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

Senate budget subcommittee two on resources environmental protection energy will come to order. Let's begin with the overview of the May revise. Secretary Crowfoot, it's good to see you here. Alright. Department of Finance would you like to present?

Sure.

Good morning madam chair. Stephen Benson with Department of Finance. I will start with a few just statements about the May vision overview in general and then talk a little bit about some of this mayor vision the May vision proposals specific to natural resources. So the May revision follows through on the governor's January commitment to balance both the budget year, 26 27 and budget year plus one, 27 28. The budget does that by leaving a positive SFU balance of 4,500,000,000 in budget year, 26 27.

And 2,100,000,000 in budget year plus one, 27 28. It also importantly takes steps to significantly address the structural imbalance that both administration and the LAO has identified and talked about. They're rather large in the out years. The governor's budget, there were over $20,000,000,000 in structural imbalance in each of the out years. The May revision has more than half that amount.

Specific to the natural resources area and Prop four, where I'll start. The governor's budget proposed 2,100,000,000 in 26 27 from the climate bond to continue funding critical projects and programs. The May revision requests an additional 148,200,000 for strategic investments that support the acquisition of a 161 acre property known as Golden Gate Fields for the development of Shoreline Park And Recreational Hub, as well as to fund projects, February projects for wildlife refuges and wetlands statewide.

Specific to the Golden Gate Fields, the May revision includes up to a 125,000,000 and one time funding to provide a maximum contribution amount per, state contribution to the acquisition of the Golden Gate Fields. This includes $25,000,000 in CNRA's budget, dollars 25,000,000 in WCB's budget, and $75,000,000 in the Coastal Conservancy's budget.

This proposal also includes language authorizing the Department of Finance to shift funding from this project to the respective department's competitive grant programs. If we're able to identify, other non state funding to offset that amount and reduce the state's contribution. Regarding wildlife refuges and wetland, habitat areas, May revision includes $23,200,000, for one time funding in CNRA's budget to help improve the conditions for wildlife, refugees, and wetland habitat areas. In 25 26, CNRA received some funding to get the programs sort of up and going.

Since that time, they've identified a number of stakeholders who've come forward and identified a number of shovel-ready projects.

And so while we had sort of planned on proposing this funding, in next year, with all the projects ready to go, the decision was made to move that up and try and get those projects moving. Outside of Prop four, the May of revision also proposes $3,600,000 of general fund in 26 27, which is and it'd be 3,300,000 ongoing of that about 1,000,000 is general fund and little over two is from the state parks and recreation fund.

And this would be support the four door and dunes of state park campgrounds. That project is nearing completion, something we've been finding over the last couple of years. And so this reflects the operations and maintenance to open those camp campground areas.

So it'll provide new campground with accessible low cost coastal overnight accommodations along the Monterey Coast where camping opportunities have been significant are historically limited. It provides New Beach access, aquatic recreation opportunities, and important natural and cultural resource stewardship along a relatively remote stretch of coastline. The May revision also includes a statutory changes for the oh, sorry. You know what? Not in the subcommittee.

I'll stop right there. And turn it over to Andrew March.

Good morning. Andrew March, with the Department of Finance. So I'll provide a brief overview of some additional natural resources agency investments as well as California Environmental Protection Agency and an update on the greenhouse gas reduction fund.

So first for the natural resources agency, building on prior investments for the healthy rivers and landscape program, the May revision includes an additional $25,000,000 one time general fund for the Department of Water Resources to deliver environmental flows, habitat restoration, science, and monitoring to support the requirements of the soon to be updated Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.

The May revision also includes $1,000,000 one time special funds to support the coexisting with wildlife initiative at the Department of Fish and Wildlife to proactively mitigate human wildlife conflict in targeted areas.

For the California Environmental Protection Agency, the May revision includes $2,500,000 one time special funds for the Air Resources Board and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to complete critical foundational scientific research needed to support additional actions to reduce cancer risk from acrolein and ethylene oxide. For the for CalRecycle related to the beverage container recycling program, the May revision includes over $200,000,000 beverage container recycling fund to advance a targeted strategy to stabilize markets, improve material quality, and expand redemption access for CRV containers.

Additionally, in order to help balance the budget, the May revision includes a shift of $9,600,000 of various ongoing general fund appropriation for boards, departments, and offices within the California Environmental Protection Agency. These shifts are to alternative special funds that can support these activities. Lastly, for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the May revision includes an updated estimates for a current year and budget year for GGRF.

The February auction came in about $240,000,000 below estimates, that were, presented at the governor's budget. Given this lower than expected revenue from the February auction, the estimates for current year and budget year have been revised downward from 3,770,000,000 in current year to 3,437,000,000 and from 3,770,000,000 in budget year to 3,394,000,000. As we discussed previously, these, estimates do not incorporate any, potential regulatory changes that the Air Resources Board may adopt next week.

Thank you. Elia would like would you like to provide comment?

Thank you. Good morning. Rachel Ehlers with the Legislative Analyst's Office. Because it provides the greater context for our comments on the topic specific to the subcommittee and since you haven't had a full budget committee. I'll spend just a moment talking about our overall comments on the budget, and the report we put out on Monday.

Starting with the good news, revenues are booming. They continue to come in higher than expectations. Come 16,000,000,000 above the January budget, forecast and 30,000,000,000 above the budget act forecast. That's across the three year budget window. The May revision estimate of tax revenues in the current year represents over 30% growth from just three years ago.

So really by any measure, revenues are coming in very strong. These upgraded revenues combined with the administration's proposal do make substantive progress on addressing the structural deficit. We have been talking about for the out years. We will recall in January we talked about between 20 and $30,000,000,000 in the out years as a structural deficit and and with the upgraded revenue forecast that's been cut in about half.

So now the concerning news despite these booming revenues the in our assessment the state's underlying fiscal condition is not sound.

We continue to have a structural deficit both in the budget year 26 27 and the subsequent years. That is the planned expenditures exceed the planned revenues. Really the only way that the budget proposal that is before you for the May revision is balanced is because it relies on reserves. Both, suspending required res deposits into reserves as well as taking money out of reserves.

Totaling $20,000,000,000 So when revenues are booming at this level, really exceeding all expectations, at at such a prolonged historical high, that is not usually a time when it when with prudent fiscal practices we would be taking out of reserves.

It would be a time we are putting into reserves. It would be a time we're paying down debt. We have a $30,000,000,000 wall of debt existing right now. So this overall structure is very concerning to us and we are concerned that it leaves the state in a really poor position for if there is a slip in revenues.

There are many, indicators that suggest we are at the top of a bubble fueled by enthusiasm for artificial intelligence and that at some point that will come down and the state is not in a position when it's relying on reserves and already has a significant amount of debt to address that.

So our analysis that we put out on Monday has three recommendations for the legislature as it crafts its budget package to put the state on better fiscal footing. First, to maintain the same amount of ongoing solutions as are included in the governor's proposal. That's about $10,000,000,000. Second, rather than withdrawing and failing to deposit into the budget stabilization account, our reserve to make a $20,000,000,000 deposit into the reserve to help build our our sustainability for the future.

