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're holding our hearing in the O Street Building. I thank the members of this subcommittee for being present so that we can establish a quorum.

[Roll call].

We have a quorum. We have 23 issues on today's agenda. We'll be discussing six issues listed in the discussion section of the agenda. After discussion, we will have public comment on all of the items. We will not hold a vote today. All items are being held open. Items will be voted at a future hearing. All right. Let's start with issue number one: elimination of vacant positions. All right. Let's hear first from LAO. Ms. Petek, would you like to begin?

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and good morning, senators. I'm Sonja Petek with the Legislative Analyst's Office. Because today I am both presenting the issue as well as offering the LAO's analysis, I'm going to break this up into three sections. First, I'm gonna start with providing sort of a lay of the land, and then I'll go over what the Joint Legislative Budget Committee found in its review of this proposal, and then third, I'll go over our office's analysis and recommendations.

Thank you.

So first, to start with the general landscape, if you could turn to page four of your agenda and refer to the top row of this figure--I'm gonna pull it up as well--at May Revision last year, the governor had proposed eliminating 6,000 vacant positions across state departments as a cost-savings measure.

However, because this was at May Revision, it didn't give the Legislature a lot of time to consider which positions were being proposed for reduction, or for elimination, rather. The final agreement, instead of eliminating all of those positions, it effectively eliminated about 5,000 of the positions, as shown in the next row, and then allowed the Legislature, through the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, to review about 1,000 of those positions--gave it more time until about-- until January of this year.

These 1,000 positions were all of the positions in nine specified departments, of which five are before you today, and the remaining positions were associated with legislation that was chaptered in recent years, in 2022 and 2023.

So if you look at the next row, after a thorough review, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee did not concur with 650 of the proposed roughly 1,000 position eliminations. And then as shown in the final row, 293 of these positions are in the eight departments that are before you today. So the Governor's Budget, released in January, essentially built in savings from elimination of all 6,000 positions.

So for the departments here today, this would include annual savings of about 37 million, about half of which is from the General Fund. So next, I'm gonna go over what the JLBC found in its review. The JLBC considered various criteria across all of the departments that had positions proposed for elimination.

So for example, were the positions associated with efforts to reform a program, or enhance a program, or improve program outcomes, or were the positions performing important public safety functions? In addition, the JLBC considered factors unique to each department. So at a high level, I'm going to go over some of the findings and reasons the JLBC did not concur with certain eliminations at the eight departments here today.

So starting with departments of Fish and Wildlife and Parks and Recreation, the JLBC did not concur with the elimination of 77 of the proposed 164 eliminations at Fish and Wildlife and did not concur with 62 of the 85 positions at Parks. For both of these departments, a good number of the positions are related to law enforcement functions, so game wardens at Fish and Wildlife and public safety and peace officers at Parks.

In addition, for both departments, the JLBC had concerns about reducing staff in light of either known staffing shortages. So for example, in the case of Fish and Wildlife through the service-based budgeting exercise that took place in recent years, the department has known gaps in service levels, and part of this is due to staffing shortages.

And in the case of Parks, the JLBC had concerns about efforts-- about sort of affecting efforts to improve program delivery, so for example, the fixing of State Parks initiative. Some of these positions are associated with that initiative. For Department of Fish and Wildlife, I would also mention that 18 of the proposed eliminations are associated with various permitting programs and initiatives.

For the Departments of Pesticide Regulation and Toxic Substances Control, at DPR, JLBC did not-- the JLBC did not concur with the elimination of 15 of 19 positions, and at DTSC with about 80 of the 112 positions proposed for elimination. At both departments, many of these positions proposed for elimination play a role in efforts to expand or enhance or reform core, high-priority programs.

At the State Water Resources Control Board, the JLBC did not concur with eliminating 43 positions. This was about half of the number proposed by the administration. The JLBC considered the Water Board's core functions, including issuing and enforcing discharge permits, managing water rights and water quality control plans, and had concerns about eliminating positions that support those core functions.

So the JLBC also took a look, as noted earlier, at the positions associated with recently chaptered legislation, and for three of the departments here today, the positions proposed were recently authorized to implement some of these legislative priorities. So for example, some of the positions are associated with Senate Bill 272, which requires coastal communities to develop sea level rise plans.

The governor has proposed eliminating six of 18 positions authorized at the Coastal Commission and one of 15 positions authorized at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, or BCDC. The JLBC did not concur with the elimination of all seven of these positions out of concerns that this would reduce the state's ability to meet these ambitious sea level rise goals--sea level rise adaptation goals--and would reduce both of the commission's ability to help local governments develop these plans.

Several bills included-- or a number of the positions proposed for elimination concerned bills that would be implemented by CalRecycle. This includes AB 15--I'm sorry--AB 1526, requiring certain reporting of aerosol paints sold and recovered, AB 2440, requiring battery producers to establish stewardship programs for the collection and recycling of specific types of batteries, SB 1013, adding wine and distilled spirits to the Beverage Container Act, and SB 1215, expanding electronic recycling to include battery-embedded products.

In total, the Governor's Budget proposes eliminating nine of 81 full-time positions associated with these four laws. The JLBC did not concur with any of these eliminations because they might delay implementation of key activities. Okay. So next, I wanted to talk about the Legislative Analyst's Office assessment and recommendations on this proposal.

So first point, to the extent that the Legislature wishes to retain rather than eliminate any of the 650 positions, including the ones being discussed today, this would erode savings built into the Governor's Budget, and the Legislature might need to find a similar level of savings elsewhere in the budget.

In the context of finding budget solutions, we note that for Parks, the Coastal Commission, BCDC, and 14 of the positions at the Water Board and 31 at Fish and Wildlife, are positions that are general funded. So this is challenging of course because retaining them would erode about 18 million in General Fund savings. For Fish and Wildlife, we would note that the Governor's Budget proposes retaining all of Fish and Wildlife's special funds, even as it eliminates the positions associated with that funding.

Consequently, if the Legislature wishes to retain all of the Fish and Wildlife positions, it would only result in a loss of savings on the General Fund side. All of the remaining positions, 29 at the Water Board and all of the positions at DPR, DTSC, and CalRecycle are special funded, so eliminating them would not help address the state's structural budget deficit since they have no impact on the General Fund. Our second point is that eliminating positions could have undesirable program impacts.

They were established to serve important functions, as the JLBC founded in its review, and eliminating them would thus have trade-offs. Our third point is that just because a position is vacant doesn't mean the position is not important. Positions can be vacant for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with programmatic need, such as being hard to fill because they require special skills or training or because they were just recently authorized, as in the case of some of the recent legislation.

So what we recommend is that the Legislature retain the positions that are special funded. So the these would be the positions at Fish and Wildlife, the Water Board, DPR, DTSC, and CalRecycle. We find that these positions and serve-- these positions serve important functions, and eliminating them could have negative program impacts, and moreover, eliminating them doesn't help with the out-year structural deficit problem.

For the general funded positions, this is a tougher choice for the Legislature because all of the same arguments apply. These positions serve important functions, and eliminating them would have trade-offs, but we suggest that the Legislature weigh the importance of those positions against some of its other priorities across the state budget. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Stephen Benson with the Department of Finance. I'll take just a few minutes to do comments to help set some of the context for how the administration went about ex doing this exercise and I think it'll be helpful to the conversation as we go through here. So this exercise started with the realization that the state has about 40,000 vacant positions annually and that number holds pretty steady across several fiscal years.

Of course, there's some fluctuation in terms of like which positions and things like that but the total number is pretty steady across several fiscal years.

And within individual departments there's also a fair level of, I guess steadiness in terms of the vacancy rates. Again, there's fluctuations as to which positions are vacant. That changes as you fill some and others become vacant, things like that. But there's a pretty steady level of vacancy rates among in in most departments. And what that situation results in is you have a whole bunch of funding that was put into budgets to fund positions that are not going towards those positions because the positions are vacant.

And also the work that that was intended to get done is not getting done because the positions are vacant. And so it's not a very effective use of all of that funding being tied up It's sort of a realization that, again, while the positions may vary a little bit, the overall amount of funding that fits in this pot is pretty steady because the number of positions is pretty steady.

And so the idea was to go about looking at this and finding ways to more effectively and efficiently use that funding within the state's budget while still maintaining a level of flexibility for departments to manage and meet their base operating needs. So I would say that this but this funding that's available is used by departments in a in a number of different ways. So for example, the state doesn't do cost of living adjustments for departments every year.

So things like rent, fuel costs, utilities, things like that that increase over time, we don't make adjustments every year to cover those. So in some instances, you have departments that keep positions vacant because they need funding to cover those cost increases. At certain points in time, we, of course, we can propose BCPs and come in and try and true some of that stuff up, but it's not like an automatic adjustment every year. And so to manage that, they'll use vacant positions to help do that.

There's other ways that, or other things that result in some of the vacancies.

For example, some classifications are really hard to fill. That may be because they're in a remote location, there's housing challenges, there's other recruitment challenges, but there are a number of classifications across the state in different departments that are just hard to fill. Sometimes there's a shortage of that particular expertise available in the market altogether. Sometimes, there are employers that are more competitive than the state and getting that limited pool of people.

So there can be a number of reasons, but there's hard fill positions and that's one of the ways that we end up with these salary savings as well.

And then some of the and in cases like that, sometimes a portion of those salary savings is used to try and contract for services. So there's work that you're trying to get done with these positions, we can't fill them, but maybe we can contract with somebody to come in and do these things, you know, to help fill it out. So some of that some of that savings might go towards that type of a, cost as well.

But ultimately there's so ultimately there's a number of reasons we want to maintain some level of flexibility And so what we did in in setting this up oh, actually, I think another factor that I wanna make sure I hit on before I get to that is we also do annual employee compensation adjustments with the state every year. And so when you have this large pool of vacant positions, we're increasing the amount of funding that goes with those vacant positions every year as well.

So it's not just that there's this pool of funding, but it's a growing pool of funding every year, while the number of vacant positions is again relatively steady over time. So that creates kind of a growing problem in terms of the, you know, I guess effective or efficient use of the of the state's funds. And the crucial and especially in in our current budget situation, it's important that we look at that pretty closely and we try and use that funding pretty effectively and pretty efficiently.

It doesn't need to be tied up, sort of just for flexible administrative needs, all of it. So some of the some of the questions have come up in terms of like what criteria we used in deciding what positions to eliminate and how to go about the exercise.

So I just want to touch on that quickly. At a high level, the Department of Finance really didn't put a lot of criteria on the exercise. We set some targets. Generally speaking, those targets were somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of the vacant positions at the time the exercise started. But then, and we said it needed to be done in a way that minimizes impacts to public services.

And then departments were given a broad amount of discretion to go in and and come up with plans in terms of how they could try and meet those targets. There was a lot of iteration along the way as we came in and looked at things, and I would say that by and large, there probably are very few departments where we actually have reductions that are at that level. In most cases, there were reductions for various different reasons. For example, federal funds were excluded from it.

There's no reason to turn down those reimbursements, you know, and try and fill the positions.

So there were some exclusions and exemptions that were put into place through iterations. Most departments came in at lower than those sort of 50% targets. So they maintained again a fair amount of flexibility in terms of, vacant positions that remain and the funding that results from it. And another thing that I wanna make sure I note just for context is that departments have the ability to reclass positions.

So I think there are some concerns about, you know, if we take away certain classifications and those those classifications are really important, that work can't get done.

I, I do want folks to realize that so long as there are vacant positions in the department, if they they can be reclassed to whatever the highest priority need is. So they have flexibility to manage that way too. If you've got hard to fill positions that are still vacant and you have a higher priority position that you can fill, you reclass it, you fill that position.

That course has to be done within funding available to the department and so there, you know, sometimes we have to sort of work through some of those challenges, but there is a lot of flexibility to handle that. One example that I think is worth talking about, we touched on on park rangers a little bit, earlier and we'll probably talk about it more as we go along, but an illustrative example is that there are currently 627 authorized park rangers in the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Of that number, there were at the time the drill was being put together, there was a 147 vacant positions in that classification. The result was proposing elimination of 15. So that left a 132 vacant park ranger positions that are still able to be filled. And, you know, the department and then they'll let the department talk about it when if if there's questions on it, but the department's doing a lot to try and improve recruitment and filling those.

It's an important, aspect for them, so it's something they're focusing on.

But there's still a pretty large number of vacant positions that we have to to close on that. And if we get to a point where all 132 are filled and none have become vacant sort of along the way, then we can certainly have conversations about whether or not it makes sense to restore those 15 positions.

I think what we're what we're trying to get at here is that, again, given that pretty steady over several years, statewide, we're at this big level of vacancies, we should be trying to capture savings, maybe reduce that pot of flexible administrative funding a little bit, live within those means a little better. And then if at some point, we manage to fill more of the positions and the vacancy rates are a lot lower, then we may need to revisit, you know, restaffing some of these things.

But we don't need to, especially in circumstances like this, maintain that large of a pool of positions on an ongoing basis that can't be filled and the funding that's related to it.

