless the people for issue eight are not here. They are here. Good.

Okay. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair Bennett and members of the committee. My name's-

Pulled out a lot closer.

How's that, sir?

You don't have to lean forward so much if you wanna pull it even closer. My suggestion I'm sorry to micromanage you guys, but put it to the side of your paper and then bend this thing over. Right?

Lack of experience. I appreciate your assistance.

There you go. Alright. You're not doing it right, but I'm gonna let you go on. Go ahead.

I appreciate the grace. Good morning. Chair Bennett, members of the committee, my name is Jake Sholand. I'm the Deputy Director of Fire Protection Programs for CAL FIRE, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. California's fire environment has extended to a fire year. This can be seen from many fires since 2014, including the devastating January 2025 LA fire siege.

In March 2026, we have already mitigated large fires, including the Springs Fire in Riverside County, the Crown Fire in Los Angeles County, and the Paramount Fire in Kings County. Certain aviation assets have now been staffed continuously, including day and night operations to meet fire activity demands and rapid response requirements, which also increases the need for ongoing flight crew training to maintain proficiency and readiness across all aerial firefighting disciplines.

CAL FIRE's fleet has also modernized, transitioning to 16 CAL FIRE hawk helicopters and adding seven C130H air tankers for a total of 72 aircraft. These platforms are more advanced and capable, but also require more intensive and frequent maintenance across complex systems, including avionics, electrical, communications, and suppressant delivery systems. Maintenance staffing has scaled accordingly.

From 90 maintainers in 2015 to 2020 to a 152 by 2024, a 171 in 2026, and a 191 proposed under this contract. This reflects increases aligned with a larger, more complex fleet and year round operations. Maintenance has also shifted from a five day a week model to a seven day model, though staffing remains lean compared to our federal counterparts.

Pilot staffing has grown from a 108 pilots in 2024 to a 163 under the proposed contract in response to year round fire activity and increased mission demands, including support for our C130 air tankers. Sustaining these operations require a larger, highly trained pilot workforce developed through a rigorous training pipeline and specialization.

These positions align the program with FAA part 135 requirements, expands the support pilot core for transport of personnel and supplies, and enables dual shift operations, and strengthens relief capacity to address absences and attrition. At the same time, we are competing in a tight labor market. Industry labor pressures have driven contractor negotiated salary increases of approximately 51% for pilots and 20% for mechanics to recruit and retain a qualified workforce.

This contract reflects today's reality, a year round mission, a more complex fleet, and the personnel required to safely and effectively meet California's wildfire demands. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. Department of Finance?

Julianne Rolf, Department of Finance. I'd like to note for the record that this BCP said that, the cost increase would be up to a certain amount, and we'd like to note that the amount stated in the BCP, which is $66.5 million for the first year, is the the final amount of the contract increase.

Thank you. LAO? Brian Metzger, LAO. Consistent with the framework we provided to approach environmental issues in the 26-27 governor's budget, we find that this proposal addresses important health and safety concerns and merits consideration for budget year funding. Absent this funding, CAL FIRE would not be able to fully use its air tanker and command center aircraft to respond to wildfires.

And without those aircraft, more communities and residents would be at risk. And therefore, we recommend approval of this proposal.

Great. Thank you. My, first question is: the whole issue of recruiting and trying to make sure that we have adequate mechanics to be able to do this. What percentage of these mechanics are in house mechanics? And what percentage do you contract out for, mechanics to help in terms of maintenance?

Mechanics, specifically. All the mechanics within the CAL FIRE's aviation program are provided through this contract.

Alright. So they're they're they're all CAL FIRE employees?

Negative. They're all the contract employees.

Okay. When you said provided through this contract, they're all contract employees.

Correct.

And pilots?

For the fixed wing pilots, they are also provided through the contractor. The rotor wing, the Firehawk helicopter pilots are Cal Fire employees.

Okay. And the how many contractors are out there providing mechanics and providing pilots?

SO, specific to your question, anybody can bid on the contract, the personnel that we're talking about would transition to the new contracts, sir. They they're they're not replaced. And so, there's a number of folks that have expressed interest this last cycle. There was, two that put in for the bid for the contract.

Any anything that we could be doing to try to increase competition in terms of these contracts? I know we have a shortage of mechanics across the country in terms of auto dealerships and and and everything else. My concern is five years from now, these costs are gonna run even faster ahead of us as we move forward. And I don't imagine that AI is going to be something we're going to be relying on to do the mechanical work on these aircraft for quite some time.

Any thoughts about where to go to protect us from five years from now real serious inflation in terms of labor cost?

Yeah. In terms of the entities available to provide services, I believe one thing we can do is start earlier and allow that our request, our fee process to be distributed for a longer period of time. I do not believe we're in any critical threat or endangerment of somebody not bidding on that contract. It's more or less them understanding what the components of the contract are. So we had three this last time that were highly interested.

One did not make the timeline, and then the other two, obviously, did comply. I know of five that had interest at the beginning.

So what would we have to do to increase the notification of-

That's on my side, sir. Being able to prepare and have that contract written and put out early where it has enough time to answer questions for the suppliers that want to put in for it.

Anything you need from the state in terms of approval to get going?

No, sir.

Alright. Great. Thank you. Appreciate you identifying that.

I've seen firsthand how effective this is at knocking down those small fires when they first start, and anticipate we're going to have this become a bigger and bigger problem in terms of trying to stay on top of those. What do you see five years from now or ten years from now? Any new technologies that can help us go after these early outbreaks and try to keep these things down to less than 10 acres?

Yes, sir. I do think technology can assist with this. One is the early detection of the fires. We're seeing successes with the alert camera system, let alone the satellites that are coming out in 2028. I suspect that we're going to see a higher percentage increase than we see today on identifying those fires at time of start and then putting resources on the road.

Technology and the unmanned aerial systems- we're looking at things in there that we can use to not only improve this initial suppression of fires, but also support them logistically to a higher capacity than what we are able to through manned systems.

And how about the the technologist, for lack of a better word, that we need on board to be able to man and support those new technologies? Challenges finding those people, or are we and we feel comfortable in terms of the supply chain of workers that could handle that?

Not necessarily a challenge to find those people since some of this contract does address the ability for us to continue with emerging technology in aviation as well as increased modifications to the aircraft to bring them into the the new technologies that are available now. So this contract already accounts for that. I do not suspect any challenges in obtaining those people or meet meeting those needs.

So this is a issue that's important to me in terms of trying to have us get ahead in terms of all the things we need to do prevention wise. California's at a real tipping point.

