Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 2 on Resources, Environmental Protection and Energy

Senate budget subcommittee number two on resources, environmental protection and energy will come to order. We are holding our meeting in the 0 Street Building. I ask all members of the subcommittee to be present in Room 2200 so we can begin the hearing, but we're gonna begin it begin it as a sub committee. We have 24 issues on today's agenda. We will be discussing seven issues listed in the discussion section of the agenda.

After discussion, we will be we will have public comment on all of the items. We will not be taking a vote today. All items are being held open and would be voted at a future hearing. Let's call roll.

Senators Reyes. Aye. Here. Reyes, here. Blakespear. Choi.

Here. Choi, here. McNerney. Here. McNerney, here.

We have a quorum. Alright. Let's let's start with issue number one. Department overview of the California California Conservation Corps.

We welcome Director Patton. Thank you. Begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Chair Reyes and Members. My name is JP Patton, Director of the California Conservation Corps. And I'd like to talk a little bit about what is not contained in the agenda about the CCC.

This year, the CCC turns 50 years old, and I want to take a moment to acknowledge what that means and what we've learned. Fifty years ago, California and people like us gathering in a room like this made a bet that combining young people with meaningful public service could solve multiple problems at once. It could protect the state's natural resources. It could give young adults without a clear path a foothold in the workforce. It could build the kind of character and civic identity that communities depend on.

California always got more back from the program than it would put in, and that bet has paid off in ways the founders of this program could not have fully anticipated. Today, the CCC operates 26 facilities across California, serving approximately 3,000 of your corps members a year and the 500 dedicated professionals who support them. Corps members aged 18 to 25 up to 29 if they are veterans serve California for one year, and California gives them a future.

The work spans natural resource protection, including trail construction, watershed restoration, wildlife habitat enrichment, fuel reduction, energy and water efficiency, culinary and reforestation. It spans disaster response with crews responding to wildfires, floods, earthquakes, oil spills, agriculture emergencies and public health crises.

In twenty four-twenty five, we logged over 1,000,000 emergency hours. It spans education with core members advancing their academic credentials while they serve. And it spans development and training, building work ethic, technical skills and career readiness that help young Californians build a future. We in California are fortunate to have such a program. The California Conservation Corps is the longest running and largest conservation corps in the United States.

Alongside the CCC, California is home to 14 certified local Conservation Corps serving our communities across the state, which creates an ecosystem of youth service and conservation capacity that exists nowhere else in this country. But know that the Conservation Corps movement outside of California is under pressure in ways it has not faced before. Conservation and youth service corps are struggling. Some have folded, others will follow.

Your continued support of this program has ensured that the CCC remains a beacon, not just for the nation, but for the world.

There are conservation corps being built today in Europe, South America, and Asia, modeled directly after the CCC, in some cases, right down to our very logo. What California started fifty years ago has become a model that the rest of the world is catching up to. I believe that the people who discuss this program's budget in these spaces fifteen, twenty five, fifty years ago would be very proud of how far this program and department has come.

A lot of what the CCC has built is now simply part of the fabric of California. The trails, the restored watersheds, the communities and towns that did not burn because the crews got there first.

The young adults who went from uncertain starts to meaningful careers, much of it is taken for granted now, which is the surest sign that it has worked. I wanna take a moment to thank the CCC staff across all of our centers and the corp members themselves for the work they do and the service of their states, and to the legislature for providing the continuity and stability the young folks of California so rightly deserve.

The proposals for you today are about protecting the program and positioning it for the next fifty years. In brief, they are the Greenwood Residential Center. The legislature has invested $73,500,000 to build it to last another fifty years, and we need the people and program to use it.

On the wildfire readiness seven day schedule, we are choosing to align our 33 CAL FIRE hand crews with a true year round seven day operational schedule and to close the structural staffing gaps that left crews unavailable when California needs it most.

$5,000,000 for one time deferred maintenance to address a backlog of deferred maintenance issues across all of our 26 facilities, vehicle replacement to replace 84 essential vehicles, and of course, Prop four, of which we are extremely proud, to unleash $9,900,000 for the 14 certified local core with shovel ready projects and approximately $1,500,000 for workforce development projects with our California Native American tribes. And with that, I welcome your questions.

Good morning. Julianne Rolf for Department of Finance. We don't have any comments at the moment, but we're happy to take questions.

Thank you. LAO?

Brian Metzger, LAO. No comments on this issue, but happy to take questions.

Thank you. Let's bring it to the dais numbers. Senator McNerney. Senator McNerney.

Thank you, Chair. And I just wanna say I, I really do appreciate the work, of the CCC. I've met with these young, workers and they what's the saying? They're underpaid and overworked, and and they do excellent work and it transforms their lives and it transforms community. So I applaud the the conservation corps and urge you to continue the good work.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you. Senator Choi?

Thank you. And then also I wanna thank you Director Patton for directing the wonderful program. Conservation service, conservation core was not familiar to me in the beginning, but serving in this committee, I'm getting more informed about it. So many areas of not only disaster aid and working with the CAL FIRE anywhere and then also wildfire prevention, maintenances, etcetera. So doing this wonderful work for fifty years, that's remarkable.

I wonder all of this work will require substantial amount of money. Is that the budget, the $213,000,000 that I see on the first page, total expenditure of all funds, is that the total budget?

That's correct.

Okay. So this funding entire $200,000,000 about $213,000,000 is that all funded by the state or do you have any sources that you generate the revenue for by providing your service and what percentage does it take? And then also following to that, there will be any agencies or businesses make donations to your service?

So that is correct. The fiscal model for the California Conservation Corps is what we sort of referred to as a 55 - 45 split. So 55% of our funding comes from the General Fund. The balance comes from the reimbursement in the projects that the corp members go out and do. So many of our corp members go out and do these wonderful conservation projects and charge a fee for the service.

That's about 40%.

45% or so. Correct.

Okay. Has it been steady or as your service expands and then also number of your service core members are growing, this revenue portion is growing, someday it may exceed the state general fund?

It's typically been steady. Actually, it's typically been steady and that's been consistent for quite some time in fact. A lot of the partners that we go to for those fee for services are other like local governments, county governments, the Federal Government. And so those are our partners in those particular spaces. But it has been fortunately quite steady.

Yes. I see your budget has been steadily growing. That was about $180,000,000 in two years ago, 2024, 2025, but now is $213,000,000 So this increase of the expenditure is due to the growth of the program or inflation or what is causing this increasing expenditures?

Julianne Rolf again for Department of Finance. So that $180,000,000 number are the actuals for 2024, 2025. And so in terms of like the actual appropriation, it was higher than that. So that's accounting for the savings of unspent expenditure authority for that year. And so the conservation course budget has remained relatively steady the last few years.

So we're happy to provide you a year over year authority if you request that, but for in terms of overall budget, it's been fairly steady.

So with the projected budget about 54 about

did you say 55% now from the general budget, It has been steady, that's what you said. But from that budget, obviously, nobody will say we have enough funding or raise a shortage of funding for your activities. If the my two part question is this budgeted budget sufficient to your goal for this year and coming year? And if it is a short, what is it being sacrificed because of the shortage of the budget?

As program, this is sufficient for us. There are a lot of great things that are included in these proposals and a lot of great achievements and accomplishments we're looking forward to, including the bringing on the new residential center in in Greenwood.

Okay. Who is the your largest revenue generating, so to speak, client? Will it be Cal Fire?

It would be a combination. It could be Cal Fire. It could be state parks. But we sort of we have a a network of our partners under the California Natural Resources Agency that we provide service to. When we do flood work, it's the Department of Water Resources.

When we do trails and maintenance, it's state parks. CAL FIRE represents about 30% of our program.

Okay. You may know Orange County has a very large amount of open space, and that's a nonprofit organization called Irvine Conservancy, I believe. Are you familiar with that? Are you working with them as well or do you provide any service with them? Do you have any contracts with them?

I'm not familiar with them, but the fact that they are a non profit and a conservancy means that we can do work with them. And so and that's we do a lot of work with Fire Safe Councils, resource conservation districts, other conservancies across the state and so absolutely we happy to partner with them.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Director Patton, I you've been in this position now for a few years. So my first question to you is in that in this time what have you learned that you think are good lessons, things that we should they're good and and where are do you see the improvements that are needed in the future?

The lessons I have learned, I think the this generation is wildly fascinating. They are people who when I started in this program, you could talk to folks who were interested in joining this program and they would be really bought in to sort of like the aspirational messaging behind it. I think with this generation currently who are coming into the program, they sort of see right through that. They wanna know exactly what they are giving into. They want to they are willing to serve.

They want to serve. They want to have their life transformed, but they also wanna know crystal clear what they are getting into. And so that is really, really exciting. I'm really proud of, in these two years, sort of a stretching the circle open of who can serve in the CCC. I'm really, really proud of that.

We've increased the number of women who are serving in the corp. We have produced and increased the number of people who are living with disabilities to serve into the corp. The generation knows that our outcomes are what really is walking the walk for us. They say, hey, the CCC promises to transform me in one year. I give them a year of my life, and I know at the end of this, I'm gonna need you to have I'm definitely have some scholarship money.

I can pursue higher education, and it's very likely they'll have a career in the natural resources. And so that's great. That's where we wanna keep going on. In terms of things we want to improve on, we're all over the state of California. We have 26 facilities and our attention has been focused on making sure that we're taking care of those facilities.

So they are spaces for these young people to develop properly. It's, like, essentially a college campus. You have your recreation spaces. You have your therapy spaces. You have your high school classes.

You have your kitchen. You have your dorm room. It's sort of an all wrapped around service. Making sure that that goes and is safe and healthy for our corp members is important. And then also, just making sure that we're telling the story of our successes is important and also the value that the core brings to California.

And so a lot of investments and making sure that our data is great.

And do you and how do you follow-up with the youth that have completed your program?

We do and it is hard. It is hard. It's tricky to nail down a 19 year old or 20 year old once they have left our program. But we have the navigator program from the legislature here that is actually wildly successful. And so we spend a lot of time.

There's multiple state agencies that we work with to find this data, Cal Fire, EDD. But sometimes, it's just a good old picking up a phone, calling in, checking in. How are you doing? What are you up to? What have you been going on?

Six months since you've left the corp. A year since you've left the corp. So that's what it looks like and we need to get better at that.

That's wonderful. Yeah. I joined with my colleagues about talking about how exciting it is. The we have in San Bernardino County, we have our local conservation core, magnificent

Thank you.

young people and I've met with them and and see I love the the motto if it is a motto from uncertain starts to meaningful careers and they talked about that because of what they learn while they're there and those are all transferable skills.