And then finally to set aside 4,000,000,000 to pay for new borrowing that is included in the governor's budget on the school funding side. So taken together, these recommendations would require the state to identify roughly $24,000,000,000 in new budget capacity or solutions as compared to the May revision.

There are a few places we think you could start. The first is by rejecting the governor's proposal to take $10,000,000,000 and put it into a temporary surplus holding account to use in budget year plus one. We think, in in lieu of that it would make more sense to put into our, traditional budget reserve so that it is available, in case there is a downturn in revenues.

And there's about a billion dollars total in new discretionary spending proposals in the governor's budget and avoiding taking on those new expenditures would allow you some more capacity to put money in reserves and address your existing commitments. So now turning to the specific resources and transportation proposals.

Overall, the framework is pretty much the same as what we talked about to you in January. So I'll just give you some examples of how you could apply that to the May revision. First, as you'll recall, we suggested, rejecting new discretionary spending proposals unless they meet a very high bar of health and safety, immediate pressing concerns. So there are a few proposals in the May revision we think do not meet that high bar.

For example, there's 25,000,000 for healthy rivers and landscapes which I know you'll you'll talk about next.

While there's some merit there, we don't think that that represents a pressing need this year. Similarly, there's $12,000,000 for Museum of Tolerance. Again, merit there but not meeting that high health and safety bar. There are some proposals here we think you probably will need to spend.

Even new general fund for example, there is funding proposed to take back over control of some state parks in Los Angeles where the the city and county of city or county have decided not to continue operating those on behalf of the state.

So rather than close those beaches that does sort of meet a high pressing need. However, we think you may wanna look at are there other options for finding other funds to support those maybe on an ongoing basis for example, fees. But but those types of activities where you have to do it, you will have some of those and so that in our mind makes it even more important to limit those new spending to those that you actually have to, undertake in this year.

Regarding proposition four, we continue to recommend that you ensure that that funding represents your priorities as a legislature. That that bond did initiate with the legislature.

As was noted, there's a pretty significant proposal before you now. 125,000,000 for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition. There are a lot of merits to that program that project but just making sure again that that reflects your highest priorities for the bond. As you think about specific proposals, thinking about how they might affect out year budgets, particularly in the area of parks as we're acquiring more parks, taking back control of parks, adding new campgrounds.

Those often are not just one time expenditures but have ongoing operations and maintenance.

You all know we have a very significant deferred maintenance backlog already with our parks. So thinking about not just the budget year but what are the spending commitments for the longer term and what opportunities are there for potentially finding other funding sources. And then finally regarding the greenhouse gas reduction fund. I know you had a hearing on that recently. You are aware of the great degree of uncertainty around that funding source both for what will come in in auction revenues, but also the proposed regulations.

Before the board, as was noted, the May revision does not reflect the potential significant changes on the horizon. So our recommendation to you there is to start planning for various revenue scenarios given that uncertainty. Maybe start with what if you only had 2,000,000,000 to spend? What would be your highest priorities? Then if it came in higher, what next?

If it came in higher, what next? It may be that the SB 4840 framework that was adopted last year continues to represent that tiered priority for you but maybe not given that that was adopted with a pretty different set of expectations around revenues than what we're looking at right now potentially. So planning for what are your highest priorities under different revenue scenarios until there is some more certainty we think would make sense.

That I'm happy to answer questions and we've got our LAO here team here as well. Thank you.

Thank you. That will we'll open it up for discussion and questions from the members.

I have a simple question.

Very good. Senator McNerney.

Well, thank you for your presentations and and hard work. Rachel, you mentioned $32,000,000 in new spending that's been proposed. 20,000,000 for healthy rivers and 12,000,000 for Museum of Tolerance. Does and so those are just two. If you add all those sorts of new spending, does that up to a billion dollars?

Is that what you were saying?

Across the whole budget, not just for this subcommittee, but I think our assessment was one in the neighborhood of 1,300,000,000 in new discretionary what we would determine as discretionary general fund across the budget in the May revision.

Okay. I mean, there are some higher priorities issues. Did you consider the spending on the delta levies and the subsidence repair, in new discretionary spending?

That was proposed in January. I think our definition of discretionary is that it doesn't meet it's not required by current existing law. And so that doesn't that doesn't speak to the prioritization. It may meet a bar that you think we need to spend it anyway even if it's not required by current law. I think in the context of a budget deficit, that means you're cutting somewhere else.

So those are the trade offs before you. But we came up with a list of discretionary meaning that it is, really at your discretion as lawmakers if you wanna spend that money. But again, that means cutting somewhere else.

Yeah. Those just a couple of simple questions, chair. I yield back.

Thank you. And before we go on to other questions, let's quorum.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We do have quorum. Senator Choi.

Thank you. Good morning. It's good to hear that we have an unanticipated extra revenue. That is you are saying about $30,000,000,000 and overall?

That's $30,000,000,000 above what the estimates were last June when the budget was enacted across the three year budget window. Yes.

Okay. And then you are recommending about the $20,000,000,000 to be placed in the reserve for the rainy day fund of what you call?

Yeah. I think that that is a clever idea. Was this governance made proposal based upon that assumption that the $30,000,000,000 extra revenue or was it prepared before that knowledge?

Correct.

That's correct. Those numbers reflect the governor's estimates for the May revision. And the LAO usually we always do our own independent revenue estimate and ours are pretty close.

And the administration is support proposing one note instead of a 20,000,000,000 for the reserve or only 10,000,000,000 to be to be placed on the reserve.

I think I would correct that that they're suggesting putting 10,000,000,000 in an in a temporary revenue surplus account, which is essentially holding it to spend in budget year plus one in 27 28 for already existing spending commitments. So we think of a reserve as money that's available if you if revenues come up or down. That the under the governor's proposal, that funding is already committed.

So so that means that $10,000,000,000 of temporary holding place so that they are ready to use anytime when they see fit?

The way the rules are set up about that account that the administration has used it may only be used in the next year. So it would not be available in 26 27 if revenues were to go down, for example.

Since his budget in January was set up with the anticipation of less than $30,000,000,000

Where did the money go?

We could manage, right? And then we can build the the reserve.

I think that would be our advice to you. I think one thing that's challenging is that when new revenue comes in, it's not just all available for the state because of the constitutional formulas. So a lot of it must go under the constitution to be spent on K14 education under Proposition 98. Some of it has requirements under proposition two. So it can be counterintuitive that oh the state has all this money.

Now we can spend it on whatever we want but but because of those budgetary framework it is a lot less available which again is why we suggest that the dollars you do have to to help provide you with flexibility that you give yourself more buffer by putting it into a more flexible reserve, the budget stabilization account.