Just double check here. I think there's been some discussion about special funds. I think one thing I wanna talk about there is the control sections that drove this exercise. They instructed finance to look at all of the budget items, so we did that. It wasn't specific to the general fund, it was to all of them, so that's the analysis that we did.

We acknowledge that the analysis for special funds can be a lot trickier than the general fund itself because special funds collect their revenues in a lot of different ways, and the reductions to those can have a variety of different impacts depending on how that's collected. And while the general fund was the highest priority given overall budget resiliency, we looked at all funds.

I think that we can all acknowledge that in some cases, the state has relied on special funds to help out with general fund resiliency over time. I don't think it's a surprise or a secret to anybody here that the state, through discussions with the legislature administration, has on a number of occasions from a different a lot of different coming up from a lot of different areas, turned to special fund loans as a way of helping out the general fund.

We don't love it, but the fact of the matter is regardless of which side of or which house or which branch of government you're in, those suggestions have come from a lot of different places and they've been relied on a lot of different times.

And so there is a factor of special fund health that goes into overall budget resilience. Also having, structurally balanced and healthy special funds, helps reduce pressure to find backfill funding in some cases. Sometimes we're trying to backfill special funds from the general fund because they're not healthy in and of themselves. So we we view the special funds as being part of the overall budget resiliency and health. And then another factor that we looked at or perspective we looked at is general affordability.

The state in some cases has an affordability issue and, these special funds are supported by a large array of different fees. And so one of the ways that we look at affordability issues is trying to find ways that we can have some state control over how much fees need to increase to support different programs and things like that.

And so in some cases, finding ways to be more efficient and capture that efficiency, delays or reduces the amount of fees that need to be increased in the short term. So with that, I will stop with my comments, but, I'm joined with with colleagues from department finance and other departments and we're available to help answer questions.

Thank you both. It's it's clear that there's a problem that was identified. There's lots of work that went into it through the Department of Finance with the direction of the administration. I sincerely appreciate the joint legislative budget committee and their review of of the 40,000. They identified 6,000.

And a thousand was was subject to this review. And of those, we've have 650, remaining that non concur. I, I do want to open it up to my colleagues now for questions. Please know, as as you know, we have all of the departments that have that have been discussed here. Representatives are available to answer questions as well as LAO and Department of Finance.

Oh, mister Choi. Okay.

Thank you, chair. And for your presentations, obviously, administration is proposing to eliminate the unfilled positions for a long time and in the hopes to save the on field positions in in the general budget. That's the intent of that. But in your presentation, department of finance mentioned that even though no. Because of no inflation adjustment annually for their department budget, sometimes these departments would like to keep the position vacant positions there and utilize the funds.

Is it allowed to use personnel salaries for the use of general department operations?

Yes. The salaries are budgeted in a state operating a little bit technical budget jargon here, but in a state operations item, so it's an appropriation that's for the general operation of the department. Salaries are in that. It is allowable to use salary savings for other things that fit within that type of cost. So, you know, rents, utilities, those types of things would be

I've seen before that certain positions to be created and that the salary was a figure that based upon the rank and the positions and how many and the budget was set and certain amount of such as 5,000,000, 10,000,000 shall be allocated for these new positions. And that I understood that the destination of a certain amount to be budgeted was for the human resources, not the operation of the department.

So I think this is the problem that departments would like to keep the positions vacant positions vacant rather than filling because of the flexibility of the resources they have or for some some of the operations.

I, I, I think that there's a need in some instances to do that. I think by and large, most departments do want to fill the positions. They were authorized to to get certain workload done and it's workload that's important to the the departments and their missions and so they they make every effort to try and fill the positions. But I think there's a reality that it's certainly demonstrated by the data that we we just we're not we we keep like about 40,000 positions vacant statewide.

We're we're not able to get really beyond that hump in terms of vacancy rates.

And so while they continue to make every effort to try and fill the positions, they've got that funding available and so like I said, they sometimes they'll use it to do contracts or temp help or other types of things to try and address some of the workload. In other cases, as acknowledged, there may be instances where they they need to keep a few positions open in order to make, other base operation costs covered.

In cases like that, those are those are times where we we could go in and and work with those departments and take a look and say, okay, what what base operating costs are you not able to meet and maybe we do some sort of true up where you leave the funding for those purposes and maybe eliminate positions that they're not able to fill or something like that. They've done we've done exercises like that, you know, throughout the years.

But Will it be necessary? Would you recommend that legislation can be enacted for automatic cost of living adjustment for the department operational budget versus human resources. Salaries be designated for salary use only so that if they are not filled for a long time, that will become truly reflected in the general budget savings. And then also misuse of intended misuse of vacant positions, intentionally leaving them open despite the majority of them may have some other reasons why those positions are not filled. And that's my thinking.

And the second question regarding that vacancy will be why if long time I think that's the reason. For long time, these vacancies exist existed. That that's the reason governance office is suggesting to eliminate 6,000 positions in this nine departments. And why we would not evaluate which positions can be permanently eliminated can still we can serve reasonably in that functions of the department. And the other ones will be by not filling those positions, certain detrimental impact upon public safety on the services that have been damaged.

And if that's the case, then somebody, auditor's department or somebody can do in-depth study of unfilled positions. So why they are searched for a long time with a decent salary are not filled and find out those deficiencies and try to meet the needs to improve to the conditions to fill the positions.

So a couple of thoughts and I, I don't I don't think there's any new requirement that needs to be put in place. We have as I mentioned, we have done exercises like that in the past. We could do exercises like that again without there being any specific requirement put in place to do it. So I, I don't I don't feel like that is necessary. I think the other thing that's we need to be careful about when we're taking a look at which positions to take away.

So obviously this exercise is based on trying to reduce that sort of annual pool of flexible funding that's out there to keep it a bit more reasonable. But you also and and as you're going through that need to balance it with there are a lot of requirements on these departments in statute, things that they're supposed to do. And those positions were authorized to do them. And as I mentioned, they work hard and try very hard to get the positions filled and keep them filled.

The reality is that is what it is in terms of our vacancy rates.

If we were going to go in and say, well, look, there's certain positions that we just are never gonna be able to fill, then we probably also need to go in and take a look at the statutory requirements that were put in place for those and amend statute to say, okay, well, we tried to do this, we can't do this because you can't fill the positions. So the requirement should be taken off of the state department to try and do it.

Like, it would be it wouldn't make a great deal of sense and it would be incredibly unfair to our departments if we said, yeah, we're leaving all these requirements in statute but we're going to take away all the resources that were provided to give them to you because you can't fill them. Like it needs to be both ways.

You know, if we want to to say, hey, there's a certain number of positions that have been vacant for a really long time and we're never gonna fill them.

Well, okay, we also need to realize that the workload associated with that's never gonna get done and and that requirement should be removed.

Yeah. Because you mentioned that there are a certain set of annual recurring fixed position of 40,000 altogether by the state?

The total number is that level, but it's not always the same positions. So it could be a different mix of positions every year. Like, you may fill some, but then others become vacant and whatnot. The total tends to stay around 40,000, but the mix of which positions they are can switch up.

Yeah. It among those certain positions stayed vacant for you said, number of years. So for me, it gives me idea of more than two years can be vacant or three years it can be vacant. If that department operated for that long time without the position field, then I, I guess we don't need that position then should be eliminated. But anyway, the joint legislative budget committee is reviewing thoroughly and non concurring with a certain number of positions such as 650.

I'm glad that they are doing the job.

Thank you. They absolutely are. And I we're grateful for all the work that went into that. Thank you, Senator Choi. Senator Mcnearney.

Well, I thank the chair. I thank, the witnesses for testifying this morning. Last year, we discussed the gaps and the capability of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to meet its mission. And meanwhile, the budget proposes cutting further, which is kind of annoying and disturbing. And I appreciate the discussion on the special funds position.

It I can imagine that it's tricky because it's not it's volatile. You know, not not sure from one year to the next. So, that's something that I'd I'd like to make sure that, those positions that don't really cost the state anything aren't eliminated because, they're providing us essential services and and especially things like a permitting obligations and timeline for permitting. So I wanna make sure that those are are not eliminated, for the sake of eliminating positions.

Yes. So I Department of Fish and Wildlife is here. They can certainly come up and talk to things. I think some initial comments that I would put is that so in in certain cases, special funds are authorized for very specific purposes and so you you need you have to use the funding for that purpose. And so in the case of Fish and Wildlife, for example, as was mentioned, there are instances where, the funding was retained but the positions were removed.

And I think that's a recognition of we maintain the flexibility to reclass positions within the department. So if we leave them a certain pool of vacant positions, they can switch them around to what they need to be. That might be permitting, might be whatever.

By leaving the funding in place, if we decide that those positions need to be used for permitting, then we've maintained the appropriate funding to pay for somebody doing permitting, and the existing vacant positions can just be moved over there and you've got appropriate funding to match up with what that new purse what that person is now going to be doing. So so that's part of I think the thinking behind leave funding but take the positions.

You're still giving the flexibility to reclass whatever by having the funding that's specifically linked to those activities. If you need to reclass a position to those activities, you still have the appropriate funding to pay for those positions.

Well, you know, I, I think you're kind of showing us some of your cards by talking about, well, we have these positions that aren't being filled and we wanna use that, you know, to as a sort of a slush fund, which is alright. But wouldn't it be more logical, I guess, is the right word to just say, here are the positions we need and then let's establish a fund for flexibility. Don't call it a slush fund.

Yeah. I, I That wouldn't work. But I don't I mean, that'd be more logical to do that.

So I, so I don't view it or refer to it as a slush fund. And I, I

I didn't accuse you of that.

No. I know. I'm but and I'm I'm fine with showing you my cards because again, we're we're trying to be transparent about how we went about doing this. The thoughts are saying that because you have such a high level of vacancies annually throughout the state, that ties up a lot of funding in things that aren't going towards those positions. And as I talked about, there are some some very justifiable uses of those funding that that they have.

And so that's why we are trying to maintain some flexibility for folks to be able to live within their budgets and meet these base operations needs and to have some flexibility to to move positions around and reclass them and fill the highest priority stuff. But we think that the belt can be tightened a little bit in terms of how big the pool is on that flexibility.

Right. But I think it would make more sense to me personally. I'm not sure about the rest of the committee but to have a fund specifically for flexibility for those purposes rather than having vacant positions that are fully paid and using that in the way that you're describing.

It's it's certainly an alternative. I think what happens then is you've set aside a specific pot of funding for this flexible thing in addition to having your vacant position. So now you have twice as much unutilized funding.

So what we're trying to say is within the funding already authorized, let's allow them to do these things that they have to do to operate a department appropriately, but may maybe shrink down the size of it a little bit because we have we've seen from the data over several years that we're we're not filling, you know, a pretty pretty big chunk of the authorized positions.

Okay. But it's still kind of bothersome that you have, as as Senator Choi mentioned, positions that are not filled over a long period of time They may not be essential in that case. And I understand you're saying that, hey, there's a lot of these positions that are very hard to fill because they have certain requirements that are hard to meet or because the price of living is is so high in one case.

So taking a look at what positions are essential for the operation of the of the department. And then that brings me back to my earlier question.

Is the CDFW able to meet its obligations in terms of permitting? And what is the timeline effect of these changes of these eliminations?

I'll defer to the department to address that question.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Megan Hurtle. I'm the director for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and I have our deputy director Dan Reagan here with our fiscal service division. And I will just, hearken back to about a month or so ago when we were here before and we talked about service based budgeting and laid out clearly the difference between where our capacity levels are versus our service mandates.

And last year, we were at about 2.64% short, our time short of what we would need to meet our service mandates and we actually broke that down by category.

So I'll pass it over to the deputy director now.

Morning, Chair Members. I'm Dan Reagan, deputy director for fish and wildlife. Yes. The 164 position reduction that is slated in the 4.12 would have an impact across all service areas of our budget, service based budgeting category, particularly also to permanent environmental protection. Of those positions, approximately 87 of those positions are related to across 164 related to permitting.

With the flexibility though that finance said, it does allow us to recognize the SPV gap. It still does allow us the flexibility to reclass existing positions, move positions around to the highest priority need, utilize the funding as such, recognizing that we already have a gap within SPV.

I would also like to note that there is more than one way to close the SPB gap absent just more additional positions as you've seen and heard over the over the years that we've implemented SPB through use of process improvements, technology solutions, equipment solutions, and automation that will help close the gap. But it does have an impact on the department. But we are working hard to ensure that permitting obligations under the department are minimized.

Okay. And to answer the question about delays and timelines for permits, how is that being affected? Or will be affected?

We don't know how it will be affected. We are working just to ensure that any permitting delays or timelines are minimized due to this reduction in positions associated with 4.12 and ensuring that we are prioritizing positions within the department that are still remaining to help minimize those activities. It is important to note that what during the drill and during the prioritization, that my colleague talked about finance, You know, the department eliminated, through the drill 70% of its eligible vacancies and 80% of its general fund vacancies.

So there wasn't a way for the department to really prioritize and 100% protect anything, just due to the magnitude of it. The our department runs on norm about a 10 to 12% attrition rate and vacancy rate across it.