That's right.

And that's it's wonderful to see. Now there's a question from Senator Choi regarding the funding. My question is it's clear that the majority comes from the general fund. We also have GGRF, Prop 68, Prop four. That's right.

And then the the the the license Environmental license plate. Have has the corp considered other opportunities to pay for program costs such as increasing the fees for the work performed by the corp members?

Yeah. Absolutely. So every year, we do an assessment of what our fees are and we adjust accordingly. However, again, as I've mentioned, a majority of the contracts come from other state funding sources. And so is it a cost that is passed on may result in pricing ourselves out of work?

Because we have that 55, 45 split, we also wanna make sure that we remain a corp for all communities and that people can still afford our services, and not just the well resourced areas or the, organization that have sophisticated staff that know how to navigate our bureaucracy. And so, although we are entrepreneurial in nature, we don't aim to make a profit as a state agency. So we we set our reimbursement to offset our Collins Dugan, and just keep that salt keep that solvent.

Wonderful. And I'd like to add. So when we talk about that 55, 45 split, those are for baseline crews. A large portion of the general fund that the core has is also for fire crews. They are 100% funded by the general fund.

And so when we talk about the split and finding other fund sources, the fire crews themselves are 100% general fund. So that's what's contributing to that larger portion.

Any other comments? Well, we're very excited and happy anniversary.

Thank you.

Keep up the great work. Our our youth having these opportunities and I appreciate that this generation is saying what what am I going to get in the end. I will give you my year but but do tell me what I'm going to get in the end and they get a whole lot. And I've heard from many of them and they're excited about it and they are receiving the benefit of great skills. And they are helping California.

So all around it's all good.

So we appreciate it. Thank you so much. On issue number two, you did talk about the Greenwood Residential Center staffing and operations. Is there anything further you'd like to add on issue number two?

It is.

Yeah. Just a few comments on that. Again, the residential center, we're thankful for the investment of $73,500,000 to demolish and rebuild the center in El Dorado County. Construction is on track for completion later this year. What this proposal funds is the people and programs needed to actually use it.

The original Greenwood crews moved to the new Delta Center in Stockton when the facility opened in 2018, and now we are ready to reactivate Greenwood. The need is specific to this location. The Tahoe Center is about 80 miles away. When mountain roads close in the winter, Western El Dorado County loses access to the nearest CCC facility entirely. Green was the only solution for that region during those conditions.

The fuel break work this center has historically provided is essential to reducing wildfire risk in one of the state's most vulnerable regions. Reestablishing Greenwood restores a critical workforce that can respond quickly and support a wide range of conservation and emergency response efforts. Corp members of Greenwood will perform vegetation management and fuel reduction across El Dorado County. They will support flood response and general emergency operations. Our modern campus houses 100 corp members with 19 on-site staff, and Greenwood follows that same structure, plus five headquarters support positions.

A few final points I would like to make. Our modern residential center is built on the fiscal model of that that CCC funding, which requires a critical mass of corp members earning reimbursement on fee for service projects to stabilize and subsidize the overhead. Fallen below that threshold, and you start to leave the money. It's also worth noting that there are no fully funded fire crews or GGRF energy crews at Greenwood, meaning every single corp member at this location will be earning that fee for service reimbursement.

The good news is those reimbursements are reinvested to support corp member programming and benefits.

Limiting the number of corp members or delaying start up sort of reduces our ability to recover funds and undermines the cost efficiency of the model. So look forward to answering any additional questions you have on the residential center.

Thank you. Sarban Finance?

Yeah. Just like to add and reiterate, this is a residential facility. And in terms of of the corp's mission and their success, residential facilities have historically been a more stable living, work, and training environment. And so the success of these corp members, has shown to be higher when they have, when they're participating in a residential facility. So just wanna highlight that benefit.

Thank you. Elio?

Brian Metzger, Elio. As with a lot of the proposals that the subcommittee will hear today, this proposal does have merit as it would staff Greenwood Residential Center and increase the amount of conservation and wildfire related work that the corps is able to complete.

However, consistent with the framework that our office presented to you, on approaching environmental related spending proposals in the governor's budget, In light of the budget condition, we recommend that the legislature at least consider options to modify proposals such as the one to reduce such as this one to reduce pressure on the general fund.

A couple of examples of how to modify this proposal include funding fewer than the 100 new corp members proposed at the center, and instead use some number of existing corp members that could transfer to the center, or postponing the opening of the center for a set amount of time. We are not recommending either option at this time and do acknowledge that these options would come with trade offs.

But in light of the projected structural deficits, we recommend the legislature keep it off its options open.

Very good. Thank you.

No comment from me. I'm Department of Finance, here for more support.

Great. Thank you. Let's bring it back to the dais. Any other questions on Greenwood?

Director Patton, I heard you mentioned Stockton. Could you elaborate a little bit on the connection to Greenwood please?

Yeah. When we sort of demolish the Greenwood Center, the resources there moved over and filled up the, the Stockton Center in, in the, we would call the Delta Center in the Stockton area. And so, Greenwood has been vacant. We demolished it. We built a new center.

So, now, we're looking for the core members and the staff to replenish Greenwood.

So, you'll be moving them back to Greenwood.

Completely new, actually.

I'm sorry?

All new core members, all new staff. The folks who are at Stockton and the Delta Center will remain there.

Okay. Alright. Thank you.

I have a question.

Senator Choi.

Yeah. I'm not familiar about the—your Greenwood Residential Center.

Is that the place you give training or are they stationed there waiting for responding or maintaining resource, or whatever natural demands that they may need their service? Is that the 24-hour living and working space for them, and then that the capacity is a 100 people in the center and with a 19 step—staff members? Do you have entire 19 staff members altogether, or are you asking for additional staff for that service center?

So, you are correct. It is a place where they both are living and, and also training. It is a—and 100 core members will be living up there. It takes 19 staff members to run that operation when we have a 100 core members living there.

So, you have all the staff in place?

Not yet. We'll begin hiring the staff in July and beyond. And so, we'll hire the director, we'll hire the project manager who will go out and find all of these great conservation projects and bring on the staff. We'll hire the administrators to sort of make sure we're ordering the food and the supplies and the uniforms. And so, we'll begin that process in July.

Yeah. Regarding that, the full staffing, given ongoing staffing challenges across CCC operations, the proposed—the proposal—assumes a full staffing at the opening without evaluating a phased ramp up. What would a more gradual approach look like? And what are the associated cost savings for—or trade offs?

So, we are doing a.

Together or gradual ramp ups?

This will be a gradual ramp up. And so, we will bring on, beginning in July, starting with three of that 19 staff complement that we were talking about. And it'll take some time for those staff to hire their subordinate staff. We also anticipate that core members would likely occupy the center beginning in January 2027, so, there is a bit of a runway that's happening between July and January.

So, there is a gradual ramp up to full occupancy.

I see. I would assume that finding staff members would be less problematic, but service core members of recruiting, do you have any trouble finding enough core members to serve in the OCC?

Not at all. I think the last time we were together a year ago, I mentioned that our wait list was 500 folks. It is now 5,000 people are on the wait list to join the California Conservation Corps. And so, opening it.

Oh, so you have oversubscribed.

Oh yeah. We're—we need 10 more centers.

Oh, okay. If so, then, that's like the college admission.

Yeah. It is.

Thousand positions, so, 10,000 applied than universities that do have selection criteria such as GPA or SATs. Do you have a selection criterion or is on waiting in sequence first come first served basis? So, what criteria do you use?

It's actually in our, in our, in the mandate, in our PRC that the only requirements to serve is that you are—have a willingness to serve and a willingness to do hard work and that our core members pass a physical. Of course, they're all adults over, over 18, but we don't apply any other criteria or constraints just so we can make sure that anyone wants to serve can serve.

So, so, what is your practice at this time in the first come, first serve on, on from your waiting list? Is that your, your, your methodology about meeting them?

It is. Yeah. And it's, it's pretty complex, and core members have the opportunity to say, hey, you know, I, I wanna go to this particular center, or I have family here, so I wanna stay in this particular area, so, we try to honor that. Dorm space is also sort of a, a limiting factor as well, but it is sequential first come, first served basis.

And currently, you know, I think the—it takes about a year for a person to join the core. And so, by the time a person actually steps foot into that core, that person wants to be there.

Oh, okay. A related question is that—I might have missed it—when, how, how long is the training program, or, or, or is it like a military service? So, when you sign up, how many years are they committed to, or obligated to stay?

We ask that they sign up for one year of service.

One year?

Yeah. That's the minimum. Now, they can extend and go up to three years. But in order for them to extend their time with the CCC, they have to be on a demonstrated progressive track of, hey, we're doing more credentials, we're developing our leadership, we're, we're, you know, more involved in taking a leadership role and guiding and mentoring other core members in the program.

Okay. During that training period, are they—I'm sure that for whatever various reasons, some, some dropouts. So, what is the rate of a dropout? Five percent, ten percent? And what are the reasons?

We can give you the actual figures to your office, but the reasons, they vary. I mean, sometimes the work is hard. And I think sometimes it is a shock to folks how hard the work is. The days are long.

You wake up at the crack of dawn, you make your breakfast, you make your lunch, you do your roll call, you go out, you work a ten hour day, you come back to the center, you might have to be go to school to complete your high school diploma.

Like a military start?

It feels like it. Yeah. We have a crew-based model. That means you're in a cohort of, of 12 other people. So, it's, you know, Marine Corps, Peace Corps, California Conservation Corps.

Speaking of Peace Corps, I was a Peace Corps.

I know you were.

Okay. Your earlier times, you mentioned that there are some disabled applicants. If they are physically disabled, how can they serve peace corps?

That's a good question. And so, the folks I was talking about are people living with disabilities. We have a special program where folks who are on the autism spectrum are enrolled in the program, and it's probably—it's incredibly meaningful opportunity for us and for them. And so, it just goes to show that all types of people can serve in the CCC.

Oh, so you are trying to accommodate them, to nurture them?

That's right. And we work with a special partner who has the skills and the training to help us with that.

Very considerate. Very nice.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Choi. Alright. Any other questions, comments?

We're on the CCC part. Right?

The Greenwood Residential Center.

Okay. Oh, well, I, mine is on issue number three which is the CCC on the next one.

Okay. Alright. This concludes issue number two. Let's move on to issue number three. Wildfire readiness seven day per week schedule with CCC hand crews.

Alright. 1,000—1,000 and counting, I should say. The CCC CAL FIRE partnership has produced more than 1,000 professional firefighters since 2018. Every one of them started as a core member. That is a result of a program the legislature supported designed to put young Californians in the field, doing real firework alongside CAL FIRE, earning those recognized credentials and leaving ready for a career.