I do strongly agree with your recommendation to set aside the $20,000,000,000 extra unanticipated revenue. And regarding the specific questions on the agenda here, overviewing of our natural resources area. You governors are proposing to purchase

Excuse me, mister Choi. If we're going to ask questions on natural resources, perhaps we can ask secretary Crowfoot to step up and be prepared to answer those

Okay.

Should the the questions be directed to him.

Okay. Then regarding the proposal of Golden Gate Field purchase, that is overall, I would support that, but I wonder once that's purchased, the intent is long term intent is to transfer that property to the East Bay Regional Park. Do you know the time frame when that will be executed in other words or be transferred because LAO one ago mentioned that state parks maintenance cost for long term is significant.

So by transferring that property to East Bay Regional Park District, will it unburden the state's future maintenance obligation and that they would not come at the state and then ask for maintenance costs. Hey.

We are in trouble, and you need to you gave us the property, and we need to maintain in a higher quality and give us maintenance cost. So if that's the case case that why we spend the money to begin with.

Thanks so much. I'm Wade Crowfoot. I lead the California Natural Resources Agency. Thank you for all you do on the budget, chair and members. In short answer to your question, yes.

Essentially, that the acquisition of this property and the eventual transfer to the regional park district would mean that the state is not obligated for the maintenance and operations of that of that new a 161 acre park and open space. That would be a responsibility of the regional park district. I might just take a moment to explain why, we're proposing funding for this opportunity. I've been in this role for eight years and at certain times, very large opportunities come forward that are time limited and transformational.

And they have required us to actually put put designated funding in the budget to get this done and required leaders to come together in ways beyond our normal granting processes.

In this category, I would put Klamath Dam removal, which at times required specific funding to actually get that project done and the restoration of 400 miles of habitat that was a tribally led project. The Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, which will be completed by the end of the year, which is the world's largest wildlife crossing north of Los Angeles, required specific appropriations of funding. Also, large parks and open space projects like Los Angeles Historic Park, which is a transformational urban park just south of downtown.

So this this potential acquisition represents from from our perspective the opportunity of that scale. 161 acres, a huge area of land in an urban center on the San Francisco Bay, an opportunity to build nature based solutions from sea level rise to provide for coastal wetland habitat, which is critically important and actually essentially endangered in our in our state and to expand public access and open space.

So this is a time limited opportunity. There is an option to purchase this property. The nonprofit trust for public land is facilitating that in partnership with East Bay Regional Parks and others. So from our perspective, this is the opportunity and we think the the responsibility for us to step up collectively as a state to enable this project to happen. So that gives you a little context hopefully.

Yeah. It's good to hear that they are planning to also make a contribution to that total purchase price of $55,000,000 in there. So I would like to know specific the the language I see is intent to transfer and whether you have worked out when that intent transfer date will be.

And then also I would anticipate that since the property was used as a horse race tray track, so that means a lot of work to do to convert possibly contamination, eradication, and then developing into whatever beautification as a park. That will cost a lot of money as well.

And once we give that land 161 acres, so we feel $150,000,000 contribution and then they come back. Hey. We we will not do this and that, and they give us more additional money. So I don't know whether you have a contract language developed or have have a discussion about the future park development and the maintenance ability for them to maintain and as a park without this this demand the future demand.

Very good question, and I'll do my best to answer this. I'll mention also I have two colleagues who are far more expert in property acquisitions than I am. Amy Hutzel, who is the executive officer of our Coastal Conservancy, and Jennifer Norris, who leads the Wildlife Conservation Board. So at any point, if they wanna share an answer, they can.

As my as I understand it, and I'm I'm confident in this information, there is an option that the current property owner, which has owned the horse racing track for for some decades, has under, essentially an option with the trust for public land to purchase the property.

That, includes an agreement and a commitment from the land the current landowner to deliver the property clean, quote unquote, so doing environmental remediation prior to the transfer, which is really quite important for the the future of of the park. This is a long term project, and so this acquisition would be the beginning of a community planning process.

Critically important that the parks and open spaces really shaped by and for local communities, and that will that design and composition of what's in the 161 acres will obviously identify what improvements need to be made, but that would be on down the road and ultimately, their responsibility of the regional park system. Let me turn to Amy and Jen for more specific information.

Great. Thank you, and good morning. I'm Amy Hutzsell, executive officer of the State Coastal Conservancy, and I appreciate all these questions. You are asking all the right questions about a a large acquisition. The 161 acres, Trust Republic Land has an option agreement.

They need to, exercise that option agreement by December of this year. And then escrow would close early in 2027, I believe in February. And the land would immediately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District. The option agreement and the appraisal assume that the land is scraped down to the ground. So the land owners, the current land owners will be removing all the structures.

The race tracks, stables, the yeah. The grand stand. All of that will be removed. There has also been an assessment of contamination on the site. And you know, there is some contamination and is not as bad as some of the other spots along East Shore where they were created with a lot of fill, mostly garbage.

So the the contamination concern is not huge. There will also be there is a plan to buy contamination insurance by East Bay Regional Park District. So like a ten year insurance on the on any unknown, contamination on the lands. And once acquired, the first step and I think people are already thinking about this. I'm already thinking about this.

What would the park look like? What would be the mix of uses? And there have been decades of work on East Shore State Park. That whole stretch between Richmond and Oakland. Thinking about and implementing park improvements.

So I could imagine, wetlands restoration, tidal wetlands restoration, some offshore like oyster, eel grass restoration. Some of the land is submerged. Active recreation which, you know, is like ball fields and places for people to, to play actively. I guess I enjoy passive recreation. That's my so there'd also be passive recreation like trails and areas to to picnic and and bird watch.

But I think it's to be determined based on the input of cities of Albany, city city of Berkeley, you know, all the communities from Richmond to Oakland, tribes in the area, and East Bay Regional Park District would need to run a meaningful community engagement process to determine the future of the land. The state would not be obligated to support the planning or implementation of the future park.

I could imagine that, there would be applications from East Bay parks to support planning or implementation of elements of the project that are of interest to our agencies. But you know, that would be based on competitive grant processes. And I guess I would also say Trust for Public Land has submitted grant applications to the Coastal Conservancy and to Wildlife Conservation Board.

We have reviewed those applications at the Coastal Conservancy. This project scores really well. It does achieve many of our objectives that are laid out in our strategic plan and in our project selection criteria.

Okay. I I it's good to hear that they will remove all the contamination and then also level down any standing structures that will be that's already clarified in in their contract. So that's good to hear. One more question regarding that the project would be if and when they need some extra fund. I don't know what the whether that area is amenable for residential development or not.

If and when they try to sell five acres or 10 acres, whatever, and for the development and to have access to capital fund for the project. Do we have any conditional clause prohibiting such a thing developing?

Yeah. And Jen could speak to this too. But when the state, contributes to a land acquisition, one, we can only acquire land at fair market value based on an appraisal. And this property is appraised at $175,000,000. We would have deed restrictions over the property and those are negotiated with the grantee.