We're at a real crisis in terms of our home insurance, and we have a real responsibility to try to be as proactive as we can, whether it's home hardening in terms of making sure our water systems are not prematurely one running out of water, but also how quickly we can make sure we stop the spot fires before they become large.

And so look forward to each year trying to have more conversations if we're fortunate enough to continue to be here and and have those conversations with you. So thank you.

Members, any other questions on this item? It's item 8. Welcome Assembly member Ransom. Welcome Assembly member Connolly. Alright.

Staff, you got what you need? That's good. Alright. We're going to go to item one, and we really appreciate that Assembly member Ransom was able to make it.

No. But they're coming to turn it on for us. Here we go.

There we go. Morning, chair. Dan Reagan, deputy director of fiscal service division for department. We can have that for you today.

Cool. That's prompt. Alright. We'll take it. Alrighty.

Okay. Department of finance.

Andrew Hull, no no comments, but happy to answer any questions.

Sonia Petek, LAO. No no real comments. We think this proposal makes sense. And as the department noted, a lot of this work is already being done, but it's being done with redirected positions.

So the request for these additional positions will allow them allow those people to go back to what they should be doing and allow these new positions to handle this urgent It's workload.

What what has happened with the quaga muscles and the those things while these people have been redirected?

As I mentioned, a lot of that is very similar work. So we're adding additional capacity to the folks that are in the field, maybe an additional stamping sample collection for gold mussel with the quoga efforts that have been going on. But we've been studying that for quite some time. So we're able to take a little bit of a of a slowdown in that workload repressing on gold mussel instead.

But largely, it's a it's a combination of things and adding on to their workload of of the water bodies they're already sampling.

Has the quagga infestation significantly changed? No. Okay. So we've stated about the same level of quagga infestation.

Good at containing it, which is why it's so important for us to be up in front of golden mussel and and recognizing that it's in the delta now, and we wanna try to contain it

as much as possible. Great. Assemblymember Ransom, if you don't mind, I'm gonna ask these three quick questions because I think I'm I'm I'm on a roll here. I guess. And and that is, how do they fight it in China?

How do they fight it in Asia?

I don't know that. We do not we're not aware of any solutions to this issue, of treatments and things that are manageable at this point, others in the so we're still working through that. That's the research we're trying to figure out. It's a invasive species that has, not been able to be handled.

So are all of their water bodies in in infested?

I do not know that.

The one thing I would add is when a species is native somewhere, it often has other native predators or controls that keep it in check. And when it comes to a new novel environment where it doesn't have those same things to keep it in check, that is when it becomes invasive and becomes out of control. I'm not an expert on, China's situation on this, so just to clarify. But in general, you know, where something is from, it's usually a little bit more balanced.

I I would hope that by next year when you guys come here, you can give us the answer to that question because it seems to make common sense for us to at least try to understand what's happening in the place in the world where this is most dominant in terms of that. Are are all the lakes infested? Have they just thrown their hands up and given up? And they just deal with unclogging their valves and, you know, the expenses involved or or something else.

But I appreciate if we could do that. Is it your perception that once the the gold mussels in a body of water, you've lost that body of water?

I wouldn't say lost. I think you're going to have some significant cost to maintain any infrastructure that might be in there. The water body for the purposes it was created, it's still reasonably there.

No. I don't mean you've lost a body of water, but you've lost about you're you're not going to you're not going to eradicate the gold mussel from that body of water.

Our understanding right now, it will be very difficult. You are pretty much going to be in a Maintenance Mode.

And so realistically, are there any other places in the world? I mean, certainly, if if it was happening in in China, gold mussels probably shown up other places, Africa or Europe or some place. Has anybody come up with a program that has realistically been able to stop the spread of the gold mussels since it seems to be We will

look into that and get back to you on what progress has been made, but there's there's lots of research still going on here in the state. Not all water bodies are created the same same with other countries, and so we'd really need to understand that. But part of the the research teams that are working on this are looking into that.

I I would I don't have the answer for you today, but our teams are working together with the universities to figure that out and understand what's happening globally and how that could apply to California.

The final thing I would like to leave you with, I'm trying to identify what is the realistic goal for us in California. It's a realistic goal that we're able to confine it to where it is now, which is the delta and bodies of water that are linked to the delta or 50% of the of of the water bodies outside of the delta we can protect? What's the realistic goal that we have?

If if if that realistic goal is is we're going to lose the question just as how fast are we going to lose. That's a different kind of investment than if we really can do that, but we really need to see some evidence about that.

So that'd be really helpful for us to have that information.

Sure. That's incredibly helpful, and I think that's a really useful question to be asking. The most effective thing we can do is prevent the spread of it. Right? And so if we can keep it contained to where it's at and keep it from getting into bodies of water that are not connected to the delta

Right.

That will save us significant costs and management going forward. And so that's why you see a lot of focus right now on education, containment, cleaning of vessels. But we will follow-up with you from some additional context.

Question is how realistic is that to to keep it from spreading? Assembly member Ransom.

so first of all, I wanna thank the department for being here. Congratulations on your new position. Really awkward timing. Right? This this new invasive species is very concerning for the community.

So my community includes the San Joaquin Delta, and it's been ground zero for the golden mussel invasion and infestation. And so we're seeing the impacts very firsthand. The delta is a critical lifeline, not only for, you know, boating and ports and recreation, but also for agriculture providing nearly $30,000,000 or 30,000,000 residents, I should say, and more than 6,000,000 acres of Farmland, with water. And so it's definitely under threat as you have already, talked about. And so you've all seen thank you very much.

I agree with you. Picture is worth a thousand words. For those of you who have not seen, there was a packet that was sent. This is, you know, what golden muscles look like, and it's definitely not it's nothing exciting about this when it takes over. And so we know that this is a oh, okay.

We know that, right now is a spawning season. So we're really concerned that we need to act right now, with the Golden Muscles. And the fact that the dollars that have been allocated thus far are not getting to people on the ground is very concerning. I just wanna be clear that, like, $20,000,000 is barely a scratch in the surface to what is necessary.

It's barely a starting point, and it's very insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge, especially knowing that this thing is very resilient in comparison to other things.

And so without sustained investment in, eradicating the golden mussels, California families bear the cost through higher water rates. Just wanna share another thing. This is an intake pipe valve. This is infestation because it gets inside and it completely takes over. And so I know you all are are very aware of this situation happening, but we are really, really needing to stave off a crisis.

And so I'm really concerned the urgency cannot be overstated when it comes to this. And so as I I'm listening to what your request is, I definitely I know you have a hard job. I know you have the quagga mussels and the zebra mussels, but I really would love to know more details about all of these positions because what we don't want is we know everyone that has run the department. We've run departments. We we love budgets.