But the model only continues to work if it keeps pace with the reality it is preparing people for. And the climate reality we live in today has outpaced the current calendar. We know wildfire is no longer seasonal and it is year round. In our lifetimes, we have witnessed this shift. Nine of the twentieth largest fires on record occurred in 2020 and 2021, and the fire season has expanded by at least seventy eight days since the 1980s.

CAL FIRE has adapted to move into a sixty six hour, seven day per week, year round operation model because the threat demands it. The CCC has not been resourced to evolve alongside that shift. If we do not close that gap, we face two consequences: wWe become less effective as emergency response partner to CAL FIRE and the state, and we become less effective as a workforce development pipeline for the next generation of firefighters following the footsteps of those 1,000 core members.

During what used to be the off season, crews work four days a week, ten hours a day.

And during peak season, April through November, crews rotate to provide seven day coverage. That has been the full extent of our operational capacity. This has created a persistent structural staffing gap. Each crew requires one conservation supervisor, excuse me, one conservationist and 12 core members to remain operational under the CCC CAL FIRE agreement. There is no relief staffing built into that structure.

When a conservationist is unable due to excuse me, unavailable due to illness, leave, training, or promotion, with CAL FIRE, the entire crew can go offline. That also means CAL FIRE personnel assigned to that crew may not have a unit available to deploy with. Over the past five years, CCC hand crews have failed to meet CAL FIRE minimum staffing requirements in fifty seven of sixty months. On average, about 20% of our crews were unavailable at any given time. Just imagine if those resources were whole.

There's also a program integrity issue. The CCC is not only an emergency response workforce; it is a youth development program established in statute. When crews are consistently stretched to meet operational demand, core members lose access to training and education that is at the core of our program.

They shift from trainees in a developmental pipeline to primarily a labor workforce, and that was not the intent of the program and it's not what core members were told that they were getting when they signed up, and it is not how we sustain a long term pipeline into fire and land management careers.

This proposal restores that balance. It provides relief staffing needed to ensure crews are reliably operational. It strengthens supervisor training, culinary and administrative support so the crews can safely maintain seven-day readiness, and it preserves the training and development mission that produces real career pathways. According to FEMA, every $1 spent on wildfire prevention saves $6 to $11 in disaster recovery. The scale of the cost avoidance is staggering.

So, denying the funding doesn't save the state $11,000,000; it shifts the financial burden from inexpensive prevention to expensive, catastrophic recovery. But the outcomes are straightforward. CAL FIRE receives more consistent and reliable seven-day crew coverage year round, corps members receive the training and development they were promised, staff receive the support needed for sustainable operations, and California is safer and preserves proven pipeline has already produced many professional firefighters.

Thank you. Department of Finance, LAO.

Brian Metzger, LAO. We find that this augmentation of the corps hand crews would help provide relief to existing hand crews, allowing them to maintain their current capacity, even when some members are temporarily unavailable due to injury or illness. And if fully funded, the proposal would allow hand crews to operate on a daily and year round schedule consistent with CAL FIRE's requirements. However, this proposal could be funded at a lower level to make progress towards its intended objectives without spending as much general fund.

The legislature could, for example, prioritize relief funding for existing hand crews, thereby reducing attrition and burnout, and the legislature also could consider whether some of the hand crew operations could qualify for at least some reimbursement if they work on fuels reduction and other projects when not responding to wildfires.

We acknowledge that a lower level of funding would come with trade offs, reducing hand crew availability during certain times of the year. However, we recommend the legislature continue to consider potential alternatives to fully funding this proposal.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to the dais. Senator Blakespear.

Okay. Thank you. I, I noticed in the briefing material that it says that the augmentation would help offset a declining number of hand crew staff by incarcerated individuals. So, I wanted to ask about why that number is—why incarcerated individuals are declining.

In relation to the CDCR Cal Fire crews, yeah, so, a number of bills in recent history, which I think the chief will explain, has added or contributed to the reduction in just incarcerated people in general and then also with the pandemic that kind of added to the acceleration of the reduced crew, but please.

Good morning, Chair Reyes, committee members. Matt Sully, Deputy Director, Corporate of Fire, with oversight of the Hand Group Program. So, as it comes to our, our crew numbers, we had historical highs with CDCR pre-2018 at 196 crews. Since then, through legislative reform and rehabilitation efforts, we've reduced that down to 65.

And so, in fiscal year '21-'22, our efforts with California Conservation Corps, military department, and our own internal model bolstered some of that backup, but this effort still helps restore some of those legacy numbers that we had in pre-2018.

But this, when you're saying this effort, what you're—are you talking about the non-incarcerated individual effort or are you talking about trying to bring back the incarcerated individual number?

Our, our attempt is pre-2018, we had a 196 hand crews staffed seven days a week, 365 days a year. And since with the legislative form and the rehabilitation efforts, has drastically reduced creating a hole in our hand crew program for immediate response. And so, this effort doesn't bolster the incarcerated population, but does enhance overall Cal Fire's approach with the hand crew program with the four models we have, attempting to restore to those legacy numbers and the coverage we once had across the state.

Okay. Yeah. And maybe this is a little bit beyond the scope of like this budget hearing, but I guess I was trying to get a handle on it does seem to me like incarcerated individuals are getting a lot of value from the training and then the potential to work when they are no longer incarcerated.

And there's a really important sense of purpose and mission and that we should be there all—it also seems like financially, there was a discussion about how much people are paid when they're incarcerated and that. But, but, it, it, it just seems like it would be a good bang for our buck in terms of helping people get the training, having important work done.

And so, the fact that that number has fallen so substantially to me seems, like maybe that's not ideal, and we should be working on that. So, I was really trying to get a handle on why is that number down so much. And I'm gonna circle back to the question of getting you to full staffing. But I just was trying to understand why that number—the number is also so small compared to the overall number of incarcerated people.

I don't think it's likely that it's because we have fewer incarcerated people overall because people still wanna be firefighters.

So, is there—did you wanna respond to this?

Yeah. Stephen Benson, Department of Finance. I don't cover the CDCR budget, so I'm limited into what I can say, and, and the folks that do cover that will be able to talk more about CDCR setup. But I, I think there is a change in the number of incarcerated individuals who are qualified to be able to work, or to, to be in the conservation camps and then to work on the fire crews, I think, is part of the issue. So, it's not just an overall prison incarcerated population.

In order to qualify to be in a conservation camp, there's certain criteria that have to be met, in terms of level of risk and things like that.

When we have done realignment and other types of reform over the years, that primarily impacts the lower security individuals who are most eligible for camps and for fire crews. Those are primarily who have been shifted to counties and things like that. And so, we may, I don't know the exact number, so the total population, maybe it hasn't changed a great deal, but the segment of that population that qualifies for camps and for fire crews has changed significantly.

And CDCR and Cal Fire do work regularly all the time trying to see, you know, flesh out, you know, who's eligible, it's a volunteer thing, so they have to be interested in doing it. So, they work a lot to try and flesh out like who's eligible, let's identify them, let's see if they want the opportunity.

I think what's been demonstrated over the last five to ten years is that they're just—the pipeline in has not rebounded from what it was. We've struggled frankly over the last five or six years to maintain 65 incarcerated hand crews. It seems to be rebounding a little bit, maybe we're working a little closer to 70-ish at this point.

With some recent operational changes in line with six hour work week, they've, they've worked on trying to do some sort of reorg, capturing capacity and stuff like that. We're, we're currently set up for capacity to handle about 95 incarcerated crews.

Hopefully, at some point, we can get back to that. There's, like I said, there's continued efforts to try and get there, but we just aren't seeing that pipeline rebound.

I appreciate that answer. Okay, so, one, one other question I wanted to ask about is just, it's, it's really, getting at, at innovation around fire suppression and fire management, and I'm a recent evangelist for goats.

And so, you know, what hand crews are doing verse you know, ten years ago, thirty years ago versus what they're doing now, and how much brush can be cleared from these little animals that, you know, leave the, the pellets for the nutrition for tomorrow, and don't, don't, you know, have the need to have so many people sitting there digging out their, the trenches, and on the sleep steep slopes and all the things that are really difficult about managing and preventing wildfires.

I'm just wondering if you could address that. Essentially, there any potential reduced need for hand crews because we're looking at innovations in this area.

So, with the hand crews and the grazing, two different disciplines that have different effects in the end. But if anything, we have seen many times—in January '25 was a perfect example—where the state still was short of hand crews. And we utilize hand crews in many different fashions, but the—when we talk about wildfire suppression, our hand crews go where our equipment can't.

And every incident has a component where there's a spot somewhere on the incident that mechanized equipment just can't get to, but we need that fire line to complete the box. So, that's one component and, and you go back to our pre-2018 with a 196 crews, that is the struggle that we face right now is still, we still haven't achieved with the approval, since fiscal year '21-'22, that number for crews statewide.

As it relates to non-wildfire suppression, our hand crews are at the center of the fuel reduction efforts statewide partnering with state, federal, and local partners, and we need that asset to continue when they're not on a wildfire incident.

Okay. I mean, I guess I'm not getting at mechanized equipment. I'm, I'm specifically asking about goats or, or herd animals in general if there are other, types that would be used. I don't know if anybody is able to. Are you utilizing those more?

I mean, it does seem like there are many cities and counties that are doing it. It's coming more into my area, which is Southern California. It used to be, I think, predominantly in Northern California. But, you know, is that part of the innovation of looking at how can we manage enormous acreage and an effective way to try to reduce wildfire risk?

We've used goats at our Placer Center in Auburn, and that's just to clean the grounds of the areas. They'll climb up the trees. They'll, they'll put snags. But beyond that, we haven't gone beyond using it in our own personal spaces. But they've been really, really effective, so...

Well, I would urge analysis of this. So, it might allow you to do a lot more with a lot with, you know, with the crews that you have. Yes.

I was just gonna add that I, I think, to Chief Sully's point, that the, the hand crews that we deploy have to have sort of a dual mission prep. They're both fire suppression, fire protection, as well as fire prevention. And I think where we sort of draw a little bit of distinction is the, the goats and herd animals are incredibly effective for prevention things, but they need to have resources available that can also be deployed in, in like a suppression type of model.

And I mean, obviously, you're not gonna send herd animals to go cut a fire line when there's an active fire, like that would be crazy. So, in, in that model, we need to make sure we have the hand crews so they can be used, and if they're not doing suppression and protection work, well then, we also use them to do fuels reduction prevention type of efforts.