So we will be working with trust for public land and East Bay Regional Park District on the exact language of the deed restrictions. But they will be things like for park purposes and open space and habitat restoration and tribal and public access. They will not be for commercial development of the property.

Good. Thank you. I think that's all question I have regarding the park purchase but my next question is while I'm speaking. LA already, mentioned that, the Museum of Tolerance funding, whether that is from the general fund or from from this, Prop four fund, which I think has nothing to do with the Museum Wars or natural resource money.

It's it proposes general fund. It's not Prop four.

Oh oh, I I see. So and then I I hear that the LAO rejected that the proposal idea, which is good to hear. Correct?

Yes. And again, without prejudice to the to the museum or their very valuable activities, I think it's really just in this framework of the general fund structural deficit. What what is essential for immediate health and safety needs that we suggest you prioritize that because discretionary spending, again, means looking at other, reductions elsewhere in the budget to core existing services.

Yeah. And the other question is, reading through this, informational package, I don't seem to find any fund request for the future plan for water storage facilities like reservoir development because that's a very essential unpredictable you know, water forecast. We need to be always prepared to have enough reservoirs, water saved from the raining instead of just sending them down to the ocean. So is there any did I miss any any amount to set aside for water to film water storage development? Thank you, and helpful question.

The good news is that California voters back in 2014 passed proposition one, which was a water bond that included over $1,000,000,000 for water storage. There were a set of very specific rules around using that state funding for storage projects. The good news is that there are storage projects underway with that funding, and there's still more available funding. So our focus is to use that funding for this water storage. You know, the amount of money?

So as I understand it now, our several $100,000,000 maintain or are are available within that funding category. A large portion of that is designated for an off stream reservoir in Northern California called Sites Reservoir. And the water commission, which is in our agency, is charged with essentially dispersing that funding for water supply. It is it has, provided some funding and is considering providing more funding. That project actually is needs a water rights permit from the water board.

And so really the essentially the last step to the to the to the development of that project is a water rights permit before the state water board. As of now, it does not require funding additional funding from the state. So I would say I first of all, thank you and agree with you on the need for us to continue to focus on below ground and above ground storage to address droughts and water security.

The good news is that that bond funding is available, should that, site's reservoir receive the permit, and and even other projects are available through that Prop one funding.

As a result of the bond, is there any feasible area reservoir development plan on the planning?

Yeah. Well, the good news is actually right here in Sacramento County, proposition $1 are being put to work. It's called the Harvest Water Project. It's actually an underground storage project because we ultimately have millions of acre feet, like a lot of capacity in our underground aquifers. So we're always trying to understand how we can build infrastructure to recharge our aquifers.

So it doesn't look like a reservoir in in the traditional sense, but that Prop $1 are getting actually spent here in Sacramento County. What they'll do is they'll essentially enable farmers to use that use that groundwater that's been in that sort of post treated water that's being injected into our aquifers and free up water for domestic or municipal use.

So I would say it's a work in progress to get all of that proposition funding from 2014 spent, but we can already see the fruits of that investment.

I mean, when I think of a water reservoir would be more needed in Southern California. Northern California has a natural water plenty plentiful, and the reserve water can be hopefully channeled down to the South. That that is also a good resource for us to have a freshwater reserve. But in Southern California area or Central Valley area, any such a promising project on underway right now?

Yeah. Very good question. So in partnership with the federal agencies, we completed the expansion of San Luis Reservoir, which is South of the Delta. We're raising that dam and actually expanding the capacity. So that's an area of, of improvement.

In the Central Valley, there is a tremendous capacity in our groundwater aquifers. So we're focused on investing in those groundwater, to get the infrastructure to recharge those groundwater basins. That's really important in Southern California is benefiting from that groundwater recharge. We're also focused on fixing the essentially the aqueducts that move water to Southern California. The state aqueduct, which carries the state water projects' water has been damaged by ground sinking over time as a result of historic depletion of our groundwater aquifers.

And so an important investment in water supply in this Southern California is to actually rehabilitate that aqueduct. So thanks to you all in the legislature, with a recent bill, our agency in the Department of Water Resources is establishing a updated water plan by 2028 that includes very specifically numeric targets for additional water to supplant the water we're going to lose because of changing climate conditions. And that includes, groundwater recharge, surface storage, but also expanded water recycling.

Southern California, as you know, is a leader in water recycling, so, a major source of water in the future will be expanding water recycling as well. So great questions as we share your priority and a lot of focus on implementing this this this these priorities.

Thanks to Senator McNerney. He proposed his bill regarding restoration of maintenance of state aqueduct. And I hope it'll pass through. And once it passes, does it have amount of money requesting in in in your bill? Can you explain?

I think it would be appropriate to why don't we let's ask questions on the panel here, but I think that would be a good question to ask Satya McNerney. I'll go later.

Oh, okay. If you know about the bill, maybe you can mention.

Well, I would definitely defer to Senator McNerney on that proposal. But I will just mention because it was raised by the legislative analyst. There's an important proposal in this May revision that does include water. And from our vantage point, it is about restoring environmental conditions, but also strengthening water security. The state water resources control board needs to update what's called the it's Bay Delta Water Quality Plan.

This is to protect beneficial uses of water, water for communities agriculture, but also fish and wildlife. Not only in the Delta, but in our Sacramento River systems and our San Joaquin River systems. These river systems drain snow and rain from almost the Oregon border to all the way east of Fresno. It's our most important water supply and provides water to Southern California, the Central Valley, the Bay Area, virtually most parts of the state.

These rivers are integrated condition, meaning they need to be improved for environmental habitat for fish and wildlife.

And so the water board is focused on a water plan update to do just that. Eight years ago, it started down a regulatory pathway, and it's got essentially one lever that it can exercise, which is the amount of flow that stays in the river. Its initial regulatory proposal when governor Newsom took office, was of severe concern to water agencies across the state because it would significantly reduce their water supplies.

So we established or we moved forward a process with water agencies and federal agencies to identify another way, a program to implement restoring flows, but also expanding habitat, getting scientific monitoring, and adaptively managing those river systems. It was initially called the voluntary agreements because all of these entities came together voluntarily, but it's materialized in the healthy rivers and landscape program, which is a program to implement that that water board plan update.

It's critically important from our perspective because it is a more holistic approach to restoring the environmental conditions. Fish and wildlife need more water flow, but they also need more habitat that we've lost across the Central Valley.

So this Healthy Rivers and Landscape program is and has enforceable commitments from the water agencies and our state agencies about the amount of flow that is being restored in each of the tributaries and the main stem that moves through the delta, but also the number of acres of habitat of different types. The $25,000,000 that we're proposing here is a an additional amount of funding that will allow us to begin implementing the Healthy Rivers and Landscape program in January.

What changed since our January budget is just before that budget was released, the State Water Board issued its draft plan, its draft update for the plan.

And it is contemplating or proposing that Healthy Rivers and Landscapes be a program of implementation for those water agencies that commit to that. For those that don't, they they're, they're required to to the the regulated the the purely regulatory approach of leaving a certain amount of flow in the river.