We love poor staffing. But how does this actually help the people on the ground? I just heard you say that there's no grants. Well, the people that are in these different water departments, these managers need funding to deal with the invasive species that they've never dealt with before. They need decontamination immediately.

So to have all of the funding go to a department to do research research, which is necessary, at the same time, we also need to do the work to start, you know, eliminating and decontaminating. And so I wanna make sure that we stand up funding that will empower the people on the ground to start, you know, scaling, you know, pushing back on these golden muscles. So no funding, you know, grants to the folks on the ground is very concerning.

Not having details on, like, how a marketing marketing specialist is going to help, an an analyst is going to help. I I really am concerned that they're really a list of positions, but not enough detail into how this these positions are so much different than quagga and zebra mussel.

You know, I can understand if you said, hey, we wanna add a couple of positions. And then speaking with water managers, they don't really they're not excited about canine dogs. They don't feel like the dogs do the same type of work that the humans are able to do. You I'm I'm sure we all have different opinions. Right?

But I'm just sharing what I've learned from folks in the community that are very concerned. Chair, you you asked about the what China's doing. I can tell you that they spend $4,000,000,000 annually on operations and maintenance to mitigate the cost, and and that's happening throughout the different areas.

And so I just don't wanna, you know, send funding to a department, which I respect and and we can't do this without you, and I know that we can't do without you, but we have to consider the people on the ground. If you speak to the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California, they're estimating that it's gonna cost $100,000,000 upfront just for treatment facilities and chemical costs.

Additionally, they're year ongoing operations. They're also a department, so I get it. Right? But we do need to figure out how we can do the research, but not just spend all the money on I heard research, you know, that's very big. I heard education is very big.

But while we're researching and educating, the golden mussels are spawning and growing. And so we have to figure out how do we prioritize containment? How do we prioritize decontamination? And so those are kind of the things that I wanna talk about. So I do have a couple of questions.

I know you're like, where is this lady going with this? I do have some questions if that's okay. Thank you, chair. So when we are talking about the funding when it comes to the Delta, should we be considering using the funding for decontam have you considered, I should say, using some of this funding for decontamination sites? We've estimated that it's at least $1,500,000 to per site for the five sites that are pretty much fighting this right now in the Delta.

So have you thought about or looked at ways to get something to give relief to those that region?

Yes. We have thought about that. Actually, part of our conversations with the water managers in developing the regulation changes that we're that we're talking about is giving us the authority to authorize people to have decontamination sites. So third party businesses, vendors, people that could actually make a business out of this to some extent could offer those services. We've also looked into other locations of where you might be able to strategically place different decontamination sites, whether those are state run or privately run or some other way.

County run is a is a conversation yet to be had about the expenses and the cost and how that would be initially set up. We have also been working with a a company that develops what they call dip tanks, and those can be put on-site and removed. I think you've seen those. Those are just a giant I I'll call it a giant hot tub for for watercraft where you back it in.

It's hot water instead of doing the system that you have to do where you're putting hot water into the boats and checking all the things.

You basically just dip the whole trailer and boat into the water. So we've had lots of conversations around that and ways to work through that. We recognize the impact that the delta has, and that's a big portion of what we're trying to do.

And so when we talk about the staff that we have, they're focused on, first and foremost, working through what the law mandates, which is the water managers need to have these control plants, which are on that side of helping out waters water structures and supply, all the things that you mentioned in the pictures you've shown. We're working through that to help with those managers develop those plans to help them understand what they can do in that space.

The second space we talked about is in your recreational piece that you're talking about. We've been working with those partners. Part of that is education.

Creating a state wide system is part of that process to where we can help educate each of these individuals that operate these marinas, operate these reservoirs, operate these, watercraft inspection station or watercraft stations, to have the education that they need to be able to safely deploy these techniques and tools that we're learning and we have to ensure that boaters have access, marinas stay open, people can safely travel their boat from one location to another.

Okay. So with that being said, if we're we're thinking about these things, why is that not part of the funding? Like, why are we not enumerating? We want dead stations, and how much those are gonna cost, and why are we not immediately deploying these things to these areas if we think that that is a solution? I I I know that this body would move with haste if we say, you know and I'm just saying with urgency because this started in the Delta.

We talked about this, I wanna say, last October. Now it's all the way down south. And so while the Delta is the epicenter, we I appreciate that you're talking about the stations, but I wanna know how do we go from, you know, talking about staffing to actually setting up these here's the dollars that we're requesting.

We're going to put this many dip stations in, and we're gonna send our people out to educate the people on how to use them so that we can start to deal with the actual issue. I hope I'm making sense, and I hope I'm not offensive.

But I I just when you're saying you're thinking about this, have you how many dollars would it cost for each dip station, and how long would it take you to set this up?

We have done some research on that. We have the dollars. We've been working with the companies to figure that out. The department doesn't have the ability to determine which locations it would be and what those costs would be on on capital outlay, if it's state land, if it's private land, leasing it, how that would play out.

So we're having those conversations with the parties that might be interested, but the department doesn't have the ability to to to take that on, if you will, without significant support from finance and and through the other avenues of the the the state.

Okay.

And based on your budget as are you expecting that each individual water manager is going to fund even if there's a private authorized private contractor? So each this is a statewide issue. Right? But we're gonna ask San Joaquin Counties and, you know, Los Angeles County, each water manager, we're gonna authorize them, but then they have to go find the dollars even though the you all aren't able to give them grants.

Do they have to go find their own funding even if you are setting up the ability for them to hire contractors to do this work, private entities to do this work?

Currently, the expectation is that the water body reservoir operator manager would have to fund that unless there's additional funds, which is why last year we redirected emergency funds to go help them in that space to create the decontamination units and the things that they could they could try and buy to help ease that that burden on them to ensure that voting access stays open. You have you have a a mix across the state of folks that are paying attention or able to respond to gold mussel.

We have multiple water bodies in the state that literally have nobody, no person sitting at the entrance to it. We have other folks that have completely shut down their reservoirs and and water bodies, and we have others that have found some sort of a mix to have some kind of a some type of a containment process, inspection process, decontamination process. So we really have a mix out there of of the ability of folks to do this.

And so our job as a department has been to educate them and help them understand what the national standards are, what the processes are that are happening across the West with, dealing with quagga and zebra and other species, which are very similar in this space, and ensure that that those protocols can be used and folks can open their water bodies safely.

But largely, it is dependent on those reservoir operators who have the control to decide to be open or not at this point, to figure out how to financially staff that.

And I'm I'm

I'm gonna ask staff to try to be more efficient in their answers because we are Okay. We this is a $20,000,000 item. We have a couple billion dollars worth of wildfire items that we still have to get done before 12:30. That will be equally efficient. Okay.