I think a lot of the, like, grant programs that Cal Fire and others do for forest health and and things like that, that's where I think you see a lot of the funding going towards, like, the herd animals and stuff for for fire prevention because they can do a grant that's, you know, not during an actual incident to help support that type of stuff.

Right. Okay. I hear what you're saying. You're saying they need to be around for the crisis when there is a fire, of course, so we need fully to be fully staffed, but then what are they doing when there's not an active fire?

So, we should they should be doing suppression. Yeah. I, I mean, in, in terms of CAL FIRE's mission and how it's accomplishing its mission, the hand crews are an important part of that. It does—so, I, I appreciate that answer as well. Okay.

Well, I appreciate the perspective that was shared, that Cal Fire has expanded. I think its budget has doubled in, I think, it's five years. And we did a lot of that work in this committee last year, too, related to the sixty six hour week and then, also, just in general, realizing that we need to be more, more staffed and more resourced if we're going to effectively fight fires in California.

So, having the CCC be able to mirror that to some degree and not be left behind is really important. So, I appreciate that.

There is I think there's an important point that the LAO made about prioritizing a workforce that has relief, and making sure that that's staffed according to the number of days you could do that. Instead of spreading everybody so thin and having it be across more days, you could have, you could organize it differently. So, I think there's an important point to that too.

Yeah. I'd just like to note that we're, this proposal isn't spreading thin by having seven days. It's essentially going from 33 individual crews, for four days a week to 19 crews on any given day because we're moving from everyone working the same four days during the week to having four days with one overlap day and another four days.

So, so, we can scale up back up to the 33 crews too if there's, you know, urgent need related to a fire, but it's more of a platoon model similar to CAL FIRE, not exactly the same because that would be a lot more expensive to go to three platoon, but these core members will work the ten hour, four days a week so they can have some time for the training mechanism that they all are joining the core for so they can prepare for their careers.

Okay. Well, thank you very much.

The inmate fire, fire hand crews. I had the privilege of working on the issue. We had AB 2147 signed into law 2020 where our inmate firefighters would then—once they completed it and had their certificate, they could then go through court system for an expedited expungement of their conviction. And that allowed them to then sit for the exam for EMT. Otherwise, they could not sit for the exam because they were convict—convicted felons.

So, we're very proud of that legislation but the numbers have decreased. The number, I, I heard, anecdotally from some criminal defense attorneys who, whose clients were very excited about being able to participate in the program because they knew that after they completed it, they could request the expedited expungement. And some who lamented they got out too soon and didn't get to participate. But the number of inmates has, has decreased.

We recognize that and there has to be some other way to help with providing the hand crews that are needed to, to supplement the work that Cal Fire is doing to keep us safe.

So, I wanted to, to share that. There's a lot of work that was done and we're very proud of that work. So, thank you so much. That completes issue number three. Let's move on to issue number four, department overview of CAL FIRE.

We said Cal Fire but it's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. We forget about the forest but not today. Alright.

Well, good morning. Thank you, Chair Reyes and members of the committee. My name is Anale Burlew and I have had the honor of serving for the last 25 years, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Cal Fire. And I currently serve as our Chief Deputy Director of Operations. So I appreciate your time, this morning.

So with an incredible team of over 13,000 employees, Cal Fire is responsible for stewarding and protecting over 31,000,000 acres of state responsibility area lands. These are our watershed lands across the State of California. We are so fortunate to live and to work in such a beautiful state where fire has always been part of.

The natural, part of our ecology and our landscape. But due to changing climate, extreme weather, drought, diseases, dense and overgrown vegetation, and more and more population moving into these rural communities and wildland areas, we face more large damaging and catastrophic wildfires than ever before. We recognize that addressing the wildfire crisis requires an all the above approach, which includes a robust fire protection response, vegetation management to help restore resilient and healthy landscapes, community level preparedness, and parcel level mitigations.

And we know that this is working because of the proof that we are seeing in our fuel effective treatment fuel treatment effectiveness reports as well as our defensible space inspections. But we can't do this alone.

Today, CAL FIRE and all of us that call California home are charged with preventing devastating fires, hardening our communities, and restoring healthy landscapes that are not only resilient to wildfires, but also naturally thrive with beneficial fire. CAL FIRE's Office of the State Fire Marshal continues to lead the way using science to develop and implement best practices for community wildfire preparedness and fuel reduction strategies to create resilient communities and landscapes. CAL FIRE's natural resource management program is responsible for protecting and restoring the watersheds of California.

These watersheds is where the drinking water for all Californians come from and the water that is so needed to grow California agriculture. In 2025, CAL FIRE responded to over 600,000 emergencies.

8,000 of those were wildfires. And 2026 is off to a rapid start with large fires already in Los Angeles, Kings, and Riverside Counties. We know that with the extreme heat that we've already seen in March, those record breaking high temperature days, as well as our decreased snowpack, that 2026 is set up to be a very concerning fire season with above average fire potential, leading to more potential for large and catastrophic fires. CAL FIRE's fire suppression resources are situated strategically across the state.

Those are our engines, our bulldozers, our hand crews, and our aircraft to be rapidly able to respond to initial attack fires to keep them small.

CAL FIRE continues to meet our goal of keeping 95% of all fires 10 acres or less to protect lives, property, and the environment. And we recognize that in California, fire wildfires are now year round. We are no longer just a fire season. And with the support of all of you in the legislature as well as the administration, we are transitioning to implementing the 66 hour work week.

The 66 hour work week, one of the benefits of that is allowing us to staff our resources at peak staffing for 9 months out of the year, making more resources available year round for fire suppression.

But it also means that when these resources are not fighting fire, they are the workforce implementing fire prevention activities. Fuel breaks, defensible space inspections, fuel reduction projects, and prescribed fire. Technology continues to be integrated into everything we do, fire prevention, suppression, detection techniques, using cameras, AI, fire spread modeling, night vision aviation resources, and satellites to enhance this work. To be successful, we recognize the importance of partnerships with our local partners, state partners, federal partners, tribal partners, NGOs, and private partners.

We need to all work together to effectively implement our all of the above strategy to protect the people, property, and natural resources of California.

We have been closely monitoring and coordinating with our federal partners in California as they are undergoing restructuring at the Department of Interior and reorganization at the U. S. Forest Service. California is 1 of the states that will receive a state level Director from the newly formed Department of Interior US Wildfire Service or correction, US Wildland Fire Service, as well as a director from the US Forest Service. We are working with them to ensure that these changes do not create operational impacts this coming season.

We are also in discussion with the US Forest Service about the planned closure and consolidation of their research stations into service centers and have expressed our continued concern about the impacts of long term research that is happening here in the State. The Pacific Southwest Research Station, for example, is 1 of these stations that has been conducting 1 of the longest running research projects in the nation.

And it's actually in partnership us with us Since 1962, CAL FIRE and the US Forest Service have been partnering on this research at CAL FIRE's Jackson Demonstration Forest. And we recently signed an amendment to this agreement to allow that partnership to continue until 2099. I don't know that any of us will be here in 2099, but that agreement is in place so that research can continue for generations to come.

We are working to find ways to ensure the work that we are doing together in the operational and research space continues to not be impacted by federal changes. Because of the continued support of the legislature and the administration, California is making huge strides in wildfire prevention, community resiliency, and fire suppression. We recognize that you have some very difficult decisions to make in this year's budget, and we appreciate your continued support of Cal Fire and our work.

Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Department of Finance?

Nothing at this time.

Alio? No comments at this time. Alright. Let's bring it back to the dice. Yeah.

I'll just

Just briefly. I really appreciate the work that Cal Fire does. I represent San Diego and Orange County, and San Diego has over 1,000,000 acres of fire prone chaparral, and that's more than any other county in California. So, you know, we are very, reliant upon Cal Fire, and I'm just grateful for the professionalism. And, when I was in local government, I, served on LAFCO.

And 1 of the things that was, hot at that time was volunteer fire depart fire stations were being proposed to be absorbed and covered by Cal Fire. So we had hearings and testimony on the unbelievable additional, resources and professionalism that were going to come from moving to Cal Fire. And as a member of LAFCO, there was no question that was in the benefit of for the benefit of the community and the county.

But there were it was controversial because people were committed to their volunteer fire department. But I, came to know more about the operation of it through that that service and just was very impressed.

I wanted to ask a question specifically about Orange County. So the committee analysis, lays out that local, state, and federal responsibility areas, cover different places, but it doesn't fully capture contract counties. So in places like Orange County and you can tell me if what I'm saying is wrong, but this is my understanding, that the local fire authority is actually providing coverage in state responsibility areas on behalf of Cal Fire.

So it raises a fair question about whether those counties are receiving an equitable share of the resources, particularly prop 4 funding when they're effectively carrying out the state's responsibilities. So as I understand it, Orange County Fire Authority is only reimbursed about 1/3 of the actual expenses of covering the state responsibility area in Orange County.

So I wanted to ask if you could speak to how contract counties are operating on behalf of Cal Fire and if they're resourced appropriately to ensure that they can cover those needs.

First, really appreciate, your nice comments and our relationship with San Diego County Fire and, your office as well. And, Chief Sully has come up because in addition to hand crews, he also oversees our contract county program. So I will hand it over to him to talk about our 6 contract counties and how those relationships work.

Yeah. Hello, Chair, committee members. So when it comes to our contract counties, we have a total of 6. Specifically for Orange County, they received they protect roughly 103,000 state acres of encompassed in the 2 large sections within Orange County. And what we have done through our contract county agreement is, give provide them the proportional share of CAL FIRE resources that would be there.

And we staff or or we reimburse for 6 wildland engines, 2 full hand crews, and 1 dozer in addition to prevention staff and and prevention law enforcement type investigation staff. So with that 103,000 acres, of coverage, they equate to a CAL FIRE administrative unit that we have roughly 21 across the state. So we can provide specifics.

I can provide we have a annual document called the CAL FIRE contract county gray book which outlines all the specifics to each contract county, what they're allocated, but also their mission and what CAL FIRE is reimbursing them for.

Yeah. I mean, I guess it sounds like you're reimbursing for things. I don't know if it's covering everything they're doing. And I don't think they have other sources of revenue. So I think that's one of the concerns is that they're they're trying to figure out if prop 4 funding might be an option to be able to cover the expenses of what they're doing.

The contract county agreement is very specific only for the protection of state lands. We do not have any oversight for what they do on local or federal lands knowing that they have multiple agreements. But they are reimbursed, upfront for the protection but also reimbursed, for incident response. So including aviation which is a large component of their response.

Okay. Okay. Well, thanks for the information. Okay. I appreciate it.

Any other questions? Senator McNerney.

Yeah. There's quite a bit in the documents about seedlings and the amount of seedlings. Do we have are we growing enough seedlings to cover the needs to reforest with native species if there's worst case scenario fires?