As mister Benson said, it's not one position. We have very few positions. In fact, the department has a process in place called the six month vacancy rule that if the position within the department remains vacant for six months, we automatically bring it back into a pool within the department to reallocate to a higher priority need or determine why it's been vacant for so long if it

is one of those hard to fill classifications.

I mean, what what you're describing sounds like a qualitative analysis rather than a quantitative analysis. Is that impossible at this point?

I would say it is impossible to give you a defined measure as far as of a delay would be additional month or two months. Right now, we're not seeing any additional delays in capacity, recognizing we have prioritized specific activities, but other things also give at that point in time. Director?

The only thing I would add to that is each of our permitting processes have different timelines that are required, and we do try to look at what is on the horizon and understand when big projects are coming in, or for example, when projects are being held up and need to take advantage of federal incentives. So we try to prioritize in real time to make sure we're meeting the greatest need, where it's at.

And we work very closely with the project proponents to do early consultation and try to move things as quickly as possible.

Okay. Well, I, I would recommend looking at the quantitative so that you can say, yeah. Here we have some numbers for you. I'm gonna yield back to the chair.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I wanted to ask the Department of Finance the first question which is, what number of positions do you think is appropriate to baseline toward? If it's not 40,000, what what is like the reasonable number that would be vacant each year in the state of California?

I'm not sure I could give you an answer on that like a a fixed number. I think there are a lot of factors that would go into that. And I think individual departments across the state try to take a look at that as a part of this exercise. And I'm certainly not in a position to be able to comment on, you know, what findings there were for CDCR or, you know, a lot of other departments that just aren't under my sphere.

I think when we look at individual departments on an annual basis, it seems like vacancy rates in the neighborhood of five and ten percent seem very reasonable because, you know, there's people, you know, are trading for various reasons all the time and there's a process that it takes to fill those positions.

And probably also not a secret that the state's process for doing that is not the most nimble and quick process on the planet. So that sometimes takes a little effort to get it done. So I think that if we ever got down to a 0% vacancy rate, that'd be like a miracle and I don't even I don't even think it's possible. So, like, there has to be some level of vacancy rate and I think, again, generally five to 10% would be considered pretty reasonable.

And what and what is 40,000 positions? What percentage is that?

I actually don't recall off the top of my head what the total number of authorized positions in the state is. So I'm not sure what 40,000 is a percentage of that. We could certainly get that and give it back to you. I mean, simple math. I just don't know what the number is off the top of my head.

Okay. Does anybody else that supports you in the room know that?

I, I doubt it.

Do you have an answer? No?

Andrew Hall with the Department of Finance. No. I don't have the total statewide positions with me.

Okay. I mean, it I The idea that 40,000 vacant positions So I'll just back up a little bit. I, I agree that we need to be right sized. We need to be nimble. We need to work toward eliminating structural deficits.

We need to belt tighten and live within our means. And it's really important that we use those that analysis when we're looking at what, what is the state doing. Right? You know, recognizing that 40,000 vacant positions across. And this is includes health and human services.

Right? Does it also include it includes education. Right? Which is like a a whole 50% of the general fund is, for education. And so, you know, what we're talking about right now in this, in this committee is an extremely small part of the overall budget.

So if, if the math is correct, which I think it is, that these proposed cuts would save one one hundredth of 1% of the general fund in our state budget. So, you know, recognizing, like, where are we getting savings for a general fund structural deficit and, a need to belt tighten one one hundredth of 1% of the general fund. You know, this these might be really severe cuts in this particular area and not doing a lot for our general fund.

So so I think it it's just important to recognize that 40,000 vacant positions sounds like a lot. But when we don't know what percentage that is, maybe we are in the five to 10%.

Percent. I mean, I don't know. But I guess that's where I'm trying to to to to benchmark that statement because it seems like a lot of positions. But when we don't really know what the percentage is, it's hard to to to really put that in context. So so I just I think it's important to go back to the numbers that we started with with the LAO which were so there were 6,000 proposed positions for elimination.

Almost 5,000 of them have been eliminated. Right? And so then we have a thousand of them where there's legislative review. And of those, 650 were non concurred. And so the question of to me, these non concurred positions really, you know, we we need you to take a more serious look at those nonconcurred positions because it seems my understanding is that the administration doesn't typically pursue elimination after nonconcurrence.

So this is somewhat unusual to continue pursuing that. And then when we look at what what are these positions doing, they do seem to me to be really important things. Like, for example, in the Department of Fish and Wildlife, which, this is going from memory from our last year's budget hearing, but my understanding of the service mandates, was framed a little differently than you just answered the question to my colleague. But my understanding was that we're really only fulfilling 30% of the mission.

It's something around, like, a third of what the mission for Department of Fish and Wildlife is where the current funding because of years of underfunding, we're at at this position where we're really not anywhere near fulfilling what what all the goals are.

So so some of these positions that were non concurred in CDFW, to me seem really important. Like, for example, oil spill prevention and response. There are 14 positions there. You know, we have not had oil drilling off the coast of California for more than fifty years, and it's just restarted off the Santa Barbara Coast with the sable pipeline. It's, back and forth with litigation in the Trump administration.

But we we know that when we drill, we spill. So the idea that, you know, there are things happening around oil drilling. We're also going to be seeing more drilling in Kern County. And so having oil spill prevention and response, to me, these that seems like a critical positions that we should not be cutting at this time. I'm also concerned about the proposed, endangered species act permitting activities.

You know, there there are a lot of things happening around secret and, the need to continue to protect our endangered species and recognize that the Federal Government is backsliding in that area and that these are important positions that we at the state need in order to fulfill our our basically values commitments to our natural lands and habitat. And then also law enforcement, wildlife, and resource protection, the cutting green tape initiative, stream bed and lake alteration activities. You know, these are all, to me, they're 77 positions.

They seem like they're really core to doing the important natural resources work that we have in the state of California. So I wanted to just ask you if that's true.

If what I'm saying is true, if there are any of those positions you wanna speak more specifically about so that we have a better understanding of that.

Thank you for your comments and I would agree that meeting our permitting mandate is core to the work that we do. As you heard from Department of Finance, we would basically have to think about reprioritizing other positions to move into this space to continue to meet that mandate or finding other improvements.

Okay. You wanna say anything?

I mean, everything you said is is accurate. In addition to the law enforcement reduction of 45 sworn law enforcement officers, has an impact to the department. Again, law enforcement officers, while one of the other options that we have with remain being able to maintain the special funds is also the option to hire limited term staff, to kind of help address workload flow workload fluctuations in that fashion.

Although be it not permanent, there is challenge to hire in limited term that they can no longer they can't position for more than two years absolute maximum per government code. But law enforcement positions, limited term is not an option for those for those positions.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, that there was a reference to 06/1937 park rangers, and there are a 147 vacancies. And I was wondering, does the academy service a 150 people all at once? So when you go through the academy to become a park ranger, you know, is that a vacant amount?

Because that's the amount that, is in a academy.

So the academy is certainly is trying to fill the vacancies but oh, let's see. I have Liz come talk about that. She knows better than I do but I don't think the classes are that big.

You guys are pushing out the elevator.

I don't. I'm sure I'd like. I can get up and move.

Thank you, Senator. Liz McGurk with State Parks. So our academy capacity is roughly 50 a year. So with that, you know, after after the elimination roughly a 130 vacancies left, it would take us several years still to fill those vacancies. But we are very focused on recruitment and retention for our peace officers and and very focused on filling those classes and retaining retaining folks.

And so why do we have a 147 vacancies?

Lots of reasons. I think some of the positions can be hard to fill. They're in remote locations. You have, labor market issues. So there are various reasons that the vacancy rate remains high.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, the the, information that was provided about, really, there's only a proposal to cut 15 of those because a 132 would left to be filled. You know, those type I, I do think that type of information contextualized is important because we are still gonna be filling most of them. It seems like do you is there any do you wanna respond to the 15 that would be cut or some somewhere around that?

Sure. I mean, when we were looking at the positions, you know, we did really try to focus on maintaining public safety and visitor services. It was a core principle. When we looked at these 15, they were positions that had historically been vacant, have been hard to fill, and knowing the rate that we can fill our academies, it seemed appropriate, to include that this time.

Okay. And these are within the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Right? No. They're within parks?

Yes.

These are parks. And you're with parks? I'm with parks. Yes.

Okay. So so so this is an example of of those for you looking at your own department, those seem like appropriate reductions. That seemed acceptable.

It seemed acceptable. I guess it's hard to say appropriate. Of course, you know, we want to keep all of our ranger positions but in looking at the totality of the exercise and knowing the rate that we can actually fill those academies, that's why these were, included in the exercise.

Right. Okay. Okay. Well, then that seems acceptable to me. After a year we're not I'm not gonna go through every single one of these.

But I guess I also I just wanna make a couple of other points. So, so it's important that we fulfill the mission of the state government, which does involve processing permitting fast faster than we currently do. We receive enormous numbers of complaints about government not doing its job because we can't get things through the system faster. And it, you know, it ranges from, permitting people who are trying to get, childcare license to someone who's trying to get their project through the Coastal Commission.

So, you know, when I've talked to the Coastal Commission, they say we are, you know, we we are burdened by not having enough staff to process permits.

And we wish more cities would get their lost local coastal programs so that they would be the processing of it. But then there are certain ones that take a long time. You know, looking at the coastal commission cut, it does appear I don't know if the coastal commission's in the room. But it does appear that there's only one position. And I don't know if it's related to permitting.

So I don't know if I would have an issue with that one position. But would you like to address the Coastal Commission cut? Yeah. Good morning. Madeline Cavalieri with the Coastal Commission.

I believe there are six positions at issue for the Coastal Commission. The one may be from the, BCDC. Okay.

And these positions are, are for, implementation of SB272 for sea level rise adaptation planning, working with local governments to get, their LCPs updated to address sea level rise, within the the framing of the bill, which is by 2034. Right. Okay. Yeah. I mean, the those types of position the the public facing positions to me seem like the most important.

The ones where I mean, it it's obviously a a balance where we need peep. We need staff to be able to interact with cities. But we do rec we do recognize that sometimes our processes can get really bogged down with enormous numbers of back and forth and requests for additional studies. And I've had a a number of complaints about the Coastal Commission's ongoing open ended process.

So so recognizing that the Coastal Commission, you know, has areas where it could be reformed but also needs to have staffing to do accomplish its mission.

That, you know, it's a complicated space. And and so so I'll just leave the Coastal Commission positions at that. And then and then I, I did want to return to one other topic so thank you. I, I don't think I have any follow-up Coastal Commission but I did have a follow-up question actually for CDFW. So one of the things that I'm really focused on is the the number of wildlife incidents, human wildlife conflict incidents that we're have, that we have in the state of California.

And and also livestock wildlife protection activities related to our interactions with wolves who are have traveled over the border from Oregon and now have established themselves in the state of California. And so we, we we have had in the last five years a 31% increase in wildlife incidents. And this has led to more examples of euthanasia of bears and wolves.

We had one just recently in Southern California where I represent Blondie the bear had to be put down after swiping at some, per, a person at least twice. And one wonders if after the first swiping incident, if Blondie could have been relocated instead of having to be euthanized.

You know, I know these are, specific situations. But also, of course, a wolf pack made the news, quite a lot when it had to be put down as well. So if the positions are swept, these positions are swept in the Department of Fish and Wildlife, how do you think this will impact the existing livestock wildlife protection activities?

Maybe I can start and then I'll pass it over to Chief Arnold. So first of all, we take human wildlife conflicts very seriously. We are seeing an uptick in it. We get roughly 30 to 40,000 reports a year of human interaction with wildlife. A small percentage of those are deemed a public safety threat.

It is taken very seriously and chief can talk about the process for that. But euthanasia is the last resort. We would much rather invest in communication, engagement, and helping communities understand how to prevent human wildlife conflict from happening in the first place so that we don't end up with a case where people's lives are being harmed or at risk from wildlife.

I will also say on the wolf side, we are working very hard to try to get more tools out in the hands of sheriffs and of ranchers. The packs are growing.

You'll have seen from our most recent quarterly report that we're up to 12 packs and between fifty and seventy wolves. It is a conservation success story and it is being born the hardest by our rural communities who are dealing with this every day as they try to branch, right, and make a living in their communities.

So the department and myself personally spend a lot of time working with partners and working with these communities to try to find solutions that both protected them, their livelihoods, and the wolves. So I will turn it over to chief to talk some about, public safety and human wildlife conflicts.

Hi. Chief Arnold with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. So, yes, specifically with public safety, looking at these incidents, when that decision is made, through the department, it is when, in the very majority of cases when there is injury to the person. In the particular case, with a bear down south, that that would it was, caused injury twice. We were trying to locate the bear the first time and the injuries were fairly significant of both victims.

So we we take a look at each and every one of those incidents before that decision is made for for obvious reasons for, you know, euthanasia. So we do relocate a lot of wildlife. But again, with spatial memory, especially with bears, they come back to the same area and they pose a great threat in that particular issue. Tons of elementary schools in the area. This this is not a rural community.