What's great? Question. Can I can I do one efficient response on this?

Yes, please. Efficient is what we're looking for.

Assembly member, your questions are very fair. And it's always the question of do you put the dollars on the ground in implementation, or do you invest in staff that can try to work across a broader landscape? Because this is such a small amount of money, we prioritize staff that could support more water managers on the ground versus putting a few limited things in place on the ground. It is a difficult discussion in that trade off.

Okay. Thank you for that answer. So with the staff positions, how will the funds reduce the time in getting the permitting approvals so that the efforts can move forward?

Efficient. The staff will be dedicated to supporting those efforts right now and part of the title 14 regulations we're updating. Currently, when you get a water control plan approved, you are exempt from restricted species and SCP needs for the permitting that you're talking about at least from the department standpoint. So our efforts to update those regulations will include that same provision you have now for Tristanid mussels.

And so, therefore, you will eliminate those needs for the permitting, but you do need to comply with the water control plans.

Okay. And this is a three year three year request. Right? So after three years, what is your plan, if the local, prevention efforts still require intense coordination?

Andrew Hall with Department of Finance. Yeah. This this funding is sort of a three year gap, you know, A B a AB 149 expanded the definition, placed requirements on CDFW. This funding would allow them to get through three years, but also included with that, was legislative intent, to do kind of a broadening, a look at the harbors and watercraft fund administered by parks, invasive sticker fee.

And so this is funding that they're gonna get them through that period until we can do the broader effort.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you all. I just wanna say I I understand that you need money in your department. I just I really implore you to figure out what we can do to help the folks on the ground as this thing is spreading.

And we're in spawning season, so we don't even know what to expect. So thank you for your your time.

Assemblymember Rogers and then Assemblymember Connolly and Assemblymember Rogers, you're gonna have this

Great. I'll be really brief too. I I draw a little bit of a parallel to some of the efforts in my district around Urchin.

of the things that they have been doing is investing in emerging economies or finding an economy that works for that species. Is there any economic potential for the mussels? Because I I I joke, but I'm not joking. If we create an economy that I have full faith in the ability for us to make it go extinct

Yeah. And one

Yeah.

Are there any of those efforts?

I do I'm not aware of any efforts at this time, but that's it's a great question.

K. That's something that I'd be interested in, is if there are potential there because I know that there's a cost side to keeping the muscles clear, especially on critical infrastructure. But if there's some form of economy that can be created that incentivizes folks to help us with that effort, I think that that'd be really beneficial to the state.

Part of what we are looking at is what economy and businesses and jobs can be stood up around, cleaning of vessels and supporting, waterways to be able to be prepared to take those vessels.

Right. Great. Thank you. Assemblymember Connolly?

Thank you. My questions really kind of were in parallel to the assembly member. So just to reiterate, and no need to answer further at this point, but why is the money not going directly to locals who are dealing with the issue on the ground? Really getting more in information on how the positions will interact and collaborate with local managers and our locals in general. Is there funding available to assist water managers directly?

If yes, what is available? So I think we got some answers to that and it sounds like there'll be follow-up discussions. While I have you though, I wanted to ask a non Golden Muscle containment question. And that is, I sent a letter last month about extending, the liquidation date for the CDFW contract with Occidental Arts and Ecology Center for their work to develop and steward a $2,000,000 block grant to implement a program that builds California's capacity for a successful beaver coexistence.

Do you have an update about extending the liquidation date?

Okay.

Good morning. Manisha Kapasiwala, Department of Finance. Finance is aware of and tracking this issue, and any changes that are made to the budget would appear at the time of the May revision. Thank you.

Any other member questions, comments? I'd like to just summarize where we are, and that is I think you've heard from legislators, family member Ransom and and others in particular, that they're questioning how much should we put this into these positions and how much should we put this into, specific programs that are out there. And so I think that remains for us a question.

And so we really appreciate, number one, getting the answer from your department of finance head that will have the itemized breakdown that that will help us. For the benefit of of everybody, I'd like to just give the overview in terms of how I I I see this, and that is we have a crisis with the golden muscle that's come in.

We reassign staff that was working on the quagga. I would hope that we've that that quagga team does not necessarily have to be as large forever that that it is, you know, right now, you know, hopefully, we would get the education done and and be able to have some of those people transition into the gold muscle team. Maybe we don't need as many positions, therefore, in the gold muscle program. So I'd like the Department of Finance to continue to to look at that.

But I I I want to caution us on the other side, which is every water body would like us to fund their gold mussel sort of containment efforts.

And yet no water body wants us to tell them make the major decisions for them about their water body. For example, are you going to have recreation or you're not going to have wreck? Do you wanna have recreation boating? You are putting your water body at a lot more risk, and therefore, those people dependent upon that water body for water potentially have a lot higher expenses. Are the benefits of the recreation enough to off to justify that risk?

Should the state be funding if you decide that you want to have recreational boating on your particular water body? Should the state be funding the golden mussel issue, or should the people taking advantage of that recreation be paying for the actual that it we're we're certainly going to hear from the water bodies that they they want that. So I I it is not an easy as you identified, it's not easy, particularly when you have almost an unlimited demand from water bodies for, this help.

So, specifically, though, you're sort of trying to say we wanna stay away from the actual investments in, you know, dipping tanks and, you know, these other things at at least at this point in time because you don't know how much bang for the buck you get. And if you do it in two or three places, but you you don't do it statewide, etcetera.

So the answer I'm hearing from you is that you have you think you have more leverage with personnel who can then leverage these water bodies to maybe coordinate their investments or coordinate the rules or get grants, etcetera. Canine dogs seem like they're a specific thing. Why is that investment an investment you are making when you're not making these investments and these other things? Can you help us with that?

And if you can't do it in sixty seconds, I'd like to take it offline and have this conversation go offline.

I'd like to take it offline if we can, but

Sure. Okay. Great. That's fine. Because we'd we we need to move on.

So I was trying to do a summary and and ask that

Your summary was excellent, chair. What's that? Summary was excellent.

Alright. Thanks. Alrighty. So we will now go on to what's that? LAO already weighed in that she had nothing to weigh in about.

Right? Yes. She was our most efficient spokesperson today. Alright? Okay.

On on this issue at least. Thank you very much. And we're going to move on to wildfire prevention and response and overview, and this is coming from the LAO's office. And I want to emphasize LAO alone is doing this presentation, and then we will have CAL FIRE representatives up for more specific questions about this. Remember, Ranson, thank you very much, and let's stay in touch.

Alrighty.

Yes. You we have the benefit of having staff plagiarized most of your report and put it in staff's report also. So we have had the benefit of reading your report potentially twice.