Great question. Thank you, Senator. And Erica oversees our natural resource management program where our nursery, falls under. And so I think he'll be able to provide some more additional information specific to that.

Yeah. Excuse me. Oh, thank you. I'm new at this. Good morning Chair, members of the subcommittee.

Eric Huv, Deputy Director of Natural Resource Management. Are we growing enough seedlings? No. We currently out at our LA Moran Reforestation Center in Davis are growing somewhere around 200,000 seedlings. That's a drop in the bucket.

We hope to expand capacity to 1 day get up to half a million seedlings. In the meantime, we are relying upon our partnerships with industry and with the US Forest Service to try and meet that reforestation need. We have a great consortium of local state and federal partners as well. Cone collectors that are all trying to meet that reforestation need but the need is significant.

We're working to try and achieve positive results there but that's going to be a hurdle for us that exists probably for many decades.

Well, seeds last for a long time but seedlings are limited in their life, right? If they're not used?

Yeah. We that's a great point, Senator. We have the state's seed bank out at the reforestation center in Davis. That is the state's repository for seeds across all seed zones, across all species, conifer, Hardwood, etcetera. And that facility has recently been upgraded.

We have new freezer. So we have the capacity to store I think more seed than we have available currently. And we are always annually looking to collect as much seed from a variety of seed sources wherever those seeds are appearing. And part of it is we can't control the tree's decision to actually produce seed. And so we have to be nimble and, during cone survey season, make sure that we're capturing as much of that available seed as we can.

Well, but but seedlings have a limited life. How do you manage the having enough seedlings ready to go in the aftermath of an of a catastrophe?

Yeah. That's that's a great question. Again, relying upon primarily our industry partners who have much greater capacity through workforce and business development grant from Cal Fire. Actually, we helped to support a brand new nursery up in the far northern part of California, Siskiyou County that is run by Sierra Pacific industries. They have capacity I think of of upwards of a million seedlings a year.

And so coupled with our partnership with the United States Forest Service Nursery and Placerville, we're doing everything that we can to grow enough seedlings to occupy the space. But again, with the number of intensively burned acres of timberland, where I think we're always going to be a bit or at least for the foreseeable future, we're gonna be a bit behind, in being able to meet that need. So what

you're describing sounds like public private partnerships. It is indeed, sir. Endeavor. Okay. Alright.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing attention to that. I think oftentimes it's 1 of the small aspects, small parts of Cal Fire but such an important part and if you don't receive the proper funding, if you don't have those private those partnerships, it would be devastating for the state of California. So thinking forward and making sure that there is a future is very important. I wanted to ask some questions regarding the budget aspect of it. Considering the general fund is for Cal Fire or Department of Finance.

Considering the state of the general fund and the GRF, how's the administration considered temporarily freezing the phase in of the 66 hour work week?

So I can't talk to the operational impact overall and so in preparing the budget, we're always considering resources as a whole. But we're year 3 in the 5 year rollout.

And so, Cal Fire has essentially hired enough of the the higher level of fire apparatus engineers as well as fire captains so that we would be in an imbalance in terms of the ratio that is expected with the 66 hour work week, which I'm gonna pass it over to Chief Sully so he can explain more about that.

I may just stay up here.

No. You're welcome to stay.

Thank you, chair. The 66 work week wasn't built into cannot be sectionalized. It's a full 5 year implementation with components in year 1 adding to the contributions and additions in year 2 and so forth. It's a 2,471 personnel over 5 years. It's a very large effort.

Some of the components in the background were to basically our promotional path, the fire apparatus engineer and the fire captain. We had a very large deficiency and a reduction of fire captains available for the position. In the 66 work week, we added quite a few engineers to balance the fire captain FAE, so we always had an applicant pool for the promotional path. Those are built in not just in 1 year, but over the 5 year course.

So by stalling or shelving any of the future outline years of '66, we potentially still have that deficiency with that fire captain rank.

We also cannot commit to what we've agreed to with our local 281 bargain unit 8 of shifting the legacy staffing factors of the old to the new which is from an old which was 1 company officer and a minimum 2 firefighters to transitioning to a fire captain, a fire apparatus engineer, and a firefighter. And we built 3 levels of succession and mentoring in that.

But that cohesion of that engine company which has become the industry standard throughout California and the nation, we haven't fully transitioned all of our engines over because we need the 5 year. Additionally, there's other components built out in the outer line years including fire apparatus engineers to accompany our CDC, our crews hand crews.

They've never had that lower level of support and we built that in years 3, 4, and 5 of the allocations along with our dozer our bulldozer support with engineers to have company officer leadership while out there walking the line with the bulldozers.

So those are some of the components that could be shelved that are desperately needed to support the wildfire mission in years 3, 4, and 5.

Yeah. And I just like to note the at full implementation of the 66 hour work week, we'll have a 153 engines staffed year round and so like Chief Balu mentioned, these crews don't just fight fires, they also do a lot of fuel reduction work and so if we were to pause it well not operationally ideal it would result in a reduction in year round engines as well.

Thank you. The questions are important because of the structural deficit we're in. When we have all of the funding it's so much easier to take care of everything that needs to be done.

And when we find ourselves in a structural deficit of over $20,000,000,000 we've got to figure out what what cuts we do now, figure out if we're going to find some other way for revenue so that we can not only balance the budget this year, which we will, but to take care of that structural deficit. It's not an easy task but I assure you that the Senate, the administration, and the assembly are all working very hard to try to figure this out.

Another question has to do with GGRF funding. GGRF funding is very volatile. We're we're not going to know from one year to another what the total amount is going to be that we receive. Has the administration looked at other ways so that we don't rely on GGRF? Does the administration believe it is prudent to use a volatiles fund to pay for an essential public service such as Cal Fire operation costs?

Our colleague Steven Benson is going to take this question.

So I think you hit on a lot of the considerations that we've been looking at across the state last couple of years is looking at the structural deficit and and how to handle some of these things and both limitations in the GGRF side and the general fund side. So it's not our position, like the solution that was agreed on between the legislature, the well, the overall state budget was that we were gonna do a short term backfill of some general fund from Well,

there isn't an agreement yet.

Well, so the the budget act of

2 proposal.

Yeah. So the budget act of 2025 has some language in it about what was planned. Obviously, the budget can change when you're

Budget. But Yes. But it lays out a plan because

That's right.

everything has changed.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But it lays out a plan for what sort of the framework of the agreement was when the '25 budget act was enacted. And it says that, you know, we'll do it's a billion dollars in '25, dollars 1,250,000,000 in '26, and then 500,000,000 in '27, dollars 500,000,000 in '28, assuming there's still a budget deficit.

And that's, of course, when we did the governor's budget and released it, we still have a bit of a deficit issue and then, of course, there's a structural deficit that we're dealing with. So that has stayed in place. And so I think what distinction you'd make is we agree that Cal Fire services are a core public safety, you know, need. There's no dispute there.

There's the short term backfill to try and help bridge a gap for a period of time while we are seeing GGRF funding levels that can support it.

Obviously, there's a lot of policy decisions you can make in terms of how you wanna use GGRF and a big part of the discussion that's been going on in both houses and in this committee and that I will be an ongoing conversation. I think we recognize that. But I think what we're recognizing is that it's not a proposal to, you know, ongoing forever make this shift.

We agree with you, recognize GGRF is not I mean, it it the the whole program is designed essentially to kind of put itself out of business over time period of time, like that's really is the design of that whole framework. And it is a declining revenue stream and we recognize that and I think that's part of why we haven't proposed to do, you know, an ongoing permanent.

It's sort of a short term while there's resources to do it, provide some general fund relief while we're figuring out a long term structural.

But GGRF in tier 2 specifically, it was supposed to be the agreement was 1,000,000,000 for high speed rail and 1,000,000,000 for legislative priorities and it seems that the only thing that's being taken out is legislative priorities. And that's a concern for the legislators.

Yeah. No. I recognize that. So when the framework was agreed to last time, that billion For that year. Right.

So when 840 was passed in that year, again, recognizing every year you have to redo a budget. So Correct. We're having all those conversations. But the way that it obviously, we we budgeted this year based on what was in statute and what was sort of agreed to last time.

And so the way that the tier 2 works out as it currently exists is that there's 750,000,000 coming from that billion dollars of sort of legislative priorities and the other 250 was slated out for some things.

Right. Those still exist. And then the remainder It can't

be changed. Right. Sure.

I mean, I was.

But it's billion dollars for legislative priorities with 250 that was noted as you say for for certain Right.

And and the other $7.50 was slated at that time as going towards this backfill and the remainder of the backfill was coming from essentially the fund balance and interest earnings

Interest.

On the fund. And so that's where the rest of that 1,250,000,000 comes from. That's how 840 was laid out when and how the cap and invest was laid out when it was agreed to last year in the budget. I think as we recognized here, obviously, we have a budget conversation every year. So if there's an interest in changing that stuff, that's part of the conversation.

I mean, the administration obviously put out in the governor's budget the way that it was viewing it for this year, but that always is a kickoff to a conversation on the budget. So, you know, we're having those conversations. I think we've discussed it in this committee, you know, recently. They'll still

Above above our pay grade.

Yeah. I think above all of our pay grades in a lot in a lot of ways. But that'll be the conversation and we'll have to sort of figure out if we stick with that or if somebody agrees to changes.

Wonderful. Yeah. I thank you for that. Now, talking about the federal partnerships and we've talked about that or lack thereof because we're you you talked about the the problems that we're seeing with the research but also with with reimbursements. Does a state have authority or the resources to help wildfire prevention and management on federal lands that are in our state?

And if so, are these costs reimbursable by the Federal Government and are they being reimbursed?

So Chief Hoff is gonna come up here and talk some more about how we do some of those programs with our federal partnerships. But, just high level wise, we do have a lot of partnerships with our federal partners both in DOI, the Department of Interior, as well as US Forest Service because we recognize the value of the holistic approach to firefighting in the state of California and that our the fire doesn't understand jurisdictional differences.

And so we need to be proactive in ensuring that we are doing fire prevention work on areas that, need to, have fuels reduced and need to be, secure, fire breaks around communities so that homes and communities can be protected. And so a lot of those considerations go into our decisions to partner with our federal partners on work on their lands.

And so I just wanna put that out there as some high level framing as we start through this conversation because that is a priority to us as we are looking at those projects.

How do those projects impact state lands and how those projects impact the communities that we are all charged with defending? And knowing that in addition to direct impact from fire, there's also the smoke impact and how, hard those can hit communities long, long distances away. And we know that fires in Northern California impact our communities in the Bay Area and the Central Valley and even Southern California at times and communities that are already struggling with air quality issues.