We propose this in the May revise because if the water board does what we anticipate it will do and it plans to do, which is to finalize its update this fall, the requirements of the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program kick in in January. So funding in this twenty five million dollars creates a scientific monitoring program, which is really important for the accountability of all the commitments within this program.

The water board has proposed that it will audit the amount of flow, within six months of the creation of this program or the starting of this program, and that on an annual basis, it can review whether healthy rivers and landscapes, should move forward, or should be replaced by the regulated approach.

So from our perspective, while this is a small amount of money, relatively speaking, to what's already been implemented, or or funded for early implementation of these improvements, it's really quite important. So I just wanted to provide a little bit more context and would be glad to answer questions there.

Thank you, Stan.

Okay. Thanks. Thanks. And thank you for your detailed explanation. I have tons of other questions, but for the benefit of all the members, I will stop here, such as including Delta Tunnel project is another related matter for the water supply to the South, etcetera.

But I don't seem to be there any budget set aside for that.

Senator Tim McNerney had some questions and other questions. I'm not limiting you to just that.

Well, again, I I thank the secretary for coming. I wasn't expecting you to be sitting out this this early. So I have a couple of questions about the voluntary agreements. I mean, the voluntary agreements sound good, but are they really voluntary? And if they are, what likelihood do we have that the participants are gonna abide by their agreements? And if they don't, what's the recourse?

It's a question it's a fair question. I receive it a lot. There's nothing voluntary about this program of implementation. It it gained that moniker because it was a new approach that brought people together in a voluntary way. Water agencies specifically, as well as state agencies and federal agencies have numeric commitments that they must achieve in including restored water flows in specific tributaries in the main stems of these rivers and through the Delta in the five water year types from very wet years to critically dry years.

Those flows have to materialize, and we need to demonstrate those additional flows materialize materializing. Likewise, very specific, commitments on the number of acres of habitat created. Again, within specific watersheds and by certain types, spawning and rearing habitat, for example, for certain species. So there it's it's a complicated program of implementation, but it's very clear. These commitments are numeric and enforceable.

If if we fail to materialize these commitments, there is a regulatory backstop, meaning we we don't the water board doesn't start over again and take several years to develop a new approach. The regulatory backstop would impose the unimpaired flow, just that single approach of of of a percentage of unimpaired flow on those on those watersheds and and therefore impact those water agencies pretty mightily.

So I would I would I'm confident in explaining to you that there's every incentive for the water agencies and state agencies to meet these enforceable obligations.

So I mean, my understanding was that it it was called voluntary because the parties agreed voluntarily to the limits or to the numerical numbers. And then that became code in some way after that.

What so again, this was a seven year process. We were around a table to propose a a pathway to implement the, implement the water board's update. So one thing is is is very clear. The water board sits as the regulator. The water board will decide if it's this program of implementation or a purely regulatory approach.

Water agencies were very much part of the creation of this plan to understand how much flow could they put back in the river. What would that mean to their water supplies and water security? What amount of funding could they actually generate through their ratepayers? This plan of implementation requires over $500,000,000 of water agency investments. So, again, while this plan was essentially came together in a in a collaborative way where where water agencies volunteered to provide input.

Once it was proposed to the water board, it becomes an enforceable program of implementation. So it's not an option.

So it you said it was a moniker, and I agree it's not necessarily a voluntary that they comply with the agreement.

Absolutely not. And, again, the water board is, as they should be, very clear and strong into maintaining their their regulatory authority, and that's these checkpoints, the auditing of the flows and this annual review where they're actually identifying if if the program is is meeting its targets. And it's not a again, it's if and if it's not meeting its targets, there's a strong regulatory backstop.

Okay. Moving on to subsidence. I I took it from your comments that that subsidence could be repaired or by re by rehydrating or do the canals actually have to be lifted or or what is what do you envision that repair looking like that solution like?

Well, I would say, first of all, thanks to the legislature, gosh, over a decade ago, we now have the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. So we were depleting our reservoirs. The ground was sinking dozens of feet in the Central Valley. And now, thanks to local water local groundwater management agencies, we're actually arresting or stopping that subsidence. And their Department of Water Resources is really closely monitoring subsidence to to avoid that.

As I understand it, and I'm not I'm not the expert, there's it's not an it's not a opportunity to essentially lift the ground back up and therefore report repair the aqueduct. It's about as I understand it, about a billion dollars of of rehabilitation costs on the aqueduct where they actually have to get in there and do civil engineering work to fix the sloping aqueduct to ensure that it's it's efficient delivery. Because if we don't, actually, we lose water supply to Southern California.

So the the subsidence is is permanent, basically.

Yeah. I wanna oh, James. So, James Newcomb is, from the Department of Water Resources. Let me defer to him.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. So James Newcomb, deputy director for natural infrastructure, Department of Water Resources. I'm gonna cover for my colleague on the state water project who's not here today.

And subsidence, yes, is a permanent condition that cannot be recovered, but we can restore the elevations in certain areas of the aqueduct that have subsided to recover the flow that's needed to provide a what reliable system for delivering water.

But but we can stop further subsidence.

We can stop further subsidence through the Sigma policies and programs. Yeah.

Okay. So that basically illustrates the urgency of moving forward with basically SB 872 and other projects that that are gonna help this. Now on Golden Gate Field, I just wanna say, I overlap with East Bay Regional Park. It's a it's a very well run organization and I I think that this is a good project. I'm supportive of it and I hope we can move forward expeditiously.

Thank you. I'll yield back.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciate that the secretary's here, because we can ask all our questions of the secretary before moving on to everybody else in the room.

So, first, I I just really appreciate the the framing of the opportunities that we have that come along and this the Golden Gate Fields acquisition being one of those opportunities because this isn't a part of the state that I represent and this wasn't on my radar, but I do recognize that 2,100,000,000 in Prop four is a lot of money.

And so hearing what what is the opportunity here and why we need to strike now, to me that is persuasive as we're looking at what are the best ways, statewide that we can be investing in our ecosystems and making sure that we're rehabilitating places that have had certain uses and need to have different uses into the future. So, I I am generally supportive of that and I think the way that you described it made it a very compelling use of that money.

My question had been why this wasn't going to go through the regular competition process for other coastal resilience and Habitat Habitat projects statewide because there are many, very valuable projects. And so but it seems to me like your answer was that this needs to happen more quickly and it's a larger sum. Is that basically

Yes. And I think if if my colleagues from the Coastal Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Board were up here, they would they would be able to explain that these real estate acquisitions for conservation or or public recreation or open space are are really matter of they're sort of temporal in nature. So it's not that, you know, on a every two years, you're assessing opportunities and scoring them against each other, that their the the Coastal Conservancy has a rolling application process to take advantage of these opportunities.

That being said, I know that director Hutzel, you have a commitment to ensure geographic representation across the coast because you're you're doing work across the coast. So in Senator Blake Spear's district, no doubt there's important work being done and sort of all across the coast.