So, let's go ahead and get into a quick summary of your report so that we have questions. Right?

Sounds great. Good morning again, Chair Bennett and members of the subcommittee. Brian Metzger with the legislative analyst office. Our office was asked to provide a brief overview of state wildfire prevention and response funding to help set a baseline for the subcommittee's consideration of other topics on today's agenda. And in preparation for this hearing, our office prepared a handout that we will use to guide our remarks today, and you should have received a copy of that ahead of the hearing.

On page one of our handout, we felt it was important to acknowledge the different levels of government that are responsible for wildfire prevention and response activities in the state. In each of these responsibility areas, one or more entities lead the administration and funding of these activities. Who leads the administration and funding of these activities can be important as it informs where and how the state uses its funding for wildfire prevention and response. Most of this is self explanatory. I'll be very quick about it.

You know, first, we have the federal responsibility area, the federal forest service, and the the newly created wildland fire service are the lead entities in that area. Second, the state responsibility area where CAL FIRE is the lead state entity. And third, the local responsibility area where we have local city and county fire departments and fire protection districts that lead those efforts. It's important to say that while each one has its own responsibility within that area, they coordinate across them for things particularly during wildfire response activities.

On page two of the handout, we describe the increase in state funding for wildfire resilience activities over the past several years.

We focus on CAL FIRE, but acknowledge that a significant amount of money has been appropriated to state conservancies and other state departments for these activities. We have a summary figure later in the handout that provides some of that information as well. But on this page, we show that over the past ten fiscal years or so since twenty fifteen, sixteen, the amount of funding for wildfire resilience activities at CAL FIRE has increased from about 100,000,000 to about 700,000,000 in 2526.

The amount of funding has fluctuated over time. A large amount of that new funding came through wildfire and forest resilience budget packages that were approved in '21 and '22.

And since twenty eighteen, nineteen, about 200,000,000 in greenhouse gas reduction fund monies has been available for use on forest health and wildfire prevention, as well as fuels crew crews research and monitoring. We'll come back to those monies later in our testimony and in the hearing as well.

On page three of the handout, we felt it was important for the legislature to have the additional context for the increase in wildfire resilience funding as it still remains a relatively small percentage of CAL FIRE's overall budget about 10 to 20% over time. The vast majority of CAL FIRE's budget remains dedicated to base fire protection, such as firefighting personnel and equipment and to emergency fire suppression through the eFund. We acknowledge that it's also difficult to pull apart CAL FIRE's budget into these respective categories.

So some of that base fire protection money, may be used for some wildfire resilience activities as well. On page four of our handout, we provide the summary figure I mentioned that provides the kind of list of funding categorized for all state departments and conservancies. Just to be clear, this figure does not include prop four funding that will be on the next page. There are a lot of programs on this page, so I won't go into each of them, but I did wanna highlight just a few.

We bucket the greenhouse gas reduction fund monies into two categories.

You'll see the forest health and wildfire prevention category at the top is about $990,000,000, and then there's $210,000,000 for fuels crew research and monitoring. Later in the agenda, you'll be able to see a further breakdown in the agenda of the 200,000,000 for GGRF across the different programs.

You'll see a lot of funding for the forest health program, fire prevention grants, state conservancy projects, and notably less funding for some of the community hardening projects, such as defensible space and home hardening, as will be discussed in a later panel on successful wildfire prevention. And as we noted in our framework on how to approach environmental issues in the governor's budget, it will be important for the legislature to revisit that balance and to make sure that the monies are being expended on its highest priorities.

On page five, we provide a summary of prop four, the, wildfire and forest resilience chapter.

This also will be covered in subsequent items, so I won't go into it too much, but wanted to note that there are additional community hardening monies in this chapter that were not reflected or that that would build on other monies in the previous page. Together with the 3,600,000,000.0 in the previous figure and the roughly 600,000,000 through 2526, that's about 4,200,000,000.0 in total wildfire resilience funding over that period.

There are about 300,000,000 in prop four funds that are proposed in 2627, an additional 600,000,000 that remain to be allocated. However, prop four funding is only available over the next several years. And so for the last page of page of the handout, we wanted to address the issue of ongoing state funding for wildfire resilience efforts.

The agenda poses a question about these sources of funding, and it's an important question as there will be a notable decrease in state funding expected over the next several years as a lot of that one time funding is expended. We find just a couple of sources of ongoing state funding. The first and largest is the GGRF. Again, like we said, since twenty eighteen-nineteen, there's been $200,000,000 as a fixed allocation for wildfire resilience activities.

With the adoption of the new cap and invest structure starting in 2627, the amount of GGRF revenues allocated for these activities may vary depending on the projected revenues for the cap and invest system.

And that is because the new structure prioritizes certain activities based on a tier tiered structure. So while the new structure maintains an up to $200,000,000 in GGRF, The final amount will depend on revenues, and it will depend on how much money is already allocated to those prioritized projects. And so in the governor's budget, they they project that for 2627, GGRF revenues will only be able to fund a 142,000,000 of the 200,000,000 for wildfire resilience activities. Another source is base funding for Cal Fire operations.

It's tens of millions of dollars that go into resource management and fire prevention operations, and some significant portion of that does help with wildfire resilience activities like defensible space inspections.

However, we would note that these are resources that are are occurring through the state budget, through the state, you know, budget process that that we're dealing with today. There are other sources of funding that are available for this work. Notably, utilities that are collecting billions of dollars from rate payers and are extending some of that to, you know, fund fire prevention activities related to things like electricity transmission, you know, undergrounding power lines, you know, clearing vegetation.

There are also long standing federal grant programs that when a major disaster declaration is declared, allow us to have some funding for wildfire resilience activities as well. But again, this issue is a very important one.

And, with that, I'll conclude my remarks.

And if

you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer

those. Great. Thank you. Let's try to do this efficiently. I know we have a lot that we want to do.

I know Assemblymember Rogers indicated and Conley. So we will handle that. Very quickly, the things I'd like focus on is number one. LAO does a particularly good job of giving us overviews and giving us background information. So I appreciate that.

I'm curious as to the capability of LAO to dive in if we ask for identification, a long term ability to dive in because we, from the dais, just have difficulty analyzing how effective is one investment versus another investment are contained burns versus forest clearing versus clearing right around a particular community. And our partners at Cal Fire are, I think, doing a, you know, an improved job of trying to get us that data.

But LAO plays such a unique role in terms of being able to come in and objectively look. I'm interested in LAO playing that role for us, not in every area, but in this particular area because it's so hard for us to identify.