And so those are things that we are looking at as well when we decide on partnering with our federal partners on some of these projects. So Chief Huv, I'll hand it over to you.

Thank you once again. Eric Huv, Deputy Director of Natural Resource Management. Thank you, for the question. CAL FIRE, does normally receive federal grant funding, annually from the USDA Forest Service for several programs, including forestry assistance, forest entomology and pathology, and urban and community forestry. These grants total 2 to 3,000,000, per year typically in our formula based noncompetitive awards.

We also compete for federal grant awards, from the Forest Service on occasion and these can be much larger sums, of funding. It is also possible that we could see impacts to good neighbor authority insured stewardship agreements with the federal reorganization yet to be seen. All of these agreements are reimbursable. Yeah. Wonderful.

I'll leave it there.

And I asked the question of course our the information provided to us talks about those partnerships with local and federal but the question is important so that we are all able to hear this about these partnerships and that yes we are we absolutely have to take care of the federal land because it affects our state land and our local land.

But it isn't our financial responsibility and so the 1 we're talking about that part of it, making sure that we do get the reimbursement for the great service done by Cal Fire. Alright. Any other questions, comments?

Okay. It was it really goes back to the comment the conversation that we you were having about, cap and invest. And I think, yeah, it was basically I'm sorry that I'm not remembering your name. Mister

Stephen Benson.

Mister Benson. Yes. Mister Benson had really good recall of every recollection of every category. I just felt like I wanted to add in here that things have really changed a lot since Tuesday when CARB came out with its regulations, basically interpreting and suggesting a change that would lead to $2,000,000,000 less and essentially potentially a zeroing out of the entire tier 3. So and those are, you know, really important transit programs and things that we're just not prepared to walk away from.

So I'm, you know, as the Chair of the Environmental Quality Committee and on the Cap and Trade Working Group and just following this very closely, I'm very alarmed to see that. But I think it does make it so that there has to be a reopening of negotiations around this, at least, if that ends up standing, which hopefully it doesn't. So I think there's a lot that needs to happen and a lot of different conversations that are, I'm sure, are happening and underway.

But it just is important to note, that this isn't a static situation. What money goes to both Cal Fire for planning purposes, but also for your planning purposes, but also, you know, for all the other categories. So I just wanted to make sure that that didn't escape commentary.

Thank you so much. It's such devastating news and just recent news. But thank you for commenting on that. Very good. Let's go to issue number 5.

Permanent resources for enhanced defensible space inspections. We'll first hear from Deputy Director Bigelow.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Frank Bigelow, and I'm the deputy director of Community Wildfire preparedness and mitigation division for CAL FIRE out of the office of the state fire marshal. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you with this afternoon. California continues to face historically destructive fires with 15 of the 20 most destructive fires occurring in the last decade.

Data from CAL FIRE's damage inspection program shows that homes lacking compliant defensible space are six times more likely to be destroyed during wildfire events.

Yet, despite the state's goal to inspect approximately 250,000 homes annually, CAL FIRE will only be able to complete less than a 130,000 annual inspections once the one time wildfire and forest resilience funding expires. In 2019, AB 38 created 21 permanent forestry technicians to meet the increased workload of providing defensible space inspections and documentation of compliance for real estate inspections.

In fiscal years 2021 and 2122, we received funding from the wildfire and forest resilience and multiyear funding package to provide three permanent and 28 temporary help forestry technicians to augment and enhance defensible space inspection efforts in the state responsibility area. However, these were one time funding allocations, and they must be used before 06/30/2027. Therefore, CAL FIRE is requesting $6,100,000 in general fund and 31 positions in fiscal year twenty six twenty seven with $5,600,000 ongoing.

This is to stabilize the state's defensible space inspection program and support the ongoing workload created by Assembly Bill 38 in 2019. This proposal transitions temporary roles to permanent staffing to ensure California can meet its long term wildfire mitigation and defensible space obligations. Strengthening the defensible space program enhances our state's wildfire resilience.

Permanent staffing ensures continuity of inspect inspections, public education, and enforcement under public resource code forty two ninety one, and supports anticipated future workload under the governor's executive order n dash 19 dash 25 or zone zero implementation. Permanent positions also strengthen operational stability by improving retention, institutional knowledge, and inspection data quality challenges intrinsic to temporary help.

This proposal represents a critical investment in the state's core wildfire preparedness strategy. Stabilizing a defensible space workload is essential for reducing structural losses, supporting community resilience, and fulfill it fulfilling statutory requirements. Additionally, there are long term benefits in avoided suppression cost, reduce disaster impacts, and improved insurance accessibility, and also enhanced public safety. Thank you for your time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

Also here for questions.

Elio.

Ryan Metzger, Elio. This proposal has merit as a way of continuing Cal Fire's work on defensible space inspections. Without these resources, Cal Fire expects it could perform only about half of these inspections, which could increase the risk of damage to parcels during a wildfire. However, this proposal could be modified given the budget condition.

For example, at least some of the positions in the proposal are funded out of Cal Fire's existing GGRF allocation, and so there could be a different mix between the general fund and GGRF considered.

Alternatively or in addition, the legislature could consider other funding sources such as a reinstated SRA fee or a fee with a similar structure where the primary recipients of fire prevention services, help cover their costs. And moreover, the legislature may also want to approve these positions on a one time basis rather than an ongoing basis as forthcoming state regulations to strengthen defensible space requirements may change how much time is required for each inspection and that may require revisiting the program's staff and structure.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to the dais. Questions? Senator McNerney.

Yeah. I mean, the whole defensible space thing seems just like a no brainer. Right? The more defensible space, the less damage there is. But I'm wondering how how rigorous the six to one number was arrived at.

What are the analysis? How defensible is the analysis of that number?

Oh, the six times more likely. Yeah. Based on our damage inspection data, you're doing post emergency analysis for for that. What we do is send folks out after every disaster, whether that be an earthquake, a flood, or in this case, a wildfire.

And we do assessments, and we're those assessments include looking at every structural component of of the home and determining, to the different degrees, was it destroyed and then varying degrees of damage. And we'd look at not just the structural components of the home, but the surrounding vegetation. Then we also, in addition to that, look back at the the defensible space history of that particular structure to determine whether it had defensible space prior to that home, being impacted by wildfire.

And based on all of those criterias, adding all of that together, we can determine that those homes that did have defensible space were six times more likely to be protected from wildfire and conversely, six times more likely to be destroyed if they did not.

I'd like to take a look at that analysis sometime if that's possible. Absolutely. So what's the jurisdiction? I mean, it'd be great if every house in California had a defensible space inspection and I'd like to see cities in incorporate codes requiring that on housing. But what's your what's your jurisdiction?

Who can you go to and inspect their house and say this needs this needs to be changed?

Well, every home in the state responsibility area. So the 31,000,000 acres across the state that we're charged to protect receives a defend would we receive a defensible space inspection from CAL FIRE? In a local responsibility area, government code fifty one one eighty two only applies to the very high fire hazard severity zone in that in in the local government area.

So those resources absent another ordinance that would be more strict in a local jurisdiction would receive that in the very high fire hazard severity zone, but not from Cal Fire, from the local jurisdiction.

And are you coordinating standards with local jurisdictions?

Absolutely. Multiple jurisdictions we provide in some instances the the template for the application that we use for the mobile data collection platform. In other cases, we provide a model ordinance through SB 190 that we created that some local jurisdictions have adopted. But yes, we coordinate very closely on on those efforts.

Alright. Thank you. I'll yield back.

Thank you. Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. Yes. I mean, this as my colleague just said, this is really important but I also this is a budget sub oversight hearing and so I think it's just important to recognize that I think this should be prioritized within Cal Fire's budget. You know, we have, as was mentioned, the budget has doubled for Cal Fire.

And as the materials say, from $1,700,000,000 in 2014-15 to $3,700,000,000 in 2023-24. And then there's been more money since then. You know, with the department staff growing from 5,700 to 10,200. Total number of positions, 6,600 to 12,000, representing an 80% increase in both cases. So to me, it just it seems like this is critically important, but it should be prioritized within the existing budget and not to have, more draws on the general fund.

We're we really have to exert some discipline in the legislature and the governor's office around our spending, and we're going to be cutting things.

And almost every other department, is seeing just really substantial cuts. And so it's important as part of this budget sub to say, I think, to say verbally and out loud when we should prioritize this kind of thing instead of, funding it from the general fund. So so I do completely support this. I think it's enormously important.

It's also the kind of thing that could be an almost I mean, when you start talking about defensible space at the city, county, planning level, Cal Fire, state, it could be an an ever growing expense, because it can literally consume you can just envision it becoming absolutely enormous.

And so how to do that with discipline and with a sense of, of doing the things that are most important and prioritizing the areas that most need it, but also recognizing that we can't do absolutely everything. So, you know, this is something that I think just should be absorbed within the existing budget. Thank you, Chair.

Julie Ann Rolf, again, from Department of Finance. I'd like to note, while the administration is in support of of approving the funding resources, if the legislature does not wanna improve funding, we at least request the position authority because a lot of these positions were limited term. And if we have these positions as permanent ongoing, we'll be able to have more stability and more retention of these individuals that that complete these submittal space inspections.

Yeah. And I'll just say I do support that. So I think that makes a lot of sense to give you the authority to do that.

And Senator Blakespear, certainly appreciate your comments and the thoughtfulness with, with the budget. And we had that same thoughtfulness when we, provided this proposal and looked into our Cal Fire budget. And you'll you'll notice that not all the positions we're asking for are being funded through this BCP. We are redirecting internal funds for a portion of these. We just need the per permanent position authority for half of them.

The other half, we are dipping into Cal Fire's budget to support.

Well, very specifically the LAO has given three possibilities. I'd like just briefly to have you respond to to those. One is as Senator Blakespear has shared about lessening the general fund impact by funding more of these out of your existing fund. The other is reinstating the SRE fee to help cover these costs. The other is funding these positions on a one time rather than ongoing basis.

And I I'd like to add also that there is a bill making its way through the assembly assembly member Bennett which will provide an incentive for homeowners to do that this work to get a certificate and use that with their insurance company to get a reduction in insurance costs.

And if we have something like that pass then there's going to be fewer homes that need to be inspected or fewer structures that need to be inspected if the if Californians take advantage of that.

Yeah. So Cal Fire hosted a defensible space site visit, and, Brian was also there. And while those certificates are really, you know, a policy decision, and if they work, that's wonderful. But it's also important to note that the work in terms of defensible space, has to happen routinely. It's not just a once a lifetime type of work.