This is in in an area that kids frequent, sidewalks, community housing, all in the same area. So, but with public safety, like the director said, it is a small quantity of the human wildlife conflicts that we deal with, but we do deal with it.

Okay. I appreciate knowing more information about that incident because it it it actually was a curiosity with not much information. But I'll also reground this discussion in the dis in the point of with more people, you can do more to help keep communities safe. Right? That is correct.

Okay. Do you wanna say anything more about how these proposed department sweeps would impact your current, wildlife, human conflict, staffing situation?

Yes. Specifically with the wildlife officers, as deputy director Reagan said earlier, talking 45 wildlife officers, that's 9% overall, 14% of actual wildlife officers boots on the ground. So, yes, it has a tremendous impact, from Northern California to Southern California with every activity that we do, but specifically with human wildlife conflict as well.

Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. And and then, I'll just My last point before I yield back to the chair, thank you for your indulgence with so many questions, is really about, I just wanna return to the special funds.

So this question of resilience and health of special funds, you know, when we are asking, like, in the Department of Toxics, we ask, pestis you know, a particular pesticide manufacturer to pay more. 10,000,000, I think, is the amount that has been raised into the fund to then hire people to make sure that our system is safe. I mean, I'm I'm summarizing, but I just don't understand why we would be cutting special fund positions. I do understand if what you're saying is that we have structural deficits.

So we have too many positions.

We're not collecting enough money from a special fund. And so it has to be backfilled by the general fund. I understand trying to get that right. But I don't understand if this the fees are on on the on the backs of the users, whether it's someone, you know, who owns a boat or someone who manufactures a pesticide and then it goes for a specific purpose, why would we would cut those positions?

So I'd have to defer to the individuals over specific budgets because I personally I'm not familiar with the pesticide situation. I did not review that one personally. But I think in some cases, these reductions do help with structural imbalances. They avoid the need to do fee increases. And I think the other piece with some of the special funds is there's a lot of as I alluded to in my opening comments, there's a lot of differences in terms of how some special funds fees are set.

And so the impacts to the reductions can impact them all differently. And so I think in those cases, it's, you know, it is important that we have to talk bring the departments up and talk about the specifics, which I can't do. But if Pesticides is here and wants to talk about that, we could certainly bring them up to do that. But I think there's just special funds in general, there's just a lot of factors.

Some special funds, the fee is determined by a calculation that's based on how much is appropriated from that fund every year.

Some fees are set in regulations based on other factors. And and so just the way the special fund is set up and works, the specific reductions can vary in terms of how they impact and what benefits they may or may not have with the fund.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I guess I'll just return to my bigger point, which is we do have a general fund, budget deficit. But we don't to my knowledge, we don't have a special fund budget deficit. If if we do, then then we should be addressing that, you know, specifically.

I don't are you standing in are you with the Department of the Pesticides? Okay. Did would you like to come forward and, answer some of these questions about these proposed positions, which there are 19 proposed for elimination. It will have zero benefit financially to the general fund. And it's a total savings of $1,700,000 within the special fund.

That's correct. And, Alejandra Duran, deputy director, over legislation and policy at the department. Yeah. I don't know if you have a much more specific question. You noted about the increased fees, that obviously our fees support all all of our positions.

Just in brush strokes, the positions that are proposed for elimination are impacting branches across the board, which do have a role, obviously, in product registration, looking at the environmental fate of it, making sure that they are safe to be used around humans and the environment, obviously, in the enforcement side of things, human health side, assessment side of things, integrated pest management side of things.

So there is an impact overall, to the department since, those 19 positions, do impact, the multiple branches within the department that have a different role in making sure that past ed use loss and regulations are being followed.

Okay. So if these positions are eliminated and 1,700,000 is saved in a special fund, what what is the benefit of that or what will happen now?

Nate Williams with Department of Finance. So I mean, I think the the DPR fund is not in a structural deficit. So, you know, that that isn't necessarily a concern. But I think, that as we were looking at this more broadly, we were really just trying to find efficiencies where we could find efficiencies. And, despite, you know, this not helping necessarily with the general funder these specific positions.

And also this fund is not in a structural deficit. We are looking at future, potential increases that may not need to happen as far as increases in fees for for the fund. So we were really just looking at trying to find efficiencies in this vacancy drill kind of across the budget.

Well, I do think that's an important thing. I mean, I was wondering how you were tying this to affordability because clearly, if you cut these positions, they're not nobody's price of buying Roundup is gonna go down because of this.

So, you know but the what you're what you're saying here is that next year and the year after that the that the the assessment might not go up because there would so I mean, I do think that's an important value when when we're evaluating these these positions in in the structural in the these special funds. And I guess I don't have enough information about that to be able to speak to it but I do recognize what you're saying so thank you for that.

So I guess, just to conclude my remarks.

You know, I am very concerned about the non concurrence positions in general. So I just want to express, you know, to the committee chair and to the team that the six fifty non concurred positions, after we've already eliminated 5,000 positions, you know, those really need a second look, because they are doing these important things, permitting habitat per protection, public safety in all of these really important areas.

And and I'm also particularly worried about the Department of Fish and Wildlife because that does have, 77 positions and also the Parks and Rec. Actually, the truth is I'm worried about all of them. So they're all my favorite children.

So so I hope that there is a reevaluation of that from the Department of Finance. And the, and also from the committee. So that we can continue to advocate for keeping, our commitment to the important mission that these, that these, departments do in the state of California. With that, I'll yield back. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for those questions. While I've got the Department of Pesticides still here, I do have one final question after the questions that were asked. Can you tell us if any of these proposed positions or or these positions proposed for elimination are responsible or support or or for or provide the support for registration of new pesticides and meeting the deadline required under AB 2113?

Yeah. So, I will clarify that, these positions are not part of the new permanent positions that we received a couple years ago as part

of the BCP associated with AB 2113. We did calculate the number of new positions based on the department being whole, so, you know, under the assumption that we would still have these positions. These positions, as I mentioned, are impacting branches across the board, including the registration branch program, evaluation program. So they do indirectly, will be supporting some of the requirements associated with twenty one thirteen.

Very good. Thank you. I, I had some questions for DTSC, but before that, parks and rec not parks and rec, CDFW. Under the proposal as you're walking up, it seems that permitting would be lowered from 40% to 37% of meeting the mission. Enforcement would be lowered from 33% to 29%.

Both of these have been well below the mission goals for several years. Deputy director Reagan main mentioned there were other ways such as technical ways to achieve the department missions. But even with these alternatives, it looks like the efficiency cuts only serve to harm the the department. What are your thoughts, director?

Thank you for the question, chair. Obviously, when there are less positions, we face a reduction in capacity. But we also recognize that in challenging budget times, there are hard decisions that have to be made. And so, we will work hard within the budget that we are given level of service that we can. Regardless, we are always looking for efficiency improvements.

We are looking for ways to streamline our process, ensure consistency and training, work better with the people who are on the outside asking for these permits. And there is a limitation on what you can do with that. So I will just say we continue to be creative and committed to providing the level of service that is expected of us and to protecting California's natural resources in tough budget times.

I, I will tell you that that that is it is commendable. It isn't, I love all of the departments, and I'm not just talking about the ones that are, here today. But just in general, there's so much that the the state of California has to provide and every department does does their share to do whatever needs whatever needs to be done to provide the service to to the Californians.

But I, I have been concerned that you have been have not received the the financial support that would be necessary. And I remember during the last hearing, we heard about the shortfall in law enforcement funding.

And these are the sorts of things that are of great concern that, we we applaud your your stretching the dollar. But I think when we're talking about law enforcement very specifically and and it it goes through so many different areas of what you're trying to do throughout the state of California to be able to cover the entire state of California.

The positions that are non concurred, it is important just as my colleagues have both have all mentioned that we need to make sure that that we before we do eliminate those positions that we take a third and fourth look at those. But I, I do appreciate that you do stretch the dollar. I would suggest you not stretch it so much so that so that there's more relief for for your team.

Alright. But I do wanna thank you. Yes.

I just wanted to follow-up on a couple of things. So I had an astute colleague back in the office who, provided me some data towards, Senator Blake Spears question earlier. So using numbers from 2425 when this drill actually initiated, so apples to apples number usage, there is about 250,000 positions across the state, and so 40,000 of those is around 16%.

We had checked with ChatGPT, and we came up with the same thing.

Oh. See, AI is quicker, but at least we got the same number. So

I, I, I told the team, I said, there's gotta be an answer. They quickly went to chat GPT.

I try not to use that on my phone in

the hearing, but I'm not I, I I'm not saying that we that's how we get our information. I'm just saying there there I wanted there to be some answer, and I'm glad you you

The other thing that I just wanted to mention quickly is we do have special funds that run structural, deficits. And so that is part of what we think about with these two. That was a question that came earlier.

But it's rare though. It's it I think you use special funds to take care of of the the the deficit to backfill.

I think we have the ability to address them a bit more flexibly. I don't know that I would say it's rare that they come up. I just think that our ability to address them is probably a little easier than with the general fund. So

Okay. Yeah. Well, very good. For DTSC.

Where's my question?

Welcome back. In 2022, DTSC increased fees and added over 300 positions to make governance and fiscal reforms to the at the department. Hiring 300 people is like is we all can imagine be very difficult not just from DTSC but HR department for the State of California. How did you factor into the department's vacancy rate when the department was asked to identify these vacant positions. And were you still in the process of hiring at that time?

Good morning, Madam chair, senators. Brian Brown. I'm the Chief Financial Officer at DTSC. Yeah. Thank you for the question.

Yeah, for a bit of context, you're right. The committee may recall that in 2021, the Legislature and Governor approved a big legislative package for DTSC. We refer to it as our fiscal and governance reform legislation, that among other things added additional fee revenue for the department to support our mission so that we could hire more staff, was one of the main functions so that we could meet our statutory mission and obligations.

And so, a consequence of that was in the '22 and '23 fiscal years, the budget act includes roughly 300 additional positions for DTSC to implement those reforms. And so, when this initiative, the vacancy reduction in effort went into place at the beginning of the '24 fiscal year, we were still in the process of filling those hundreds of new positions.

We had been making a lot of progress, though. So, at the outset at the beginning of the '22 fiscal year, our vacancy rate was up in the neighborhood of 30%. At the beginning of the '24 fiscal year, we had gotten it down to 15%. So we were slowly, methodically working through filling those vacancies.

And as you, alluded to, Madam Chair, part of that is just a function of it does take time to recruit and onboard new staff as just something that takes a while to make sure you identify the right people to fill a position.

But we were also because it was such a large number of new positions, we had to be very deliberative in how our recruitment strategy. We couldn't go out and hire 200 or 300 new people all at once. We just didn't have the capacity administratively. So, we were very deliberative about doing things in certain phases. So, one example would be our safer consumer products program effectively doubled under reform.

And so one of the strategies they employed was to, focus first on recruiting and hiring the new supervisory positions. And then once they had those positions filled, then those managers and supervisors could go and start to build up their new units that they were, in charge of and do the recruitment for those staff positions of scientists and other positions. So, the consequence of that was, though, it did take, longer than, if we were just, hiring a handful of new position.

It also had the effect too of, oftentimes, the people who were being hired into those supervisory positions or people who were promoted internally. So even as we filled one position, that actually created a new vacancy.

So that plus just a normal turnover that's been discussed earlier. We still had a vacancy rate that was relatively high, 15%, but we were making, slow and steady progress, and I think we would have continued to

Already, the 112 positions that are proposed to be eliminated part of that 2022 reform?

Yes. I think it's around 20 or so positions.

Okay. And my final question is, what activities will the department not be able to fulfill with the elimination of these positions?

Well, I the intention, the or the approach that we took to selecting the position that would be vacant were to look across all of our programs and select, those positions that we felt were the lowest priority.

Now, that didn't mean they weren't important positions, didn't have important functions in meeting our mission, but we spread those reduction across all of our programs with the explicit intention of not having to concentrate the reductions on a single program such that we would have to decimate, any one program area activity that we employ. So what that means is that, while we I don't think there's any specific activity that we won't be able to do anymore. We are intentionally trying to maintain all of our activity.

It just means that some of the activities may not happen as quickly or we might not be able to do as many of certain activities as we would if we were if we had a higher staffing level.

But it does mean that every area of our operations is affected.

Wonderful. Well, thank you so much. Are there any further questions of on issue one? Alright.

The let's have a State Water Resources Control Board. Let's spread the spread the love. Make sure everybody.

So, with the need to protect oh, let me see. Is this I'm sorry. With the need to protect the water quality and supply from changes in federal laws and oversight with the concerns about drought and flooding in California, how will the loss of 97 positions impact the state and regional water board's ability to carry out their many responsibilities?

Thank you for the question, Chair. I'm Karen Mogus with the State Water Board and appreciate the question. Similar to DTSC, we chose to spread the cut of positions widely across all of our program areas. We have 6 Regional Board and many organizations within the state water board that implement many programs across our authorities.