So I'd like you to take that back to the LAO's office and let them know that's something I'd think it'd be really beneficial if we could turn to LAO and say, what's your analysis of CAL FIRE's breakdown in terms of of their spending and stuff.

Right? The second thing is, you know, the ongoing funding that's out there. If it wasn't for prop four, we would really be in trouble in in in a lot of ways. And I think, unfortunately, that's just how we're going to be funding, quite a few of our our environmental programs and was prop four funding. If you look at it probably two more years from now, we're pretty close to having we will be close to expending most of that.

So we have a dependency on that that I hope Cal Fire I mean, LAO could help us start to figure out how can we rearrange because there are many people in the legislature, and I've been upfront with Cal Fire about this, that believe Cal Fire is an essential function of the state of California. It should be funded by California's general fund. We should be allocating a certain percentage of our general fund to Cal Fire.

And instead, we're trying to take it out of temporary sources like GGRF, etcetera. And that is not a healthy way for us to fund as important of a general function of the state of California as Cal Fire is.

I recognize that because of climate change, because we passed a tipping point recently, we have made a commitment to scale up our Cal Fire funding. And so temporarily, maybe difficult for the for the general fund to have taken on that whole spike. And so we have temporarily dipped into g g r f and prop four. But it should be temporary, and we should gradually shift that back to general fund expenditures for that.

So I'd like you also to take back to CALF to LAO that we would really appreciate your an ongoing effort for us to try to help make that shift as we go back.

That's it. I don't have specific questions. I just wanna get those two things said in in, you know, in front of all the stakeholders here and make sure that we're upfront in terms of that. Assemblymember Rogers and then Conley.

Yeah. Thanks so much, chair. I actually just wanna piggyback on that as well and express my concern that in a couple of years when the bond funding and some of the other one time investments are gone, the backfill is GGRF, which the work the legislature did last year deprioritized to a tier three, not a tier one as it had been under the Dodd bill. And I think many of us are expecting that there's going to be very little from, GGRF four tier three priorities.

And so would hope that we and this is for kinda all of these presentations we're about to do.

I'd hope that we can have a conversation about how better to fund those critical services. And I think especially right now when you look at, draws at the local level in the the LRA, which I know is not what Cal Fire is supposed to do, but is increasingly being asked to participate in.

And then also in federal territory, we've seen the US Forest Service just pull back significantly from California, and there'll be an additional poll, I think, on CAL FIRE's resources to try to make up that gap or plug that gap as well.

So I I I hope in the next couple of years, we can talk about what that next step is going to be as those funds start to expire because I do think that there's going to be a need and an expectation from our community that we maintain that that effort.

Assembly member Conley.

Yeah. Very similar. And I think, both colleagues said it well. Obviously, common themes are given the importance of of this block of funding to our communities, the sense is it's very cyclical right now, and it is kind of drawing from different pots of money. I guess a quick couple of questions just, to get your thoughts.

So, I mean, is there a consistent funding amount, that wildfire prevention programs receive? Or is it going to continue to just vary by budget cycle? And kind of related, what options could the state explore to secure ongoing, stable funding for secure ongoing stable funding for wildfire prevention activities?

Yes. Brian Metzger, LAO. That is a very important question. I think based on our, you know, initial analysis of the ongoing state funding that is available for these activities with the new cap and invest structure being dependent, that that portion that's for wildfire resilience activities being dependent on GGRF revenues, it will continue to fluctuate year to year. And the base Cal Fire operations funding is limited in what it's able to assist with when it comes to wildfire resilience activities.

So in terms of you know, to your other question about options for potentially raising, you know, ongoing sources of revenue, I mean, they're

Or and or stabilize.

Or stabilize.

So I think we're pushing back kind of on the premise

Effectively. But go ahead. Yes. Apologies for interrupting. Yeah.

There there are some options that present themselves in terms of revisiting the cap and invest structure the way it's currently, you know, the the tiers are, you know, structured and maybe potentially thinking about whether the tier three allocation should be the way they are, thinking about potentially securing more fixed ongoing funding through the GGRF in that way.

There are potentially, you know, thoughts about reinstating a state responsibility area fee or some other similar fee structure wherein beneficiaries of these fire prevention services are paying for them within the state responsibility area. We understand from, you know, a policy rationale, at least, that that would make sense. We have heard that there are some administrative difficulties with that fee as it was previously structured, but there could be something similar that could provide ongoing funding.

And then as we've mentioned with our framework for budget decisions, thinking about looking at the current Cal Fire budget as it's constructed and the money that we're putting in and thinking about whether the activities that are being funded could be funded in a different way or be used for wildfire resilience activities in a different, mix than is currently envisioned.

Those are kind of three top of mind ideas, but again, we're certainly happy to bring this back and think about it more.

I just wanna yeah. Excuse me. Assembly member, Katie Petronorris, has to leave. She has some questions for Cal Fire, and so she'll be sending those to you and asking you to respond. And if you could if you could copy all of us on the questions and you could copy us on the responses, that way we all have the information.

Thank you very much. Assembly member Gallagher.

Yes. Thank you. So I I wanna agree with comments that were made by the chair and the assembly member. One, we should not be funding suppression out of GGRF. You know, that that should be in our general fund.

I've totally disagreed with moving that over. Yeah. One, reducing greenhouse gas and wildfire prevention activities make a whole lot of sense. And you guys have reported, I think, time and time again that the that activity forestry management per dollar reduces more carbon than many other activities that we do in the state. Is that correct?

Unfortunately, I don't have that information today, but I could get back to you.

It's in your reports, but, you know, so that I mean, to me, you know, we need to get back to a general fund commitment to our men and women at CAL FIRE who are doing, you know, that amazing work fighting these fires, which by the way, we're having to fight these catastrophic fires because we haven't been doing the work on prevention. Right? Which means that should really be the priority, you know, is making sure that we're getting that money up.

But in fact, we're actually decreasing that money. Is that correct?

In this in this year's budget?

In this year's budget for the GGRF component, yes. We're the the $1.42 is less than the 200 that has previously been allocated.

And can I think maybe the peak was 2021 when we, I think, allocated close to about a billion dollars for wildfire prevention and resiliency activities? Is that right?

Have to go back to my chart here. Actually, it was more recent than that. It was 2324. But again, there were significant amounts of wildfire resilience monies that were approved through packages and, as you said, 2021 and 2022. So that may have been the multi year.

Yeah. And I think that's just working that's just tracking CAL FIRE's

Fire resilience funding Correct.

Correct.

Which is

a key part of it, no doubt. But there's other, you know, funding that we put into that. So we we reached about 1,000,000,000. What did we spend last year total on wildfire prevention activities?