So over time, while we need to strike on, you know, an opportunity here or there, we need to be held accountable for investments across the state. And I think we have a very good story to tell there. Anything you wanna add?

Well, I guess one thing I would add is there were grant applications submitted for the project. We have, as I said, reviewed and the the project does, address a lot of the objectives in our strategic plan and and in our project selection criteria. But we don't have 75,000,000, or a 125,000,000 to put to the project. So I think having that amount in the budget allows us to take advantage of this option agreement which has to be exercised by December.

And yes, we are the state coastal conservancy is conducting restoration, sea level rise adaptation, land acquisitions, trails up and down the state of California.

The climate package, the general fund, a number of years ago, we were able to put 3 $30,000,000 grants into Southern California wetlands restoration projects. And Los Cerritos Wetlands started construction very recently. And hopefully Ormond Beach and the Tijuana Estuary will will follow quickly. We have you know the Santa Ana River Conservancy where we've invested $70,000,000 in the last five to ten years, for the Santa Ana River, trail and restoration work. So, you know, we we've got projects going on, throughout Coastal California.

And this is just a once in a generation opportunity to fill this really significant gap in East Shore State Park.

Yes. Okay. Good. Thank you. Yeah.

And that it does seem like a a really important opportunity that we don't miss. So I appreciate that. I I'd like to move on to the coexisting with wildlife initiative. So the May revision proposed a 1,020,000 one time funding from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund to support the coexisting with wildlife initiative. I had requested 48,800,000 to establish to reestablish a wild the wildlife coexistence program in the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And that was that's to support a coexistence and compensation program.

This is solidly within the area, as the LA LA was referring to, of health and safety. This is a a health and safety budget ask. And I think, I'd like to understand the thinking behind the administration basically moving funds around within CDFW rather than appropriating new funds. What things would are going to have to be defunded because of this move around. And then also the question of what, you know, 1,200,000 1,020,000 doesn't is is there's clearly not enough to reestablish a program that we had.

Excuse me. And also to meet the level of need. But, I or and I'll just give a few statistics about it. So over the last five years, wildlife incident reports to the Department of Fish and Wildlife have increased by a third, 31%. And overall, contacts have risen by 58%.

The funding that's requested is for livestock deterrents, compensation for livestock owners, and investments in technology to track the expansion of the state's Wolf population. And the tools that are needed are improved animal husbandry, electric fencing, livestock guardian animals, attractant management, and other deterrents that reduce wildlife conflicts and are most often are more cost effective over time than purely reactive responses. And then we also need to have the the Wolf the Wolf the Wolf basically re compensation for kills.

So when wolves kill livestock, the compensation part of that as well as the deterrent part of it. So I just wanted to understand what is the 1,000,000 going to be used for?

What is what is going to not be funded because of that? And what is the thinking, behind moving funding around? And I'll turn it to the secretary.

Well, first of all, at at the highest level, I'll say thank you for your engagement and your leadership on this issue. It's it's an issue that many in California aren't fully aware of. But depending on where you live in California, this is a crisis. Mountain Lion in as as director Hertel can can share, mountain lions are in, you know, across California, including in in suburban areas. Bears, likewise.

Wolves in certain parts of California, but having a huge impact on ranching communities and and local local rural economies. This is a sort of a challenge that has grown into a crisis in some parts of the state. The biggest challenge is building awareness and helping connect the dots on on this topic. So I can tell you I share your concern, and we have been wanting we've wanted to try to support the Department of Fish and Wildlife however we can to expand capacity.

We were able to expand capacity during those those budget year surpluses just a few years ago, and it mattered.

So this proposal, while modest, I can tell you is our agency's recognition of of this this problem and creative use of funding to try to get resources to fish and wildlife. Can I turn to one of my colleagues for that sort of the technical, information around how we're doing that?

Morning, chair and members. Dan Reagan, deputy director of fiscal service division for the department. What we're doing is we're taking existing environmental license plate fund that is currently in the hunting and fishing and land use program within the department and moving that to biodiversity conservation to use for human wildlife conflict management. Then we're backfilling the EOPF, environmental license plate fund that's being moved by our first conservation with a new appropriation from Fish and Game Preservation Fund to support those activities that are appropriate.

Those environmental license plate funds that were in hunting and fishing land use program.

We're doing general fish management, general wildlife management and land use which is appropriate for Fish and Game Preservation Fund. So that's kind of the technical piece behind the the creative fund shift to allow the department the added capacity with the million dollars to utilize the existing environmental license plate fund yet to not lose capacity for what was being done.

I appreciate that. I mean, one of my concerns is that the last time we had one time funding, people were hired and the program got off the ground and then we had to, lay them off or reassign them. And, you know, there's a that kind of turnover makes it It's difficult for communities to be able to to manage when there's a a really inconsistent staffing at the state.

And so and we see that, of course, when capacity falls out, then it just the whole thing can collapse. So what what is the thinking behind it being one time funding?

I'm speaking candidly, I think it's a valid you you you raise a valid point. And, you know, our our our efforts and thanks to Dan and his creativity was to get some funding through our agency budget to this. But we I can say that when we had, you know, more capacity in those past years, we were able to be much more proactive on this.

I mean, director Hertel is spending a lion's share of her time in her first months as the as the director of the department on this issue. She and I will be actually up in one of these rural counties meeting with ranchers next week.

Like, this is this is a this is a real you know, it's a real crisis in parts of the state. So this this time limited, one time funding, fairly modest, is our agency's best attempt to try to provide the support we can.

Yeah. Okay. And I mean, it does this is really not new funding. It's really it's it's supporting the existing programming that we have. Right?

It's it's sort of back filling. It's really not new because you're not creating new

It is at a capacity of about $1,000,000 that will allow the department to hire limited term staff to your point center, Blake Spear. Limited term staff, to support human wildlife conflict incident and address response in the highest priority needs within the state.

Okay. Yeah. I I guess I'll I just wanna emphasize that I think we've seen to the secretary's point of this is a crisis in certain parts of the state. And as, Apex predators make their way into more suburban communities and communities that they haven't been in before, and communities are unprepared for this because we don't have on the ground education and we don't have a way to communicate.

What happens is that there's there's a a reactive response that then leads to proposed legislation that can be really barbaric and not the kinds of, deterrence and coexistence that we want.

So I think the point behind this whole idea, coexisting with wildlife, is to recognize that we share the state with wildlife. We wanna have diverse ecosystems. We want both the habitat and the animals that live in it, and we need humans to be safe. And so we need to be able to have the state have the capacity to run a program.

And we and so making sure that, there's no question that we've already started to seek things that are going in the direction that we don't want.

Last year, we had some introductions of some bills. And so, you know, this really, I think, is a a just much more comprehensive approach to getting in front of it. So, you know, one, I was really happy to see something in the May revise because at least it's called out as a priority, and that's that's progress. But certainly, you know, 1,000,000 is just not enough.