So what we chose to do was take the number of positions in each of these organizations. Their vacancies, excuse me.

The vacancies that needed to be reduced were proportional to the number of positions that existed in those organizations. So, the larger the organization, like our Division of Financial Assistance, for example, is over 300 positions just for that division, had the largest number of positions that they needed to reduce. Smaller organizations, like our smaller regional boards, had fewer positions just proportionally. So because of that, the program areas that are impacted depend on which organization those vacancies were removed and the priorities within those organizations.

So, as a result, what that will impact is

That was my next question.

The wide range of functions that we do. So, for example, most of our program areas are in the permitting arena. There are inspections. There are permits to be issued on a variety, you know, whether that's water rights permits, ground water recharge permits, to waste discharge permits across all of our program areas. So the functions are permitting, inspections, enforcement.

Those kinds of activities don't completely get eliminated with these position cuts, but take longer to do. And we end up with backlogs of permits, for example.

Obviously, we don't want that as we've been commented on previously. Is it going to impact public health or safety?

We intentionally saved programs that were focused on public health and safety, like our Division of Drinking Water, from having to make cuts, in so that we reserved the positions that were focused on public health and safety as best we could.

Wonderful. As you know, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, didn't concur on a number of those positions. Do you agree with them on the ones the positions not to eliminate?

Andrew Hall with Department of Finance. One thing that I would like to try to make clear, I think, you know, the legislature and the administration are looking at this a little bit differently, and it's completely fair to be looking at the specific positions and what those duty statements were at the time.

I think what, you know my counterpart, Steven Benson, was saying and what we're trying to say is that even after the reductions of these vacant positions, there's still going to be a couple 100 you know, for some of these departments on any given day that can be redirected to other higher priorities. So if there was a concern over permitting, there is flexibility within the department to move other vacancies to fill those roles.

But, you know, acknowledging that you know reductions in positions is not an easy task for you know, for any of these departments.

So that I just wanted to see if I can get an answer though that you the department the administration, proposed a number of positions to be, eliminated permanently. The committee reviewed those, didn't concur with a number of those cuts. And that was my question, is did you what is your opinion rather than saying do you agree? The what is your opinion regarding the JLBC's findings?

Well, we certainly agree that the positions in many instances were high priority work that needed to be done. And since those vacancies were reduced and to finance's point, we have identified other positions where we could, reclassify and move them into higher priority work. Since then, we have done that.

See, it helped that he gave an answer first. You wanted to ask.

I just wanted to add just one thought. I think I think where we're still hung up with some of the non-concurrent stuff is the ability to close workload gaps with them is based on a presumption that the vacant positions will be able to be filled. And where we still struggle is that when you look at over a multi-year period of time, the general amount of vacancies stays pretty steady.

So there's a certain amount of this that is workload that already stretches departments to get done because they're sort of having to absorb workload for vacant positions. And unless we actually have an overall reduction in the vacancy rate, then the gap of closing the workload doesn't actually close.

It may shift around as to which people because of which ones are filled, but you have to actually get a lower vacancy rate overall in order for the gap in in service level to change. And what we're trying to say is over a multiyear period of time, we're not seeing an overall reduction in those gaps.

And it goes back to what Senator Tim McNerney said earlier that rather if the work is going to be done, then instead of leaving those vacancies open, just to set aside a separate fund that says you can use this for to provide the services that the department has to provide. But I thank you all for your presentations. Thank you. Alright. We're gonna move on to issue number two.

Department overview, the State Water Resources Control Board. Thank you.

Welcome, Chair Esquivel. Would you like to begin?

Thank you, Chair Reyes. Senators on the committee, it's an honor to join you this morning. I am Joaquin Esquivel. I'm the Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.

The State Board is a five-member board. We, along with our nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, oversee water quality regulation within the State of California. That includes implementing Porter Colon, California's landmark legislation that predates the Clean Water Act and also includes then, implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act here within the state. In addition, the State Board administers Water Rights. They're administering the thousands and thousands of Water Rights that, are here within the state.

And additionally, a decade ago, the Division of Drinking Water was transferred over little over a decade ago from the Department of Public Health over to the State Board. And so the State Board also oversees the nearly 3,000 community water systems within the State of California. We set maximum contaminant levels, and really complemented both the quantity and quality regulations that the State Board sets and has really focused us in the public health arena for sure.

In addition, actually, our largest division by staffing is our division of financial assistance. And they're proud to say since 2019, we've invested over $12,000,000,000 in the state of California, low interest loans and grants in drinking water, wastewater, water recycling, storm water capture.

And so are a large funder of water in the state and a key to keeping water affordable. That's and I'll just say, you know, as a general overview, the board since at least I became a chair here in 2019 has been in a just an incredible period both because of the historic droughts that we've continued to manage through. But also because of the real focus on communities without access to clean drinking water where we've been able to go since 2019.

Thanks to the safe and affordable fund, the leadership of the governor and the legislature providing financials source here to address small failing systems. We've been able to go since 2019 from 1,600,000 Californians down to about 600,000 today.

Done about a 180 consolidations brought back into compliance over 300 water systems and ultimately have been able to benefit nearly 3,000,000 Californians even if our net number is only about a million less we'll say, from from 2019. So proud of the work the board has been able to do. Also, in advancing water rights administration at a really critical time. This last turn of the drought, the Board Administered Water Rights for the first time, actively Administered Water Rights for the first time in the state's history.

And we recently completed an $80,000,000 or $60,000,000 investment in a New Water Rights Data System that is modernizing the way that we track and account for water rights within the state.

So, a lot of pressure certainly on our water systems and our water resources within the state. But incredibly proud of the work that we've been able to do as a board to stay on top of, continue to spot issues and emerging contaminants say like PFAS or microplastics, and continue to serve California as best we can.

Thank you. Questions? Yes. Senator McNerney.

Of course.

Thank you. Thank you, Director. I or Chair, I guess, is the right word. I understand that the State Water Resources Control Board is in the process of updating the Bay Delta Plan. And I thank the board for, your continued to be diligent stewards of the water for California.

Overall, where is the board now, in this decision about adopting the voluntary agreement. And if it is adopted, how effective do you believe that it will be in maintaining the two goals of protecting the health of the Delta while providing water for this state water project?

Really appreciate the the question, Senator. And amongst our priorities should have very much highlighted at the top that passage and completion of the update of the Bay Delta plan is a top priority for the board. The last time the Bay Delta plan was adopted was actually or significantly, adjusted was in the mid nineties. Then to accommodate the Bay Delta Accord and the voluntary agreement, if you will, at that time.

And since then, what's come about is the Endangered Species Act has put further restrictions on the projects.

And we've seen further declines ultimately of native salmon to native species. And so the update of the Delta Plan is really critical for us to really wrap our arms around this declining system and begin to improve the in-stream flow protections that we see within that system. Importantly, the board adopted in 2018 the first component of the update of the Bay Delta plan that included the Lower San Joaquin.

We are currently in the the last stretches if you will, of the update of the Sacramento Delta components of that plan. What's important is that the current proposal is a dual pathway for the board, where we will be updating standards.

We will be adopting standards. And then also have now indicated that we will be, looking to adopt, the healthy rivers and landscapes proposal voluntary agreements, which have been worked on now for two administrations going back to the Brown administration. And the reason why it is here I you will see that I am in support of the current path of adopting both is because we need to begin implementing.

We need to start to ultimately afford ourselves the opportunity to have better tools in the watershed to actually start to reverse the trends that we're seeing. And what we've seen is that although the Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act are very important and their protections on the projects are are ongoing, that's not enough.

We really need to cast a wider net if you will. Something that we didn't do in the mid-nineties, which was part of the compromise then, which was we're really gonna apply these protections to the major projects, the Central Valley project and the state water project. And all the other water right holders, all the other projects that are part of this massive Bay Delta watershed, 40% of the land mass of our state, we're gonna be left alone.

What is obvious is that it's not just what we can do with the ESA or the projects, but how this system as a whole is going to function that is most critical. So the path that we have before us with willing partners in the water user community to come along, to add blocks of water, and here begin to importantly administer water rights at all times is really critical.

Because no matter if, you know, you have a regulatory approach that's generating water in the system, whether you have a voluntary approach where water users are putting water into that system, let alone things like 1707 dedications, which are in stream flow dedications already supposed to be protected. They're not. They're not because we don't actively administer water rights. And so other water right holders don't know not to pick up that those blocks of water. So, they're not protected.

So, what's important is that we move. We finally complete the work of the update of the Bay Delta plan, and we find ourselves in implementation, which is still yet another step, but such a critical one. Because as I said whether it's voluntary approaches of blocks of water, whether it's a regulatory approach, whether it's other blocks of water that blocks of water that should be protected in the system.

We need to begin to do what other Western states do, and that's actively administer water rights so that we can actually start to see the benefits, the system wide benefits, that these contributions can make. And so where we are is, here we've released earlier this year, a draft of our program implementation and our environmental documentation.

We're currently listening- we're currently reviewing comments that we received. We will come out with another draft here then this summer, which will lead then to final adoption in the fall by the board.

Okay. Very good answer. I appreciate that. Do you have the scientific resources that you need to ensure that the delta is moving in the right direction or at least to understand the direction that it's moving in health wise?

I will say yes. And we do continue to need more. And what I'm fortunate for, we are collectively is, you know, it's not just the resources or the scientific understanding at the State Water Resources Control Board, which are incredible. But we also have partners like the Delta Stewardship Council.

Other water users and importantly non-government organizations that are all here, you know, we're all best collectively trying to figure out how we do contribute to our common scientific understanding and ensure that our policies are based off of those and acknowledge that there is disagreement.

This is a complex system that we're all collectively managing. But I think the process to gaining that better trust and understanding is really critical. And what I've appreciated by about our update of the Bay Delta Plan is that there has been a lot of process. And we've heard a lot of folks, including concerns around the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Proposal and whether or not the resources enough there to get it done.

I think what's important on that note again is that the board is also updating standards.

It's not an either or. We're doing both. And in the years ahead as we implement, we'll be able to ensure that, you know, we have tools to pivot if we need. But importantly, to really focus on the success of not just focusing relying on the ESA to you know, fix our problems when it comes to declining species. But really use Porter Cologne, the board's broader authorities in order to again, wrap our arms really around the issue.

I think well, I mean, as you must know, I'm determined to protect the delta for my constituents. Now there's a bill moving through the assembly that my Senate colleagues will see later in the year. It's AB 2215 that would provide the State Water Contractor Statutory Authority to exercise their historic water rights. But my understanding on this is that generally, a conferred the right is generally conferred through a regulatory process at the State Water Board.

So I'd like to get a feel for that conflict.

Can you tell me where the board is in consideration of the contractor's rights? And does the water board believe that solving the issue through statute is necessary?

No. I'll say and I have been somewhat briefed, but I don't I wasn't fully prepared for the question. But as I understand the right that is at topic here for the state water project had been submitted to the board was withdrawn in 2009, I believe. And then another resubmission recently. Water rights is a complicated matter for sure.

And unlike other Western states that have spent a few decades here improving their water rights processes, going through things, you know our processes can be complicated. I don't have a position personally on the legislation that's currently moving through. I don't think we yet have one. But I do have here with me my Legislative Director, Candace Cotton. I don't know if miss Cotton, if you wanted to add anything further.

Hello, Chair and Senator. My name is Candace Cotton. I'm the Legislative Director for the State Water Resources Control Board. We don't have a position on the bill. We tend not to take positions on legislation as it's still pending through the legislature.

You know, I think what Chair Esquivel said already is accurate.

Okay. Well, I just, like to be a little more comfortable in terms of where that, rights are gonna land because in in the current regime, I think we have some comfort with the proposed legislation. We're starting to lose our confidence.

Noted. I appreciate that, Senator.

Thank you. I'll yield back.

Thank you so much. Now in reading your bio, I realized that you've been doing this for nine years. You were first appointed by Governor Brown in March 2017, designated Chair by Governor Newsom in 2019. You were previously Assistant Secretary for Federal Water Policy, CNRA in the Governor's Washington DC Office, where you facilitate the facilitated the development of policy priorities between the CNRA, the Governor's Office, California Congressional Delegation, and federal stakeholders. And I mention all of that because my next question is after all these years of experience.

Do you have any concerns or issues that you see happening at the federal level that may impact the board's work relating to drinking water and water quality?

Thank you. I do appreciate I do appreciate that that question, chair. It has been I'll just say I know for many of us troubling to see the drastic reduction in the federal workforce. I believe, you know, Bureau of Reclamation is down, you know 60% of their staffing. Many of the science agencies as well, I think of the California Nevada River Forecast Center, you know resources at NOAA and other places that are really important to us here in the state.

We rely on our federal partners incredibly. And so I'll say that the reduction in federal workforce and having our federal partners there is definitely a concern. And is putting pressure then on state programs and resources to, if you will pick up the slack. I know our next item here to discuss is around our second proposal for positions. There because of a

So that would be the next question. What are we doing to prepare?