Good afternoon. Gabe Tiffany. I'm the chief deputy director for the Department of Conservation. Thank you for the question on the mass timber program. So the intent of that program is to increase adoption of mass timber and residential construction by overcoming regulatory permitting and design barriers.

So funding would be offered via statewide block grant initially. And the recipient could be an established statewide or regional entity with experience in economic development programs and also working across jurisdictions to get to get results in achieving program goals. So then sub grants would be issued to local, regional, or tribal agencies. These would be modeled after existing programs such as the Santa Monica mass timber accelerator program.

Funding to sub grantees would go to technical support for a host of kind of coordination, but especially including, like, local permitting to get these projects off the ground.

Funding would also could also be provided to developers for all kinds of logistical, architectural design, project needs, anything anything to get these projects off the ground.

Do you have a timeline?

We're looking at establishing the program in the the 2627 fiscal year. So I don't have a a a really good idea of when those grants would go out, but program development in the in the next fiscal year.

Great. Thank you so much.

With that, we are ready to move to, non presentation items. And, do any members have non presentation items they want to call?

I think you're just trying to tease them at this point.

That's right. Yeah. There you go. Right. And so we're we're gonna move to public comments.

Really appreciate everybody's time and the cooperation today, right, as we move forward. If the sergeants could give me an idea, are there an an number one, if you're if you're outside and you're going to participate in comments, would you please at least come in? I'm just trying to get an idea of make sure that we can afford to have them. We're gonna be fine. We're gonna be fine.

Yeah. We got to 01:30. Right? Yeah. Alright. Great. One minute for everybody. We look forward to your comments.

Alright. Take two. Good afternoon, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Funds. We're here to continue to support proposed investments, particularly in the wildlife connectivity projects, as well as the reestablishment of the wildlife coexistence program.

We would urge that the legislature work to preserve the connectivity funding and that the final budget include 18,000,000 general fund in fiscal year twenty six, twenty seven, as well as 15,000,000 in ongoing funding to support the permanent positions and associated operating costs for restoring the wildlife code distance program. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Bennett, members, Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. Three quick points. One, I really appreciate all the conversation about having to do kind of everything everywhere with regards to wildfire. I will note that a lot of what was talked about, I think our homeowner responsibilities and local responsibility area actions, and it's called state responsibility area for a reason. That's where our statutory responsibilities are.

So I think that's where a lot of our resources need to be concentrated. With regards to GGRF, my overarching observation there is we really need to fix the allocation of the wildfire from tier three back up to tier one where it was for the last six years. We're gonna be out of bond funding by 2029. And if you look at ARBs projections for GGRF, that will be functionally gone for tier three activities by the early 2030s. That's gonna be our only source of funding.

And lastly, with regards to the trailer bill language proposal, while I appreciate the desire for more flexibility, I think it is important to maintain some call out there for supporting beneficial fire projects, specifically, not just fuels crews and something there's some flexibility there, but something like what Assemblyman Connolly has been proposing makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair. Jennifer Fearing for the National Wildlife Federation. We're here to urge the legislature of the administration to reestablish and augment the wildlife coexistence and the wolf coexistence and compensation program at CDFW. You know, as people and wildlife increasingly share landscapes, proactive coexistence strategies aren't just a nice to have. They are a need to have.

Incident reports with wildlife to the department have increased, close to a third over the last five years during which time calls, emails, and field contacts have increased by 58%. We have workable coexistence strategies. We are not investing in them. We had a successful three year program that ran out of suburban, urban, and rural communities across California. So there are diverse set of legislators and organizations that strongly support ongoing funds and one time funds to, improve coexistence with wildlife across the state. We urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Juliana Tetlow with San Diego Humane Society. I'd like to echo all of the comments made by my colleague, and also just provide a real world example of a, a situation that could potentially have been prevented by the coexistence program. San Diego Humane Society's Project Wildlife in Ramona is one of the few rehabilitation organizations that has a focus on apex predators. We are currently in possession of two bear cubs that are about three months old.

We received them after their mother, Blondie, was killed in Monrovia, and it was largely preventable. I think education would have made a huge difference in how that community interacted with Blondie the bear. It takes extraordinary resources from nonprofits to rehabilitate these bears. They will be returned back into that community, and we are really hoping that this program can be funded and get back into action before these bears these baby bears are back in that same community. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Anjali Ranadeve. I am the founder of Woman for Wolves. Thank you so much for hearing our public comment.

We are a nonprofit and conservation organization as well as a wolfdog sanctuary, and I'd also like to second everything that my colleague said. We've lost over 70% of our wildlife in the past fifty years, so it's more important now than ever to prioritize wildlife coexistence. And a lot of the issues we heard here today, whether it was wildfires or invasive species, a

lot of that could help be mitigated, you know, with protecting our wildlife and our wild spaces. So we are here in favor of funding the wildlife coexistence program and making sure that Fish and Wildlife has everything that they need to continue to do what they do and and more. So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Marina Hatchby. I'm the cofounder of Women for Wolves. Our sanctuary is based in rural El Dorado County where we coexist with mountain lions, coyotes, and other wildlife. We live in nature, and predators are part of a healthy functioning landscape.

And as Anjali said, severe wildfires take over California each year, and coexistence is not only possible, it is vital. And funding co wildlife coexistence is essential for the future of California, and that is why we are all here today. So we do hope that you guys help fund the wildlife coexistence program.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Leumer on behalf of the Karuk tribe. Wanted to echo the comments by Pacific Forest Trust earlier about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and ensuring that we're keeping the wildfire funding in tier one. Also, I wanna just appreciate the discussion on beneficial fire. This is a huge priority for the Kruk tribe.

We were really pleased by the governor's executive order last fall, trying to get more beneficial fire on the ground. But if we're gonna do that, we really need to be sure we're investing in capacity.

And so it's really critical that, we're putting the money forward, so crew could be supporting us in the way we're calling these bill eighteen ninety one or as I like to call it, beneficial fire capacity act that will dedicate 10% of the funding that's going to Cal Fire to make sure it's going beneficial fire capacity. That's gonna be our top priority. Thank you so much.

And then on the wildlife coexistence, I'm just doing a number of me twos. Mountain Lion Foundation, the Wild Futures and Nature's Habitat League, Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, In Defense of Animals, California Wolf Foundation, Center for Environmental Health, Resource Renewal Institute, Environmental Protection Information Center, and Pacific Forest Trust. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon or, Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon Society, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and the Power of Nature Coalition. On item seven, we strongly support the administration's Prop four, proposal. For the Audubon Society in particular, the solvency funding is really critical. We also ask that either as AB 35 or in trailer bill, we deal with the APA exemption issue to get the funding out quickly.