And so I'm hoping that through the negotiations that we have, the administration can prioritize it and the legislature can prioritize it so that we can have this working.

And I wanna give director Hertel an opportunity just to share any comments she has. But I will say this, which is the out of capacity works. We know what works. We know how to engage communities. We know education matters.

And, you know, a lot of the human wildlife conflict is caused by careless human behavior. Not all of it, but but a lot of it. Think about bears and trash, etcetera. So we know that if we can actually get out there and expand access or education and awareness, it will reduce conflict. We it's it's been demonstrated in other states of the in the West and even in California when we had these resources.

Thank you, secretary. Thank you, Senator and chair. I would just add that secretary is completely right on this. You know, we are seeing increases in human wildlife conflict across the state. We also recognize the state is in tough budget times.

So with the $1,000,000, we'd be looking at investing in tools, things that people can put out on the ground, hazing equipment, things like that in some limited term or overtime staffing. But we are seeing increases across the whole state. I mean, there was a bear on the UC Davis campus last week. So the number of calls and requests that we got, what do we do when there's a bear on a campus? And that is just one of many incidences we get every day.

Yeah. That's a good example. I mean, there are certain communities, like, in Lake Tahoe that, have understand that you need to have bear safe containers and trash management and and and there's there's more of an education around not feeding wildlife. But, you know, even I I was recently at the Wolf Center, which is in Julian, just right at my district in Southern California. And, just the realities of the way people sometimes see something, a a little baby animal, and they wanna help it.

So then they go and disrupt it. And, of course, then the mom won't come back to it. And it's all types of animals. It's not just, of course, the apex predators. But but, you know, helping a little baby bear or how and a a mother then swiping at the person who's getting close to that.

You know, these are the types of things that if we don't have a way to communicate with the public and have, you know, the the hotline that people call has received hundreds of calls. And I know this because my husband would vol was volunteering at the Department of Fish and Wildlife taking these calls because he's a former national park ranger.

And so he, you know, was and in Southern California, it it was it's more coyotes and mountain lions and but just the types of conversations that people and the lack of awareness of it because we don't grow up with animals that are really close to us when we have a suburban lifestyle.

So so I do see this as something that we really could make a big difference if we were able to fund this appropriately and even just in a at a somewhat more modest, you know, not going crazy, but just a somewhat more modest level. So this, you know, does remain something that I think is a priority.

And thank you for for working on it and and identifying it. I I I did have a couple of, one or two other things I just wanted to mention though. So, you know, I I in the same, in the in the same area of health and safety, I think this the Annenberg Crossing, you know, the statistics on that, we have had 12 mountain lions and one black bear that have been killed on the freeway along with countless other animals.

And I was, in the last recess, I went to Jackson, Wyoming as part of the CSG conference, which is the, Council of State Governments. And so and I went to this, Wildlife Crossing specific tour in Wyoming of how are they managing.

And it was really interesting to see the frequency of crossings. You know, what we've done here is this massive crossing, which we have to start with something, of course. And it's probably in some ways easier to to create habitat for animals to go across these major freeways in Southern California. But I I really am, hopeful of this, being able to to really work. I mean, but it has to get itself open.

So, and I think it's built. The gov the governor announced that. I saw that on social media several months back, but it's not actually, like, actually open. Right? Yeah.

It's being done in in two phases. Believe it or not, it's it spans 10 lanes of cement on the Highway 101, but then the phase two is actually going over another access road and then joining. So it's largely built, but our commitment is to have it be fully operational by December 2 of this year.

Okay. December 2. That's great. Yeah. And when you see these wildlife cams at night that show the number of animals that go across these of all types, you know, it's just incredible.

So we sometimes think only of the bear that's hit or the mountain lion that's famous, but there are just countless other species that really benefit from this. So, you know, figuring out how to get that funded in all the various many ways, you know, is something that I do support as well.

And I would just add too, it's not only about protecting the animals, it's about protecting the motorists. And so when we do this and we let these animals cross safely, we we protect motorists. So there are projects actually across the state, and I would I would I would imagine in each of our districts. And we're working to strengthen the partnership with Caltrans so that wildlife connectivity and motor safety is actually considered part of the infrastructure.

When you update a freeway, you ensure the safe crossage and and reduce motor safety.

That's a good bill that's been proposed. Yeah. Yeah. And I I think it's important. I'm so glad you refocus that.

Because the truth is, when we talk about health and safety, we're talking usually about humans health and safety. And human health and safety is the thing that we, everybody's mind prioritizes around. And so, you know, when animals are running across the road and creating traffic collisions, it's obviously a health and safety problem. So I appreciate you refocusing on the the human health and safety. Okay.

Anything else you'd like to say about those two?

Okay. I I wanted to talk also about, transit and GGRF. So it's maybe a different team here. But you wait wait. Yeah.

Let me just ask yeah.

Do you wanna talk?

Since you're all sitting.

Yeah. Yes. Yes. On the Golden Gate Fields project. On the Golden Gate Fields project, we're considering this so late in the budget process, which for me is is a concern.

One of the questions that I have is what is the minimum amount that the state could provide for this real estate transaction to happen as opposed to the entire 125,000,000?

Yeah. We believe it is 125,000,000. The overall cost of the acquisition is 175,000,000. And so the expectation and the commitment is for the trust for public land and the East Bay Regional Parks to identify and secure the remaining $50,000,000. So we recognize that's a that is a a large sum of funding and and and that and it's a it's a timely question before us.

But we also recognize the extraordinary, as Amy put it, sort of once in a generation opportunity that this acquisition provides.

And absolutely, it's clear from the from the members that we recognize how important that is. You've talked about the time frame, 12/26/2026. They expect to close and escrow to close by the beginning of twenty seven. The other question is who is the seller?

Oh, great question.

Yeah. The landowners are the Stronach group. They own race tracks around North America.

Thank you. That's it on that one. Healthy rivers and landscape landscape program, There's been a question about exactly how much the state has put into this. Initially, in the the the initial draft, it was identified 2,900,000,000 as the amount necessary to implement the program over an eight year term. I know you mentioned seven years.

In terms of support, the funding plan indicates that 1,500,000,000 has already been secured for the program. And the governor's current May revision, proposal notes shows that 560,000,000, has already been directly appropriated for this program and an additional 569,000,000 has gone to support multi benefit projects such as flood risk, reduction projects, and and others. There seems to be a discrepancy regarding just how much the state support has provided so far. How much have we have we pre

Why don't I turn to my colleague

And how much more are we expected Yeah. Is this expected from the state?

I'm glad to figure in on this question, but let me turn to my colleague from the Department of Finance with the with the specific numbers.

Good morning. Andrew March with the Department of Finance. So that that's what we've been tracking. So there's been 560,000,000 that was appropriated, several years ago that the Department of Water Resources and the California Natural Resources Agency had to spend directly on meeting the state's goals, the flow goals and the acre goals for healthy rivers and landscapes. DWR has also been able to leverage additional funding to help meet the habitat restoration goal.