And so these consistent, defensible space inspections are important and that's why the administration maintains the two fifty inspections, 250,000 inspections a year goal so that we can hit every parcel at least once every three years to to make sure we're at least, visiting these locations frequently enough so that we're able to account for that vegetation growth. And so if it's a policy decision to reduce the number of inspection that CAL FIRE wants to do, then the resources can be scaled back in terms of what's approved.

But overall, the administration is maintaining that we wanna stick to a 250 so we can hit all, all 750,000, parcels every three years, so that we can, you know, maintain our mitigation efforts for wildfire prevention because as Chief Bigelow mentioned that every, homes are more likely to burn down if if they don't have the sensible space. And when, and Brian's reference to the, zone zero, Well, we acknowledge that and that will likely lead to longer inspection times.

This is for already required inspections and so these resources that we're requesting and so while there will might be increases later on, we want to acknowledge this is resources we are seeking now to keep maintaining those 250,000 inspection.

You're right for the bill that's making its way through it isn't a one time thing I would imagine hopefully as negotiations I'm not I'm only familiar with the fact that it was introduced. I don't know where it is. But in negotiations it certainly the homeowner can have the certificate have it recertified every year even that's even better than every three years. So things like this because again like we go back to what we're we're talking about is that we do have a structural deficit.

We do have to figure out ways to do the work for California but we still have to find ways to to to reduce the cost.

We have to find ways and it is being creative. I recognize an important department and as was noted that the the budget has doubled for for Cal Fire over the years. And we we recognize climate change is wreaking havoc on on our on our California and we do have to we do have to protect it. Any other questions? Alright.

Let's go to issue number six. Fixed wing pilot and mechanics contract increase.

Good afternoon, Chair Reyes and members of the committee. My name is Jake Scholland. I'm the deputy director of fire protection for Cal Fire. And thank you for the time to speak with you all today. California's fire environment has extended to a fire year.

And this can be seen for many fires since 2014, including the devastating January. In recent fires in in March 2026 have already mitigated large fires including the Springs Fire, the Crown Fire, and the Paramount Fire in Southern California. Certain aviation assets must now be staffed continuously, including day and night operations. To meet fire activity demands and rapid response requirements 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 c one thirty h air tankers for a total of 72 aircraft.

These platforms are more advanced and capable, but require more intensive and frequent maintenance across complex systems, including avionics, electrical, communication, and suppressant delivery. Maintenance staffing has scaled accordingly from 90 maintainers in 2015 through 2020 to a 152 by 2024, a 171 in 2026, and now a 191 proposed under this contract, reflecting increases aligned with a larger, more complex fleet and year round operations. Maintenance has also shifted from a five day to a seven day model through staff those staffing remains lean compared to 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 c one thirty air tankers. Sustaining these operations requires a larger highly trained pilot workforce developed through a rigorous training pipeline and specialization.

These positions align the program with FAA part one thirty five requirements, expand the expand the support pilot core for transport of transport of personnel and supplies, enable dual shift operations, and strengthen reserve 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 adjustments, 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, and a more complex fleet, and the personnel required to safely and effectively meet California's wildfire demands. With that, I thank you for your time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

I'd like to Department of Finance.

Yes. I'd like to just state for the record the BCP submitted at governor's budget says where the CALFIRE is requesting up to a certain amount. That amount stated in the BCP is the final amount for the contract that's being awarded. So just, so there will be no additional BCP for May revision.

So it's a 66.5 for this year and 60 9.6 next year? Correct. And on up. Okay. LAO.

Brian Metzger, LAO. We find that this proposal addresses near term and significant health and safety concerns which was one of the criteria we use in our framework to prioritize proposals and so we think it merits consideration for funding. And absent this funding, our understanding is CAL FIRE would not be able to make full use of its aircraft and that would, you know, leave more communities and residents at risk.

Thank you. Alright. Let's bring it back to the dice. I I do have a question. Cal Fire has its own pilots also.

Right?

Yes. Great question. There is a difference that the contract provides maintainers mechanics for a 100% of the Cal Fire Aviation fleet. So Cal Fire has no no mechanics under the department. It's in the contract.

But you do have some mechanics?

No, no mechanics.

You have no mechanics?

No mechanics. The pilots on the fixed wing side are the same that fly the airplanes. They are through the contract. Cal Fire does have force fire pilots that operate our Cal Fire Hawk helicopters and those are the only pilots that we have specific to our helicopter program.

So we have the aircraft, but we don't have the people to fly them and we don't have the mechanics for them.

Correct.

Is there a benefit to having our own aircraft as opposed to contracting that as well?

Are you referencing the the the personnel you mean not the aircraft?

No. The aircraft.

Can you repeat the question then?

Contract so that it isn't just the pilots and the mechanics, but it's the aircraft as well.

Oh, okay. Understood. So the the aircraft is specific and what we hire for specific reasons that, on the specific to the fixed wing side, the S2 aircraft model is a type three air tanker with this capability and performance that we that is desirable for what we need in the initial attack mission and how it's operating out of what we call, our air attack bases that are what we call Foothill bases.

So they're not large airports where you see the larger air tankers operating out of. We would then not have those aircraft in that those Foothill regions of the state because they simply can't be supported by the infrastructure of the airport system in place out there at the air attack

basis. And then as a follow-up, rather than having the state these state costly state contracts, what about the possibility of having our own in house pilots and mechanics to do these jobs? Is cost is the contract I'm sorry. Is the contracting more cost effective or or is it more cost effective to have the positions within Cal Fire rather than adding it's 66,000,000 this year, $69.72. We're gonna be at a 100,000,000 in no time.

Excellent question, Chair. And to answer it completely, a full analysis would have to be completed to determine whether or not what the cost effectiveness is. But there are some points that I would like to point out that the contract benefits us. And one would be the challenge given the state's job classifications and the hiring process given the specialty of the aviation positions would be one of those.

The contract does offer flexibility in the aviation roles because not all the positions in the contract are salaried year round.

So for instance, the pilots on the fixed wing side are only paid for the days that are worked. And so they're not paid for the entire year and we have a schedule of how that lines out based on our fire severity. We have the ability to call them back for instance, things of that nature, but they're not salaried employees over the base the course of the year. The increased liability on the retirement and benefit costs.

And then one way I do see the contract potentially getting lower in cost is if we extend them, and this is internal conversations with our business services office, is extending the contract from a three year fix to a five year fix.

So we can look at that contract for a longer period of time and driving down those costs and not having those optional years driving increases.

Many of our cities and counties contract out for services within the cities and the counties. Often times the contract initially is a great deal because of the very things that you just talked about. But once the contract start to increase then it's no longer cost effective and I think an analysis at some point would be a good point. LAO or rather Department of Finance you wanted to say something?

More just last year we submitted a BCP for exclusive use contracts So we talk about having planes available. And so I just wanna remind us that, you know, fire year is happening all over the world. And so having access to these aircrafts longer term with CAL FIRE as the owners as well as making sure that they're available 20 fourseven is really important for our operational readiness for fighting fires and as well as prescribed burns that have also been increased.

And we've already invested Yes. A lot of money and and it's during some great years financially speaking, during some great years and so but it was still a question I wanted to ask.

One more thing too because I also went on a site visit to their aviation headquarters at McClellan. We Cal Fire has implemented and you could talk way more about this about training that doesn't require actually flying the plane.

And so there has been ways for us to reduce the cost of these, this program in terms of flight hours that doesn't have to actually be flying in a plane because service is related to number of hours flown and so we're able to reduce that by having these simulators at McClellan so our pilots can be fire ready whenever needed.

Anything else from Elio? Okay. I just just as as an aside, I remember when the Blackhawks were were were were purchased.

They expected to be able to put them on the the what are the the pads and then turns out that they were too heavy so they had to redo the pads and then they were too big for the hangers so then they had to so I mean the the when I think of of that anecdotally, I just think you know the preparation you know when we're thinking of buying something so wonderful that's going to help so much and yet we didn't have capacity for it.

We didn't have the pads for it, we didn't have the hanger for

it but we do now and they're going to be in good use. Alright. Any other questions? Yes.

Yeah. I'd like to get some idea of how effective aircraft are in fighting fires. And the reason I asked that is because two of the biggest, most destructive firefighters in Harabedian and Altadena, winds were 90 miles an hour, you know.

That's right.

How effective can those tools be in that situation and in general?

Thank you for that question. In general, they're highly effective because it our numbers show that in terms of the initial attack maintain in our 95% fires at 10 acres or less. And that's the primary purpose for those combined with other efforts like fuel mitigation reduction planning as well and and good ground coordination, they're highly effective. When we're talking about the lesser percentage of fires but are the most devastating, it it really depends on what the environment is of that fire, Senator.

And so when you're looking at winds, if the simple metric we use is if it's not about the aircraft flying as much as what the suppressant delivery is that it's occurring.

So if there is five wingspans of drift of the product drifting, five wingspans from the time it gets released until the time it hits the ground or five rotor spans, rotor blade widths. Those are good indicators of effectiveness and at five lengths is where it is, it becomes where it's not useful, no longer effective what you're trying to deploy.

The other one, that really comes into play that folks miss is when an airplane has to deliver a suppressant, it has to come within 200, 300 feet of the ground. And if the air on over the fire at the time is not stable enough and that aircraft is losing 500 feet of elevation or more, due to that, the weather condition, you simply wouldn't wanna fly that aircraft close to the ground and have that potential.

So the winds do restrict, aircraft in delivering their suppressant, not necessarily from flying, meaning the coordination that occurs over a fire or the Intel that's gathered over a fire.

Those things can still occur. And as conditions change, we are able to fly certain portions of the fire that we both saw in the LA fires and on the Camp Fire in 2018. There were certain portions where we could operate and we did just not necessarily in some areas you may want to operate.

So e even though they're they're not, as effective as you'd like in those extreme conditions, they're very effective in most fires and especially in the early stages where you can prevent the fire from becoming more catastrophic.

100%.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now let's go to our last issue. Issue number seven. Proposition four wildfire enforced resilience. First we're going to hear from Julianne Wolf who will present the governor's proposal.

Yes. Good afternoon Chair and members again. Julianne Rolfe for Department of Finance. So the climate bond allocates $2,500,000,000 for wildfire and forest resilience over the lifetime of the bond.

The funding is allocated across various programs administered by CAL FIRE, the Office of Emergency Services, Department of Conservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Conservation Corps, and numerous state agents or state conservancies, excuse me, And the 24-25 budget acts appropriated about $598,000,000 across these departments for projects related to forest health, fuels reduction, defensible space, watershed improvements as well as workforce development.