Yeah. We are and you know, in the case of say, the Supreme Court decision on Sackett that drastically reduced the scope of the Clean Water Act. We are now having to rely on our, again, state authorities and programs in ways that we haven't before.

And so that's why again, you know on this next item, you'll see we have a request for positions in order to fill that hole, ensure that we don't have delayed permitting timelines, and try to build back some of the efficiencies that we had in place prior to this dramatic rollback on the Federal Government side. So, whether it's rollbacks because of Supreme Court decisions or because of active changes here in federal priorities, it does put strain on the state.

And I think as well around funding for water, generally. The state revolving fund for the clean water and drinking water side of the federal program, We've seen declines in the baseline funding that we're receiving. So whether it's the money that we're receiving through grants, whether it's the partnership on the policies and the programs with the feds. The steps that we've seen on federal side have not been welcome.

Did you want to add something?

Vin Dong Ling with the Department of Finance. Nothing to add but I'd have to answer any questions on the BCPs as we get into that conversation.

Wonderful. Thank you. And my last question is that you've benefited from the transition from between Governors. We're getting ready for a new Governor. We don't know who it's going to be.

Some of us feel it's going to be one person in particular, but nobody knows. But as we're getting ready are the lessons that you've learned having gone through this transition before that will help you prepare to pivot and to adjust to a new new administration?

What I really do appreciate is the structure in which the State Water Resources Control Board is crafted and that we have four-year revolving positions. I think that that really does help to have continuity across the efforts that the board is undertaking. Because regrettably and, you know, this is because of the complexity oftentimes of the decisions that we're in the midst of. And the time truly it takes to try to get through those. But they span multiple administrations.

And so, the ability to have continuity at the board as we move into another administration, so that we keep momentum is really critical. I certainly feel the continued urgency because of climate change, because of aging infrastructure, because of water quality challenges that that are with emerging contaminants. We need to keep the momentum, and I think we have an opportunity to do so.

Wonderful. Thank you. Alright. If there are no other questions, let's move on to issue number three.

This item is regarding permitting impacts from the recent Supreme Court decisions. So, good segue, here. The State Water Resources Control Board is requesting 2, 600,000 in fiscal year '26-'27 and ongoing. And 12 permanent positions from the waste discharge permit fund to conduct essential water quality permitting enforcement work in response again to the 2023 US Supreme Court decision.

The Sackett ruling, substantially narrowed what quantifies as waters in The United States, reducing the Federal Clean Water Act Jurisdiction and leaving gaps in oversight of wetlands and other waters.

So, this positions and the water board has analyzed, our data on orders issued since the Sackett ruling. And for the request of the 2024 Budget Act, we actually submitted a report on the impacts of Sackett to the legislature, this last January. And so, this BCP is in alignment with that report to the legislature and is meant to again, really fill the void that the federal the pullback in federal jurisdiction created. I'll note that last year, we requested 26 positions.

At that time, it was a higher number than that 26.

It was kind of part of a larger ask. And appropriately, it was reduced down to the 26 positions. These 12 positions are essentially the other half of that request. And important to note that of those 26 positions we released last year or received last year, a majority have now been filled. There's just a few, as I understand left.

But these resources are actively now at the regional water quality control boards. And so, these additional 12 positions again will help us ensure that, we do our best to try to maintain the timelines that we had prior to the decision. It's not lost on me in an era of discussions around streamlining and moving faster. Folks often, you know try to remove components or narrow say here, the jurisdiction of the Federal Clean Water Act.

And it hasn't materialized somehow as a meaning that we have less timelines and in fact has created a lot of confusion and chaos and, actually extended permitting timelines because of it.

So these resources are really critical for us to, again try to at least just get back to where we were prior to this federal decision.

Wonderful. Thank you. LAO?

Thank you, madam chair. Sonja Petek with the Legislative Analyst Office. I wanna start with the proposal at hand. As you know, our office has suggested that the legislature apply a high bar to approving any new proposals in light of some of the budget challenges that the state faces. We recommend or we find that this proposal would meet that high bar for legislative consideration.

These positions and funding are justified and supported by the Water Boards Data and the reporting that they provided to the Legislature and serve really important functions related to water quality. I wanted to just take a moment however to address some of the findings from that report that the Water Board provided it to the Legislature in January.

And as the Chair, Chair Esquivel noted already one of the reasons that the legislature didn't originally approve these 12 positions in '24 or '25 was a desire to have more information about how the process was, how this redefinition of waters of The United States was the effects that really was gonna have on Water Board staff. So that, information was provided in this report. And there were a few things that, we'd like to highlight from that report.

So, the state processes are not they- it's our understanding that the state processes were really designed to sort of work in tandem with the federal processes and not be a direct replacement for the federal processes. And because of that, some of the tools that the Water Board now has to rely on in state statute are not quite as efficient as what they were able to use, when they were using their federal authority on these waters of The United States.

So just to name a couple of examples, in the area of enforcement, state statute provides fewer enforcement tools than federal authorities. These tools are less proactive. The penalty amounts are lower than the federal penalty amounts.

And altogether these provide sort of less of a deterrent effect for people to do illegal discharges into state waters. Just as another example, when the State Board issues a Water Quality Control Plan, those plans only apply to waters of The United States. So, if the State Board wants those to apply to all waters in the state, each regional board then has to do an amendment to their water quality control plans. This obviously isn't quite as efficient as the state plans just applying statewide.

So I just wanted to note a few of those examples, and then to say that we would recommend that the legislature consider some of the issues that the water board has identified in statute as being a little more challenging I guess than the federal process and consider making amendments to state statute to help the water board do these things more efficiently.

The legislature could do this, they could do it through a trailer bill but they could also do it through the policy process which would give them, more of a chance to consider these issues in-depth and any tradeoffs.

Before we go to Department of Finance, is there already a bill?

It's my understanding there is not their trailer bill hasn't been proposed, and I don't think- I don't

There is a policy bill.

I believe there is a a live policy bill.

Oh, there is a live policy bill.

There is a live policy bill.

Who is the author?

I believe. Yep. SB601.

Apologies. I get too focused on the budget.

And the author?

Senator Allen.

Wonderful. Okay. At least we're on our way on that part.

Senator Allen.

Thank you so much. Department of Finance.

Apologies.

Vin Dong Ling, Department of Finance. Nothing to add.

Thank you. Questions from committee?

No. I mean, I do appreciate you highlighting that you're you would be looking for some statutory improvements to improvements to help the circ situation. And, you know, there's the need for CEQA reform in a lot of areas is important. And this, you know is an area where we really need to be looking at it. So, I just appreciate you raising that. Thank you.

Well, I was gonna say pretty much the same thing. How big is the gap? I mean, what is the new definition? What does the of The United States look like?

Is there a nexus requirement? or-

Yeah. It severely it has to have a direct connection with a navigable water body. So wetlands, ephemeral streams, all were essentially removed, which are big part especially ephemeral streams. You know, streams that don't flow all year round are big parts of the features of the West and you know, California. So, it I don't have a percentage say of you know reduction off the top of my head.

But I know it again, it's it's quite significant. It was a very significant narrowing and unfortunate.

So, I mean, the wetlands, the very few remaining wetlands, natural wetlands are at risk now for this?

Could potentially.

Yeah. So we'd need to sort of expand the definition of California wetlands or

We thankfully don't need to expand our definitions. We actually it was just I think in the first year as I became Chair, updated our definition for wetlands and our dredge and fill procedures. Didn't know Sackett was coming down the line but there had already been previous threats to jurisdiction around the Clean Water Act and holes basically created that we updated our definition to ensure that it broadly captures it.

The changes that we recommended in our report and the issues are more that again, we haven't used you know, waste discharge requirements and Porter Cologne and those tools often to do a lot of the work that is often really routine. I think of the lot a lot of the nationwide permits that the army corps created and that were being used and utilized had become very efficient.

And as you know, Sonha said, we it our current authorities were just never used in this way. And so, there are efficiencies that can be made there. But it's not around the scope or jurisdiction ultimately of our definitions of our program. It's more just the nuances of the actual implementations of the program.

So you do have recommendations then?

We do. Yep.

Our report to the legislature in January lays us out.

Well, thank you, I'll yield back.

Thank you. What's the timeline for revising the enforcement and inspection procedures and providing training on these revised procedures?

Well, it really is a matter. You know, we have our current work. If there are changes in statute, you know then the timelines will kind of match up to what those changes ultimately be and how we can implement them. But we would be seeking to implement them expeditiously for sure.

Wonderful. Any further questions? Alright. Let's move on to issue number four. Recycled Water Program Needs.

SB31.

Alright. So here, State Water Board requests 1,000,000 in ongoing funds and 4 permanent positions from the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and the Safe Drinking Water Account to permit and oversee, new types of water recycling that were authorized by SB 31. The budget change proposal also requests 500,000 annually between 2026, '27, '28 and '29 from the Waste Discharge Fund. And two existing limited term positions for developing the necessary updates to water recycling regulations.

SB 31 makes several changes to the California Water Code that will require updates to our regulations entitled 22 Water Recycling Criteria, which are the non-potable water recycling regulations at the State Board.

So this is non drinking water recycling use. These water code changes will align regulations with advancements in technology and best practices. And these changes will help recycled water project work towards the state's goal of recycling 1,800,000 acre feet of water by 2040. This was in Governor Newsom's Water Supply Strategy. And but these changes do require, changes to the regulations and ongoing review.

But we're hoping that it'll expand, non-portable use of recycled water in parks and other areas. Very proud of the fact that now yearly, the state recycles nearly 750,000 acre feet of water a year. You know, that's grown from 500,000 or so since 2000. So, you know, in this century and we know growing water recycling and continue to reuse and be smarter about our water use in the state will be really critical to continue to adapt to the climate extremes we have. So.

Thank you. Department of Finance?

Yeah. I'll just clarify that the BCP request is for 4 ongoing positions and then in the first three years we're requesting funding to fill two limited term positions during the first three years.

Thank you. LAO?

We've reviewed this proposal and don't have any concerns with it.

Thank you. Any questions from the author?

Well, thank you. I'm really pleased to see that the board is seeking positions to implement the 2025 Recycled Water Bill, SB 31. California needs all the recycled water it can get and I'm supportive of water solutions, to do that, that do not place additional stresses on the Delta. SB 31 helps California close the gap in its water needs by making it easier to use recycled water and outdoor immigration at homes, businesses, parks, and golf courses.

It's a small but powerful step. To help us use as much recycled water as possible before tapping into fresh water sources.

My first question, what is the board's timeline for implementing the legislation?

I have to take a look invite up here Darrin Polhemus, the Head of our Division of Drinking Water. He'll be able to give more detail on where we are in implementation.

Yeah. Thank you. Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director for the Division of Drinking Water. Generally speaking, it takes us about two years to get a regulation in place. So, the limited term positions would be utilized to make sure that that happens expeditiously.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any other areas where a state should be looking to use more recycled water?

Yes. You know, I we, again, we have a goal of getting to 1,800,000-acre feet by 2040. 800,000-acre feet here by 2030. And so, we're looking to definitely continue to increase recycled water. Obviously, we have large urban water projects.

I continue to feel that there is an opportunity and definitely a need in more rural communities even and other places throughout the state to really be expanding recycled water because we it's a source that can help be drought proof and helps get through those drier times and ultimately need to be reusing more water more often. The challenge candidly often times though, the more inland you go, those may be existing discharges into streams or rivers that are important for in stream benefits too.

So, there is this tension and balance of recycling as much as we can but also acknowledging that it can have impacts on streams and in stream flow and biology there. You know, fundamental tensions I know in LA, say around the LA River, you wanna keep, you know, the LA River wet. But the more you recycle, the more you start to butt up against some of that.

So, I think it's a it there is opportunity up and down the state to reach our goals. We'll need to do a lot more. And as all things, it's really about the local conditions and the local impacts that need to be weighed.

Well, we'll look forward to working with your experts to finding new ways to tap into recycled water.

If I can, what comes to mind as well, I'll note is that we have been an investor in research around recycled water. The North American Water Alliance, NAUI, I believe it is based out of Berkeley Labs is a partner. An incredible partner and continuing to invest in the research that can reduce energy costs, reduce membrane fouling, continue to your point, just really expand the use of the work and the technology by focusing on fundamental research.

Again, I wanna thank you. But I do wanna emphasize two years is kind of a long time. Let's expedite that. Get a hold of that fresh water as soon as we can.

Yeah. I should note, Senator as well that, you know we will be able to proceed ahead with projects.

Your name, please.

Oh, sorry. Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director for the Division of Drinking Water. We'll be able to proceed ahead with permitting projects even before the regulations are fully in place. We'll do our best in that regard. But the regulation certainly may provide certainty for future projects that's needed.

And yes, we will definitely expedite them.

Okay. And I'm committed to ensuring that you continue to get the funds that you need to do this.

Thank you for the leadership, Senator. Thanks a lot. Thank you.

Let me yield back.

I have nothing more to add. I think as long as the author is happy with this, I think that we're happy. Thank you so much for your presentation.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members.