On item eight, which was a non presentation item, we strongly support the funding for the BCP to implement AB 1319.

We are already seeing the Federal Government come after endangered species. They just convened the god squad for the fourth time in history to exempt all oil and drilling oil and gas drilling in the Gulf Of Mexico, and we expect we'll be seeing something like that here. And finally, I would like to echo the the issues already raised by my numerous colleagues regarding the funding of the wildlife coexistence and also mentioning that we also need funding for Wolf management. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brooke Rose from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition commenting on behalf of coalition members, Sierra Business Council, Association of California Water Agencies, California Farm Bureau, Rural County representatives of California, State of the Redwoods League, Climate and Wildfire Institute, Mountain County's Water Resources Association, Regenerative Forest Solutions, and Tahoe City Public Utility District.

On issue number four, we urge the legislature to restore the 200,000,000 from GGRF that was as established in SB 901, and we strongly support the chairs and others comments that the general fund is a more appropriate source for funding essential public services such as Cal Fire operations. On issue number five, we request increasing this year's prop for wildfire funding to 500,000,000 to meet the urgent need for greater investment in wildfire resilience.

Mark said record high temperatures and the April 1 snowpack was the second lowest ever recorded. Now is not the time to cut wildfire resilience spending. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair. Michael Jarred with the Nature Conservancy and the Wildfire Solutions Coalition. First, I would like to thank staff for the excellent agenda document and the committee for this excellent discussion today. Really appreciate the time spent on wildfire resilience. Wildfire risk continues to grow across California, threatening lives, homes, infrastructure, critical natural resources in the state's economy.

Proactive investments in wildfire risk reduction are some of the most effective tools available to protect our state and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Every dollar invested in reducing the risk of catastrophic events, like wildfires, saves more than $6 in damages and cleanup costs and $22 in future economic losses. The majority of Californians strongly support increased state spending for wildfire resilience. The January budget will be one of the lowest investments in wildfire resilience in this decade.

We align our ask the wildfire solutions coalitions to fix that, and thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair and member. Karen Lange on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors. Our assemblywoman really nailed it with the concerns that she raised to you today about the golden mussel. I know you've seen the pictures. The county is at the heart of the Delta, and even though it's, most prevalent there, though our water goes through there south, and so it does have a state impact.

And there are, certain folks at CDFW that have been wonderful to meet with and talk about solutions, but there's a patchwork of different local agencies that are responsible for managing all these different water bodies, and we need money for projects. Certainly, there's not a way to eradicate them yet, but there are a lot of projects that are gonna be very expensive. And, what is invested by the state there is gonna help everybody.

So we'd encourage you to make sure there's money out the door for real projects. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Alex Torres with Golden Bear Strategies here on two clients focused on wildfire mitigation and recovery. First, a non agenda item, for the Thermolito Water and Sewer District would re up, the conversation around our request for the Concow Reservoir. Following the Camp Fire, sediment build up has significantly reduced drinking water and storage capacity, for a, recognized disadvantaged community.

So we're seeking an allocation of prop four funds, exploring federal support, really any sort of funding we can find for this really critical project, but reiterate the need for state partnership to restore reliable safe drinking water access. So thank you to Assemblymember Gallagher, Senator Dolly for both leading that charge.

Second, on behalf of perimeter solutions, perimeter is proud to partner with CAL FIRE on the fire retardant for aerial operations. The same US forest service qualified product can also be used for ground applied mitigation along, high ignition areas. This presents for spending presents a strong opportunity to scale this prevention and mitigation work statewide. Look forward to working and partnering with the legislature, Cal Fire, local governments to get this out. So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Abby Carlson, and I'm here on behalf of California Farm Bureau representing farmers and ranchers across the state. We're here to strongly support the $48,000,000 budget request for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, more specifically for the wolf livestock compensation program.

As Wolf populations continue to expand, our members and ranchers are experiencing more frequent depredations, and this has become a big burden on the department and their staff, and so we're asking the department to do a lot whether that's come and approve the depredations, administer compensation, or just support the ranchers that are dealing with these direct impacts with the Wolf activity.

So we strongly encourage the the the committee to support the request of the the fish and game and or fish and wildlife, excuse me, so that they can continue to fulfill these responsibilities and keep trust in that program. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair. Mark Fenstermaker on a couple of different items. First, item one for Sonoma County Water Agency and the California Tahoe Alliance. Just wanna say that we desperately need more decontamination stations throughout the state. It's really different, conditions for the two clients I just mentioned in Tahoe.

We have very robust, some might say the gold standard of decontamination process, and we really were overrun this past year with so many boats coming up to Tahoe to go through decontamination. And then in Sonoma, it's the opposite. We have no decontamination stations. The nearest is at Lake Berryessa. So if somebody shows up wanting to recreate, we can't let them launch.

They've gotta drive two, three hours away, and we don't even know what happens if they even go through decontamination. Next, on item five for the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, wanna recognize a number of your comments, mister chair, as well as from, Patrick Wright about the the challenges and the different conditions in Southern California as it relates to wildfire resilience. And we just call that a a lot of the funding and prop four for wildfire resilience is aimed at forest health fuels reductions.

We need to work more on ignition reduction.

Thank you.

Thank you. Very much.

Mister chair, Andrew Antwih with Shauler, Antwih, Schmelzer, and Lange here today on behalf on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor and, before and for Comp Cat Ranch. The increasing number of human wildlife contacts presents significant on the ground challenges, including impacts on producers' resilience, ecosystem balance, and overall habitat health. We do realize this is a challenging budget year, but we do respectfully encourage meaningful funding to be directed to CDFW to address this issue. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair. Crystal DeThomas on behalf of the East Bay Regional Parks District. We ask that the legislature maintains the $80,000,000 CAL FIRE local fire prevention grants from GGRF that we saw this past year. They have been crucial in helping us protect the East Bay from fires originating in the grasslands and other open spaces we steward.

And on a separate note, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, we wish to express the support for Prop four's demonstrated job projects appropriation for California conservation course this year. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of Humane World for Animals, echoing a lot of the comments that were made before me in support of funding for CDFW's, wildlife coexistence program. It's really important that we get strategies in place before conflicts occur. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair. I appreciate the committee tackling these issues here on behalf of Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association, in support of CDFW's efforts to help ranchers address livestock interactions, and specifically supporting $18,000,000 in one time and $15,000,000 ongoing for the human wildlife coexistence program, as well as here to support the wolf program at $30,000,000 per Senator Blake Spears, budget request, which enjoys bicameral support. Thanks very much for your time.

Thank you. And seeing no other comments, we will adjourn this meeting and, be back again next week. Thank you very much. Well done. Yeah.