And the governor's budget proposes $314,000,000 in 26-27 to continue supporting these forest resilience projects. Of this amount, dollars 15,000,000 is for a proposed new program that focuses on reducing wildfire risk related to electricity transmission. I'd also like to note that, this proposal also includes $2,500,000 for a second year for a total of $5,000,000 for the prescribed fire learning hub, which is a training platform that will be administered by Cal Fire.

And I'm joined by representatives from from most of the departments, for these allocations in the chapter and any department that, is not here. We will be relaying, any of your questions so we can provide answers.

So we're here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you. LAO?

Brian Metzger, LAO. We find this chapter of the administration's proposed climate bond plan to be reasonable and consistent with bond requirements. As was mentioned, there are a few new programs in this chapter for which the legislature might wanna consider spending guidance or even modify the proposal if it wants particular objectives or, you know, expectations met for the funding.

There is the 20,000,000 or so for the defensible space mitigation grant program, the CAL FIRE training center funding that was mentioned, and the funding for CAL FIRE in consultation with the office of Energy Infrastructure Safety to reduce wildfire risk from electricity transmission. And so again, those that language and modifications could help the legislature ensure that its expectations for the use of that funding are met.

And in particular on the reducing wildfire risk from electricity transmission, we received little information at the time of our analysis about that program. So the legislature might wish to ask for an update on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to the dais. Any questions? Thank you.

Well, thank you again, for the work you guys are doing. It's really important. One of the biggest land managers, in Alameda County portion of my district is East Bay Regional Parks District. They don't get a lot of set aside funding because they're not a cons a conservancy. But, they manage some of the most fire prone areas in the state, including the Altamonte Pass Hills.

We saw devastating fires in Berkeley and Oakland, Sono, also in my district. So how can the regional parks districts like East Bay Regional Parks access funding that you've described from Prop four?

So I know the bond limits who can obtain grant funding but I'm not an expert on that so

I think I have Cheif Hoff here with me.

There we go.

Really doing a lot of learning up here about microphones. Once again, deputy director, Eric Hoff, over natural resource management. We have actually, fairly recently had a meeting with East Bay Parks, leadership, to discuss grant funding opportunities, that they could take advantage of under both, greenhouse gas reduction funds existing and, and forthcoming proposition four funds. We have forest health grants, we have, work business and workforce development grants, we have tribal wildfire resilience grants, but primarily the forest health, grants.

And also wildfire prevention grants administered by the Office of State Fire Marshal, would be available to East Bay Parks.

Okay. That's, that's that's good. I'm glad to hear that. And, please, I urge you to continue working with East Bay Regional Parks and other park districts that that don't have direct funding opportunities.

Thank you.

On the I'd like for you to please tell us the department's plan for how financial and technical assistance would work with the proposed 20,000,000 that is that is proposed to be set aside for fuel reduction structure hardening, defensible space restoration acquisitions. Specifically, what types of property could be acquired with this funding and would Cal Fire be collaborating with any organization such as UC Ag and Natural Resources on any of these activities?

Well I wait for my colleague here to get him get himself ready to go. I will answer the latter question about acquisitions. Acquisitions would occur through our forest legacy program. The purpose of that program is to protect environmentally important, forest land threatened with conversion to, to, non forest uses. Protection of those forests through the program ensures that they continue to provide, such benefits as sustainable timber production, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, watershed protection, and open space.

Intact forests, as we know, also contribute greatly to our carbon sequestration goals. Under the competitive grant program, we purchase or accept donations of conservation easements or fee title actually of productive forest lands, to encourage their long term conservation. The primary tool that we use is, to conserve forest lands in perpetuity is permanent working forest conservation easements. These easements do more than just restrict development, and conversion on a property.

They actually protect forest values by concentrating on sustainable forest practices, and they provide economic value from the land, and encourage long term, land stewardship.

We fund projects that are at least 75% forested, to emphasize forest protection while also allowing important habitat connections to remain intact. We do regularly partner with other agencies, the Wildlife Conservation Board for example, to select high value landscapes for funding of these easements and fee title purchases.

Thank you.

Thank you again. Frank Bigelow, Deputy Director of Community Wildfire Preparedness and Mitigation. So just as a framing of this this actual allocation in in Prop four, it was a original $50,000,000 appropriation out of that in in internally, Cal Fire chose to break that up in half 25,000,000 to community wildfire preparedness and mitigation and 25,000,000 to natural resource management. And the question is specifically focused on the 26-27 portion of that. But for my section, I'm gonna lump in 25-26 and the $26.27, $25,000,000 appropriation.

So the department intends to administer that that proposed $25,000,000 set aside for defensible space assistance in a manner consistent with the structure and proven practices of the California wildfire mitigation financial assistance program. Under this approach, the funding would support both financial assistance to property owners and communities and technical assistance delivered by Cal Fire staff. For the financial assistance portion, the department would provide grants to eligible homeowners and small land owners and communities to support defensible space compliance in the ember resistant zone.

Assistance would be tiered to prioritize socially vulnerable and high risk communities consistent with existing grant criteria. Funding would be help offset the the cost of the vegetation removal and defensible space work for residents unable to perform it themselves.

In the technical assistance portion, similar to the California wildfire mitigation financial assistance program, Cal Fire staff would offer direct on-site and virtual technical support including or included in the ember resistant zone evaluations, defensible space guidance, and vegetation management prescriptions of defensible space. This hands on support ensures that, recipients understand how to plan and complete mitigation projects safely and effectively and in compliance with state and local regulations. Technical assistance can also help communities develop acquisition or easement proposals that align with wildfire risk reduction objectives.

The program integration administration, the department would leverage existing administrative structures, online data collection application tools, and field based personnel developed under the California Wildfire Mitigation Financial Assistance Program, long name, to support efficient implementation. This includes coordinated outreach with local governments, fire safe councils, tribes, and community based organizations to ensure equitable access to the program.

These using these established systems, we will enable the department to deploy this funding quickly, minimize administrative burden, and maintain consistent statewide standards. So in summary, the department plans to model this deployment of the $25,000,000 after a successful framework of the CWMPFAP, ensuring a balanced combination of direct financial support and technical assistance that maximize community wildfire resilience.

And I'll just add on the natural resource management side of the house. We intend to spend a significant or the most significant portion of our portion of that funding on reforestation grants as well as a smaller portion on the forest legacy acquisitions and conservation easements.

Thank you for that. My final question is on the RFFC, the regional forestation and fire capacity program. The governor's budget proposes to appropriate $51,000,000 for this program in 26-27. First how did the department arrive at 51,000,000? Approximately how many regional block grants can this fund and what factors does department consider when deciding on whether and how much to provide a regional or statewide block grant?

Good afternoon Chair and members of the subcommittee. I'm Shawna Atherton Bauer with the Department of Conservation, and I oversee the division of land resource protection, which administers the regional forest and fire capacity program. So we anticipate that the $51,000,000 will support implementation of approximately eight regional block grants along with the department cost to administer the program.

Factors that we consider, we the department has a mandate to ensure that to the extent feasible, regional entities funded by the program cover every part of the state that contains or is adjacent to a very high or high severe high fire hazard severity zone. So, to date, the department funds regional entities covering 97% of those areas.

And we're working to identify entities to fill the remaining gaps. When evaluating how much funding to provide to each regional block grantee, we look at the funding currently available to the program, the proposed funding need within the region, other sources that are available to those regions from our state and federal partners, and each proposed grantee's capacity to actually administer that funding. The department performs regular surveys of our existing regional partnerships to stay abreast of their funding needs.

And for Prop four, those needs will be further informed by a statewide needs assessment being conducted by the Watershed Research and Training Center. Our RFFC program staff also work closely with our colleagues at other state departments to make sure that we're aligning funding to maximize the impact of that funding that we have available.

Did I answer all your full question?

Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Any other questions? No.

Alright. Then we'll thank you very much. We will now begin, public comment. So if you'd like to offer comment, please give your name, your organization, and we'd like to limit your comments to thirty seconds.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honorable subcommittee members. My name is Brooke Rose, and I am with the Wildfire Solutions Coalition. On issue number four, we echo comments from the panel and the dais regarding DGRF that CAL FIRE is an essential public service. If additional general fund revenues allow, the coalition urges reducing the backfill of CAL FIRE operations to support other critical investments in tier three.

On issue number seven, we request increasing this year's Prop four Wildfire funding to $500,000,000 to meet the urgent need for greater investment in wildfire resilience.

Given pressure on GGRF, the general fund, and the federal budget, robust investment of Prop four dollars is all the more important. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members. Jeff Neal representing Orange County Fire Authority. I wanna, thank, Senator Blakespear for her comments earlier about ensuring that the benefits of the prop four funding, supports all of the communities in the state, including the contract counties like Orange County where OCFA provides the wildland, fire protection for those communities. So we do think it would be appropriate to break out, you know, some specific funding to make sure to build the capacity for that, those wildfire prevention, activities in Orange County.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Michael Jarred with The Nature Conservancy on issue number seven. Proactive investments in wildfire risk reduction are among 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 wildfire saves more than $6 in damages of cleanup costs and $22 in future economic loss losses. The majority of Californians strongly support, increased state spending on wildfire resilience.

The January budget would be the second smallest investment in wildfire resilience in the last decade. We align our ask with the Wildfire Solutions Coalition to fix that, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Bruce Magnani on behalf of the Sierra Consortium. Also, on issue seven, related to Prop four spending, we request an increase to $500,000,000 for the reasons already stated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts and the California Tahoe Alliance. We're to echo the comments from the previous two speakers on the need to increase funding this year for wildfire resilience. Same comments on behalf of the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, but would also add that we echo the comments from OCFA that we need to be ensuring that we're targeting projects in Southern California, particularly ignition reduction.

That's not at the moment in the mix for a lot of our funding coming through, Forest Health. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, members. Crisella Chavez on behalf of the California Association of the Hooke Conservation Corps. We wanna express our support and gratitude to the ECCC for their strong partnership throughout the years and also express support for the fiscal year twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven Prop four's appropriation of $12,000,000 for the demonstrated job projects.

That was not for you.

Oh. Sorry.

Which goes to help our meaningful job training for our core members. And then on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park Districts, we ask that the legislature maintains the $80,000,000 of CAL FIRE local fire prevention grants. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment? Well, very good. I wanna thank all of you, for participating, especially in public comment. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments and suggestions in writing to the budget and fiscal review committee or visit our website.

Your comments and suggestions are important to us and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you and we appreciate your participation. Thank you to everyone and for your patience. We thank you, for your cooperation. We think we have concluded the agenda for today's hearings and budget subcommittee two is adjourned.