Alright. Now, we're going to move on to issue number five. Department overview, the Department of Water Resources.

And before we begin, the department overview for the Department of Water Resources; I understand that Director Nemeth will be leaving the administration soon to become Executive Director of the Association of California Water Agencies, ACWA. What a great acronym. I do wanna thank you, Director Nemeth, for your many years of public service. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. It's really been an honor to lead the department, almost nine years, so-- and, you know, when I took the job, several former directors said to me, it's just getting so hard. And I think about that now because I'm leaving and I think that about, you know, my successor is the challenges will remain and it's just a much more complicated picture.

And I'd be delighted to give you an overview of what's happening this year as an example of that, but thank you so much for your well wishes. I appreciate that. So good morning, Madam Chair and senators.

My name is Karla Nemeth. I'm the Director of the Department of Water Resources for about another six weeks, and we are here today to discuss the 2026 budget, but it does feel important that I give you an overview of this year's conditions because it has been yet another unusual year. And just a couple of key markers.

Right now, our precipitation for the state sits at right about average, but our reservoirs are above average, about 120% of average. And what that really signals is that most of our precipitation came as rain this year and less-- a lot less snow than what we're used to.

And in point of fact, our snowpack peaked in California, February 24th, which is a full six weeks of our traditional peak which is usually right around April 1st, which is why our-- almost our final snow survey or the snow survey that garners a lot of media attention when we're out there with the poll and measuring the snow water content, that has traditionally occurred on April 1st because that is our traditional peak for California snowpack.

And usually what happens is we rely on that snowpack to melt during our long summer months, our long, warm summer months when we tend to see very little rain in California. But this year, it peaked in February because we had a March that was a full three and a half degrees warmer than normal, and all of that snowpack that we had built up by the February was almost gone. I think we had just under 5% at our Philips snow survey on April 1st. My reaction exactly, Senator McNerney. So it's upon us. There's just no question.

I would say the bright spot in that, if you will-- and I would also say that these conditions are not just affecting California. Actually, conditions are much worse in the Colorado River Basin, which, of course, supplies about a third of Southern California's water supply.

So we are having what our climatologists call a snow drought throughout the western United States, and that's a signal we've been anticipating for a while that eventually we will have-- more of our precipitation will come as rain and less as snow, and our traditional wet season will probably shrink, and it will end up being a handful of bigger events, some cold, more warm happening in a shorter timeframe.

The last real experience we had with this was in 2021, which was a pretty brutal year, a pretty brutal year for forecasting. The melt-off in that year happened much later. We had about 60% of snowpack on April 1st but then it was really by Memorial Day that we had nothing. And I point that out because we make a lot of decisions about water management based on April 1st, and so in that year, we had already made some allocation decisions in advance of having a full picture of the water that was available to us.

So, so much has changed since that year, our practices at the department in terms of how we approach our allocation, being more conservative early on to anticipate the potential warming trends that we saw this year, but we've also invested an enormous amount in improved forecasting, and you're gonna hear a little bit more about that. We do have a budget proposal for forecasting dollars.

But as a result of that, 2021, we developed a road map to improved water forecasting, and it meant that this year, not only did we have our aerial snow observations, we also have incorporated modeling that accounts for the dryness of our soils, meaning, we may get the same precipitation, but when we have warming temperatures or have had, you know, a really hot previous summer, it doesn't generate the same amount of runoff that we have become accustomed to managing.

So that soil moisture is now part of our thinking, and in addition, the final piece of that is really how we account for geologic variability across California's watersheds. It's not the same picture everywhere, and so it's really those three things coming together to give us a much more accurate, temperature-sensitive portrait of, when we get the precipitation, what's going to happen relative to runoff in our river streams and reservoirs?

And so, this year-- the big story of this year was no snow, decent precipitation. So here we sit at 120% of capacity in our reservoirs. It's not a bad thing, but I think there's a continuing sense that we have to be in a position to capture more of that because this is what we have to get us through the hot summer and through the uncertainties of conditions heading into next winter.

And many of our reservoirs, certainly Oroville, also in that time period increased its carryover storage by about 20% to account precisely for this. So when we start the water here in October, we'll be better off than we were just a handful of years ago in our planning. All of that may be a fairly wonky, nerdy way to talk about, you know, the world is changing and we do need to continue to invest in water supply reliability, our climate-resilient water supplies.

The department is also a big supporter of recycled water. We're excited about the potential. We're excited about the partnership with the Water Resources Control Board to see those projects come to fruition. I wanna just second what Chair Esquivel said. There are also real opportunities for brackish water desalination in addition to water recycling in rural communities where we can get the cost down, and a lot of that was the result of funding the Legislature gave us several years ago to invest locally in California.

We were a water energy nexus hub to innovate in this desalination space to see if we could get those costs down, and it's generating real results that can be very important for California's rural communities. So, you know, in addition to all of that, you know, I'll just say, over the last eight years, the Governor and Legislature invested nearly $8 million in water resources management for California.

You know, just real hats off to our colleagues at the Water Board implementing the SAFER Program and the more than a million Californians they've gotten safe, reliable drinking water. The department has been actively engaged in also supporting small communities. We have the-- we call it the DRIP Collaborative, which came out of the last drought, which was to do a much more thorough assessment of, again, mostly rural communities, but the smaller communities that tend to be the most vulnerable during drought.

So we are making good progress there to have an even amount of information coming from those rural communities, which also tend to be resource-constrained in their own ability to plan for drought resiliency. And then I would say, finally, we have been investing significantly in habitat restoration that really enables our ecosystems to also survive in drought conditions and in generally warming conditions. We do have Prop 4 investments in front of you.

I'm joined here by Brian Fuller, who's our budget guru, so some of the detailed questions he's here to to help answer for you all, but I'm also joined by several key deputies: Deputy Paul Gosselin, who you may know as our groundwater guru at the department managing all of our recharge efforts and budget dollars there, James Newcomb, who handles our habitat restoration, and then you'll hear a little bit later from Laura Hollender who is our Flood Deputy.

A lot of our forecasting really lives in the flood part of our department because it's criticality in terms of public safety. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have and I will bring my colleagues up if they can provide improved insights over their director, so thank you.

Thank you. Questions, Senator McNerney?

Maybe.

Yes?

Well, first of all, I wanna thank you, Director, for your dedication to making sure that California has the water it needs. It's a big job. I personally wouldn't wanna do it, so my hats off. I don't have one with me right now but I certainly have a lot of respect for your work. And I would just wanna point out, you mentioned improved forecasting. That's a tremendous achievement, especially considering what's happening with the federal government, and it's gonna be desperately needed to manage the decisions you have to make early in the season.

I understand that's very, very powerful tool and continue to work on that. You mentioned storage, and I'm gonna talk about one of my bills a bit later, but what are the prospects for improving-- increasing groundwater storage capacity to the kind of levels that we'll need to capture those big storm events?

Yeah, so a couple of things. You're totally on the nose that the capacity that we have underground is significant and I-- it's an underdeveloped resource. It's about 10 to 12 times the size of our-- of our surface reservoir capacity, so it's going to be essential for California to put water underground so that we can rely on it during a drought.

It does sort of behave differently, if you will. It takes longer to store water in the ground than an above-ground reservoir. It also takes longer to pull it out, but it has a real critical function. I think one of our bigger challenges to getting to groundwater storage kind of writ large and at scale is largely the funding that we have available for water storage; came through the Water Storage Investment Program, which was 2014. The voters passed that bond.

It was actually part of the 2009 bond that was agreed to by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and of that bond, that was the only chapter that remained unchanged when it was passed by the Legislature in 2014. The challenge there is that-- I would just observe, I think we have a fairly cumbersome process for how we winnow down projects, and if we winnow down storage projects, it's not-- it's a lengthy process to onboard things like groundwater storage.

And so, I think that's a fundamental challenge that we have. It's also a challenge because Prop 1 was a voter-approved bond. So if we wanna make any changes to that language to enable us to exercise those funds and get them into storage, storage projects, you know, there's-- you know, there's a requirement to have the voters approve of that. So I would say that's one, I would say, general discomfort that I have about where we find ourselves in terms of, you know, how we get those investments done.

I think the second thing, Senator, is a bit more complex, but it is important, and that is-- and I'm-- maybe I'll answer this by way of articulating some of the recent work the department has done on this topic, which is to marry all the good forecasting improvements we're doing.

So how do we operate reservoirs better when we see these big storms coming in? We talk a lot about forecast-informed reservoir operations, which allows us to be more proactive in releasing water to create space for flooding, but do it with enough time in advance to actually take advantage of that water and store it underground. And so there's enormous potential there, enormous potential there, particularly in the Central Valley. It will require a lot of cooperation and coordination, especially with the Army Corps of Engineers.

They are the entity that would need to approve that kind of change in reservoir operations, but equally as important is ensuring that we have the water rights processes available to us to identify that water and to make sure that the water that we're storing, we know who has a right to use it. And there's a great variability across those watersheds.

And so I think that is a topic that I do-- I've discussed it from a policy perspective with Chair Esquivel, you know, how do we help California get better prepared for that? So it's very much on all of our radars. And the department does have a series of watershed studies feeding the Central Valley where it really does tee up that very important question as one of the challenges, but it definitely presents the opportunities, I think, that you're alluding to, and there's a bit of work to be done there to actualize that.

Well, good. I look forward, in my future years here in the Legislature, to working with the DWR and the board, the Water Board, to making those things come about.

Yeah. You bet.

So it's well-known that we've had some differences of opinion, Director--

Yes.

--but today, we have something I think we can collaborate on, and that is preserving and protecting our existing water infrastructure. And unless we invest in it now, I think it's a big risk. And I'll go over two problems which I'm sure you're well-aware of.

First would be subsidence. The DWR released a report last fall that the land subsidence threatens to reduce the water-carrying capacity of the State Water Project by 87% by 2040. So that's a significant risk that supplies water to 27 million Californians. So it's urgent. We need to go after that.

We need to go after it in a big way. The other one, of course, is Delta levees, which you're also very, very familiar with. They-- some of those levees date back into the 1800s. Many don't no longer satisfy the Army Corps's standards for Delta levees-- for levees, and a breach there would be a great threat both to human life and to property and the drinking water for the whole state.

So these are very important, urgent issues that we need to deal with. As I'm sure you're aware, I introduced SB 872 this year, which calls for $300 million a year for 20 years, 150 million for the levees, 150 million for the State Water Project, and the good thing is that it comes together with Democrats and Republicans, North and South, labor and environmentalists and contractors.

I mean, this is a pretty well-identified program that needs to come forward. We're a little worried about where the money's gonna come from, of course, but it's a great-- it's a great idea, and I wanna say my first question is, I'm supportive of the governor's proposal to appropriate Prop 4 funding for land subsidence this year. It's important.

I think the funding should be dedicated specifically for water contractors for the purpose of repairing the State Water Project. And, Director, can you articulate the department's concerns about subsidence along with the State Water Project? And does the department have any current numbers on what the cost repairs might be so that we can calibrate our legislation in the future?

Yeah, you bet. So one, thank you for going into the breach. What you've done is difficult in the water world to bring folks together, and it's so critical. If it were easy, we'd be doing it already, so my sincere thanks for that.

That was worn by my predecessors, not too much water.

Right. So, yeah. So you really hit on some pretty eye-popping figures there about the effect--the potential effect--of subsidence on State Water Project supplies. It won't surprise anyone to know that, you know, a loss of 87% of capacity would be nearly catastrophic, particularly given the conditions I've just mentioned, which is a lot of wet water moving through the system, and then it doesn't move through the system.

And the decline of the Colorado River is--

Exactly. Exactly. So the other eye-popping figure is, you know, what it might take-- what it might cost to fix that, which we are estimating is an order of magnitude 3 to $4 billion. Part of the challenge, though, is we are in the stages of identifying some near-term interim kinds of measures that we can do that we expect will enable us to refine the costs further.

And so as a general matter, I think, you know, especially our contractors who right now are the ones who feel, I think, an enormous amount of pressure, that they would be directed to pay the totality of that cost, which I think would be a poor policy outcome given the realities of what caused the subsidence, which is, you know, fundamental, you know, over-pumping of groundwater basins when they were just simply not regulated.

SGMA's really critical to arresting that and the plans do, as a general matter, arrest that moving forward, which is allowed under the law, but prior to 2015, you know, there was an enormous amount of damage done in a way that is, to me, a kind of a fundamental tragedy of the commons, if you will. And so I do think there's a strong policy rationale. But the target is 3 to $4 billion in repairs needed.

The department has been considering some budgeting of around $100 million over the course of the next several years to get going on these interim-- these interim targets and see if we can identify more cost-efficient ways to reduce the overall expense of that.

Well, that's good, and we look forward to those refinements, especially in the next few years as we try to push this year's legislation through the process and ensure that that money is there to be in the program. I'm also supportive of the governor's proposal to allocate $6 million for Delta levee repairs this year, and I think those funds should be dispersed in consultation with local communities--

Absolutely.

--to reflect local priorities, both for the water supply protection and the protection of health in my communities. Can you tell me how the DWR works with locals today to determine levee spending priorities and whether they, in a way, may change-- we may change them to increase the speed with which these projects move forward?

Sure. So the department does provide financial assistance using bond and General Fund dollars, and essentially, all of that work involves our interaction with locals through a program called the Subventions Program, and then we also have something called the Special Projects Fund. I think-- and you're kind of, I think, hitting on this.

I think one of the biggest challenges is, we have a cost share. I think the cost share is 25%, if I'm not mistaken, from a local entity, but some of those reclamation districts aren't even able to provide that and so they kind of become orphans in these kinds of funding programs, which I think-- which I think is a real challenge.

But the general approach by the department is to prioritize lives and property and state interest in how we allocate those funds. One of the more recent developments over the course of the last eight plus years has been the Stewardship Council and its role in determining a Delta levee investment strategy.

And so, that strategy requires the department to rank them by priority, and it considers things like the potential for matching funds, benefits to water supply, levee system integrity, meaning, you know, the levees get interconnected, right? So if you do improvements over here, you don't know if you're creating other pressure in a different part of the system so it has to work as a system-- ecosystem enhancement, and climate resilience.

So those are the ways in which we would be interacting with the locals both through a sister state agency, but also directly with the locals themselves in those programs, but again, just a flag that we are aware that the cost share aspects of them does mean that there are entities that aren't able to provide the match and then therefore are not prioritized.

Well, thanks for bringing up the cost share issue, and I think that's something that we need to take care to address here. And I'm also concerned that the money allocated is used to complete the project rather than getting siphoned off for other uses which could dilute the progress of the projects. My final question is is that I'm becoming more convinced that the state needs larger water infrastructure solution for the near future. The full estimate of the total cost of the State Water Projects-- is that me?

That was me.

Oh. Okay. This-- the full estimated cost of repairing the State Water Projects due to land subsidence and repairing the Delta levees is 60-- is 6 billion, which I earlier identified. Do you have plans on how to fund this vital repair work over the next 20 years? In other words, we need to work together here, the DWR and the Legislature, to make sure we have the funds and that the funds are accurately forecasted and put to use.

Yeah. So a couple of things. It's been a long time since the department has done a broad levee study in the Delta, really since 2005, and it was called the Dreams Study, and now-- it's now 21 years ago, and that feels like a long time ago when we really think about the acceleration of climate and the pressures that we see on those levees.

In the interim, we-- the state policy really ran through this Delta Levee Investment Strategy, and so, the reality is, you know, what dollars become available to the department or other parties to fund those projects through the lens of the Delta Levee Investment Strategy, and I think one of the important things is-- so for example, and I think it was about a year and a half ago, we did have a seepage incident on a levee around Victoria Island. And it was a bit of a wake up call for us, frankly.

And one of the things we've learned as a result of that-- so we did an emergency pair repair on it. It was an expensive repair. Emergencies are always more expensive. So, you know, it's not-- you know, it's not something to kinda take home to the bank, if you will. But one of the things we learned is, this was a pretty good levee, and it wasn't the prism of the levee.

It was the fact that it's sitting on top of sandy soils, and it was really seepage that was happening. We think a lot about overtopping, but with sea level rise, we really start to think about the seepage that's happening, and as we update our expectations around sea level rise and the pressure, I do think introducing some of that analysis-- we will be bringing it to the Delta Stewardship Council as they think through whether and how to update the Delta Levee Investment Strategy based on sort of emerging conditions.

I think all of that, Senator, is-- you know, is the work that we need to do to help us understand the full magnitude of the expense, but I would just say, as a matter of being engaged in water infrastructure everywhere, it's getting more expensive, not less, and climate is more of a pressure that's coming quicker. So, I don't particularly have a number to give you now, you know, especially over the next 20 years. I think it could be better informed by our better and improved understanding of the conditions.

Well, thank you. You know, Californians in the 1950s weren't afraid to make big investments, and they paid off. They made our state the first large-- fourth largest economy in the world and we need to maintain that investment so that we can continue our leadership in all these fields. I also want to recognize that the people of California want their tax dollars used to intended purposes, and approved projects can be completed as promised.

I will insist that we oversee the money that's committed to solving these two problems to use for those purposes, and again, I thank you for your hard work. Congratulations on your new, and we'll miss you here in the state.

Thank you, sir. It's been a pleasure. Thank you.

I certainly appreciated the question when you asked for the next-- what's the plan for the next 20 years? I was going to say we've got six weeks, six weeks left. But whoever takes the position will continue the good work. I do-- I want us to move on to Issue Number Six, but something that came up yesterday had to do with safe drinking water.

We've talked-- you talked briefly about that. We still have 800,000 people in the State of California, fourth largest economy, who do not have safe drinking, clean water, and that is a great concern for me. It's a longer conversation, I'm sure, but I hope that there is a plan that is put-- that is put together that will give us the timeline to get most of the people-- somebody said, we'll never get to zero.

That is a dream. It should be a dream, because for the ones who don't have safe drinking water, it's the problem for them. Everybody else is fine. Everybody else is fine. Thirty-nine million people are okay, but the rest of them are not fine, and I think we need to do much more in that regard, but we'll leave that for another day.

You bet.

All right. Let's go on to Issue Number Six: the river forecast and snow survey resources.

Good afternoon. My name is Laura Hollender. I'm the Deputy Director of Flood Management and Dam Safety for the California Department of Water Resources. As you've heard a bit about today from our director, we have been working to improve our forecasting as-- you know, forecasting, our ability to do that is fundamental to water management decisions in California. In the past year and a half, that has been greatly challenged by some of the reductions that we've had in resources at the federal level.

Our California and Nevada River Forecasting Center is a partnership between the National Weather Service and DWR, and has been for many decades. And so we've relied on our federal partners for flood power casting, assistance with all of the forecasting that we do for water supply, and many, many things. So the BCP, or the budget change proposal that is before you, is to essentially augment the resources that we have lost on the federal side. So it is $9.5 million ongoing for 15 positions.

Part of that, 6.5 million of it, is to create our own river forecast center in this-- as a state, the systems and the models that would just be sort of state-run. Going forward, it is a state statutory responsibility to do this forecasting, and then another 2.5 million would be for snow surveys. We do also rely on a variety of federal partners we have to assist us with our manual snow surveys.

We do manual snow surveys at 267 sites throughout the state, and those are key to water supply forecasting, as you heard about, you know, measuring runoff and forecasting our water supply for the year. So I'll stop there, but happy to answer any questions.

Meghan Larson, Department of Finance. Nothing to add.

Sonja Petek with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We have reviewed this proposal and think that it meets this high bar for consideration this year. It really supports critical activities and services. The information is vital for water supply forecasting, for flood management, and emergency response. And as already noted, these are statutory responsibilities in core state services.

A question. Do you plan to hire the National Weather Service staff that was let go at the federal level?

We absolutely would would like to. We work with some wonderful experts and if they apply, they will absolutely be considered once we get these positions. Yes.

Wonderful. And does the department have the tools and the computers necessary to do this work?

That is part of what this BCP would allow, quite frankly. Because we have relied on federal resources and federal mapping or modeling and in some cases computers.

Very good. And as the LAO has commented that it meets a very high bar for approval. Alright. I thank you so much for your presentation. We're going to move to public comment now.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino. I'm gonna start with issue three. On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, we strongly support the budget change proposal for the Sackett positions at the State Water Board. Also as a sponsor of Senate Bill 601 by Mr. Allen, we would invite the administration to work with us on addressing the statutory issues that the Water Board raised.

On issue number one, really appreciate the fact that you held such a long conversation around the open position cuts. On behalf of Defenders, California Native Plant Society, Mojave Desert Land Trust, Sonoma Land Trust, and The Power of Nature, we urge that the open positions that are slated to be cut at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Parks, State Water Board, and the Coastal Commission are kept and funded. I'm gonna make quick point.

One, certainly at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I would also say at State Water Board and Coastal Commission, we're cutting muscle and bone and not fat. You can stretch a dollar only so far, and you I don't think they have the dollars to stretch to cover the mandates that they're required to do, and it will have an impact on us.

Two, we agree with the LAO that we should be not cutting the positions funded through special funds. Three, the general fund savings that we would be getting are so minuscule, one per one hundredth of 1% of the general fund relative to the impact. And then finally, there are a lot of federal workers out there that were laid off.

There are young people that are graduating from college that don't have positions. I think keeping these positions open and they would be filled. I think we should be supporting a budget that's a job filler, not a job killer. Thanks.

Thank you. I will tell you that the that the Chair of Human Resources has committed to providing more information regarding how to apply for a job with the state. And in fact, in the Inland Empire, we were we are doing a seminar just on that, and I hope other legislators do the same thing.

Thank you. And as a as a mother of a recent college graduate with lots of other their friends who don't have jobs, appreciate that.

Absolutely. Tell your legislator to do a seminar. I forgot to mention this at the beginning, and thank you for all your comments. You went way beyond 30 seconds, but I didn't tell you there was a limit. So 30 seconds please for the rest of you, and it will be timed. You're going to hear an alarm.

Great. Good afternoon. Molly Maula representing the California Municipal Utilities Association. CMUA was a proud co-sponsor of SB 72, so this is on issue 12, which was signed into law last year to modernize the California Water Plan and includes an interim planning target for our water supply reliability future.

Water Resources projected cost of implementing SB 72 consistently to be 6.8 million for the first five years and 3.4 million thereafter. The dollars are primarily intended to cover staff time. The governor's projected budget allocated 5.8 million. So there's a shortfall of about $1 million annually annually.

So for implementing SB 72, DWR projects that this could delay updating the water plan by five to ten years because of that shortfall. And so we would just be asking for an additional 1 million annually to fund that staff time to make sure we can implement on time. And yeah. So asking SB 72 to be fully funded. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And good afternoon. Jaime Minor here on behalf of a large coalition of water users and agricultural entities. This includes Turlock Irrigation District, Eastern Municipal Water District, Kern Water Authority, sorry, Friant Water Authority, the Chamber of Commerce, and others. We're here on item six, the snow survey and forecasting item.

While we do support that item and encourage that backfilling, it's key to note that is just a backfilling to keep us at the status quo. And we have this whiplash, you know, weather events where our snowpack is dwindling one month, then we get a huge storm comes in and it's, you know, even greater. We need to know what's up there. We can't manage what we what we can't measure.

DWR this year did a study on the aerial snow survey program, which we're asking for funding for, which is a $35 million amount program, and they found that a return on investment of 846 million. So given the the budget impact, we support full funding of that program. Thank you.

Mariela Ruacho with Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability on SAFER. We, as mentioned in the committee analysis, the program has a $130 million continuous appropriation from GGRF with a backfill from from general fund. We ask the legislature to continue supporting that since it was cut to 92 million from the governor, and then also ensure that there continue backfill from the general fund.

This program provides access to safe, affordable drinking water to many communities. In fact, some I wanna share some good news. The community of Tombstone near Sanger gained access this week to safe and affordable drinking water. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies. I'm gonna quickly comment on three items. So first, regarding issue one, we're really concerned about these special fund position cuts. These are funded by the fees and other things that our members are paying to have a service and also to have oversight of our environment, and that's extremely critical.

Special fund does not help backfill the general fund. It just is not the appropriate way to address that issue. With regard to issue six, I would just align my comments with my colleague Jaime Minor. We need data on our biggest natural reservoir and how to better manage that, our snowpack. That's a critically important tool for us to continue to be better stewards of our resources.

So we would ask for that $35 million to continue that program. And then finally, we're supportive of Senator McNerney's SB 872, and we just ask the legislature to fully fund that proposal in the bill, $150 million each for both the delta levies and for the conveyance. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and missing Members. Danny Merkley with the Gualco Group. On behalf of Kern County Water Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, we are very much in support of Senator McNerney's SB 872. And then I would also, on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers, Kings River Interest, and Modesto Irrigation District, align ourselves with Jaime Minor's comments on the snowpack.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Despite what it looks like, I'm not following you around this past 24 hours. It's nice to see you again though. Beth Olhasso... Important topics. We've been having great discussions. Beth Olhasso, here for a number of different clients.

First, for WateReuse California on SB 31 implementation. We are the sponsors of the bill. So support fully implementing that legislation to get more recycled water cruising through the state. For Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley on issue six, wanna echo my colleague's comments, Jaime Minor.

Getting accurate data is super important. And then finally, for Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Municipal Water District of Orange County, also want to support the conveyance funding of Senator McNerney's SB 872. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Alright. The 30 seconds is just not working. Are you not hearing the... Can you hear the...

We can hear it. I'll even, I'll even pay attention to it.

Alright.

Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. I'll echo the comments of the first speaker about issue one, the vacant positions, as well as the excellent analysis. And really just point out that last year, you were handed this proposal to sweep 6,000 positions.

Establish a process to really look at what are those most critical positions where the harm exceeds the benefit, and propose to retain 650 of them. I think you now need to actually follow through on the process that the legislature established. Thank you.

Thank you. Yay. Under 30 seconds.