So collectively, the state is, we are counting around $1,100,000,000 that the state has committed or spent, to meet our goals.

And I'll share and then I can provide a little bit of color. First of all, that sounds like

I'm sorry. Before you do that, excuse me, secretary. No. It's okay. How much more funding is expected from the state?

So we anticipate in order to secure the remaining flows required over the eight year period, like like, upwards of possibly three to four hundred million dollars. And I'll tell you why. So this sounds like a lot of money, and, of course, it is a lot of money. There's no more consequential decision on water supply for many of your water agencies across the state than this regulatory action by the water board, period, full stop. Why?

Because the the largest portion of water that most of our water agencies in the state get is from these two huge water systems that drain the Sierra and the Cascade Mountains. And the what the water board did, and I can totally understand that, because they had one regulatory lever eight years ago, and that was, keeping a certain amount of water in the river.

That was going to be catastrophic to the water supply of water agencies across the state, which is why our agency and Cal EPA partnered to establish this third way, this different way. I have spent more time on this project than simply any other in the last eight years because of its importance. The idea is we yes, we restore flows, in in tributaries and in the main stem and through the delta, very important for the environment.

But we also invest in the habitat and the water board could not compel that. So it was a one dimensional solution. We know that fish recovery requires both, more flow, but also habitat, because we've lost that, and we've channelized our rivers through the Central Valley and the Delta. So this is a big program. And in order for it to succeed, we, engaged in years of science.

And actually, it was reviewed by what was called blind double blind scientific peer review to understand it could actually have a meaningful impact on the recover recovery of these fish. The water board is holding us to a very high standard of, actually, of environmental recovery for these fish, hence, the the significant investment in flows and in habitat. We anticipated when we started early implementation, why why we spent $1,100,000,000, because we don't have time to waste. We're on borrowed time.

These fish have been crashing, and we know our water security is in danger.

6,000,000 Californians were underwater rationing three years ago, and we're basically, you know, a couple of dry years away from that happening again. So we decided it was important to make these flow restoration investments and these habitat investments, and that early implementation has resulted in that when when this program starts, the Healthy Rivers and Landscape program starts, we have already fulfilled certain obligations for habitat restorations and certain obligations for flow purchases. The challenge is this was this is unprecedented in scale and costs have escalated.

So we actually anticipated five years ago that we could, you know, candidly, achieve these these required, habitat restoration and flow restoration with the funding that we've already invested, but we haven't. We can't.

And so that's why we're we're seeking more funding. We know more funding is needed over the eight year period, but we also know that this is this is not the budget year to try to complete that, that that request. So this $25,000,000 we think is modest, but but important for a couple reasons. One, the three of the 25 establish as a scientific monitoring program. And when this program starts on January 1, we need the scientific monitoring to be accountable to the water board.

We also need to demonstrate to the water board, while this is an unprecedented investment, that we continue to be committed on on purchasing flows and making these habitat investments. So I I can say candidly that they're they're, you know, future funding is needed in in future years. This funding is really important. And if we don't secure this funding, I'm worried that this program essentially fails before it can succeed.

And I can tell you that the that that the respond that the consequent quench won't fall to our administration because we're coming to the end of our term.

It will come to the water board and the legislature when water agencies are subjected to this unimpaired flow and those untenable impacts on their water supplies. So that's that's why I'm here, you know, as earnestly as possible trying to explain that this really important for our our environmental balance. Yes, we need to improve our our environmental conditions and we need to securitize our water supply. And this is the best path forward that does both.

I I don't I don't think that there there is a question about the importance of it. I think that trying to figure out how much we have spent on it, what we're expecting to spend on it. I know the LAO had indicated that 1.5 had been spent on it already as opposed to the 1.1. What is the discrepancy?

Thank you, madam chair. Sonia Petek with the legislative analyst office. The funding plan that the the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program parties put out, the latest draft was in late 2024, I believe, indicated that the total cost of the program was about 2.9 mill billion. And in that funding plan, it indicated what the state share was and had indicated that roughly 1,490,000,000 had already been secured. So it was our understanding that that funding had already been provided.

So one of the reasons that our office recommended rejecting this proposal at this time was given the the state the constraints on general fund resources. We didn't see this as meeting an urgent health and safety need. And in addition, because the state water resources control board has not formally adopted their update to the Bay Delta plan. We thought perhaps that this additional request was premature, and that the legislature could take action once the the plan had been adopted.

One of the points that we would also make this this hearing this morning has actually been quite helpful in clarifying some of the the issues around funding, what's been provided already, what is expected of the state.

The legislature really this is a largely regulatory process. So the legislature really only has a couple of levers for sort of understanding what's going on and sort of exercising its authority over this program. One is how it appropriates funding, and two is how it conducts oversight. So there have been sort of some mixed messages about the funding and what will be needed to meet the state's commitments in terms of flows and habitat.

So it was our recommendation that the legislature seek out additional clarity, and it's quite helpful that, mister Crowfoot has provided at least a sense of the magnitude of what will be expected of the state over the course of the eight year program.

So that was why we had made our recommendation and this line of questioning has been quite helpful in in having some greater transparency around the the total costs of the program.

Thank you. So has the state reached its 50% obligation funding yet?

No. So no. Clearly, that and then that's why they're the

Not at this 1.1.

Well, correct. And I should say that the the our obligation is actually not an amount of money, and this is an important point. And this is one that our department of finance was, you know, we was asking at one point. So the the great thing about this program is it's not about how much money you spend, it's about the outcome you have, which is why we're being held accountable for a certain number of acre feet that flow back into our rivers by tributary, by water year.

It's also why we're being held accountable to the specific number of acres of habitat restoration.

When we develop that plan initially in 2022, we gave our best estimate of what that would cost. But this is unprecedented. The amount of flows that we're talking about, and the the value of the flows in different water years because you have to buy these environmental flows in perpetuity from water rights holders, there's no existing market for that and and sort of comparables to be able to do that.

So we gave our best estimate, and then given the importance of getting this program moving forward and demonstrating the waterboard we were serious about this, we made those investments. So I would I I thank the the LAO for its its good questions.

And my request would be, if there is uncertainty about what we've spent or what we need to spend and what it's bought, I would ask to roll up sleeves with the LAO and budget staff, you know, now to be able to answer those questions. I I know and I I you know, I've joked to my colleagues that I started this job without any gray hair. And look at me now.

This is one of these projects that has it's been fraught for a very long while, and we're now just at the inception point of actually getting it as the program. And to the board's credit, they're holding us accountable in year one for this for this for these these obligations.

So I'm glad to, to to clarify, to go offline and to clarify and and sort of sharpen pencils and show this, but I would just ask for your consideration this this budget year because I can tell you that it's quite possible that the person in my seat next year, if this funding doesn't happen, is is trying to navigate a a plan b with you beyond healthy rivers and landscapes. And I can tell you that that that is that will be a suboptimal result.

Thank you so much and thank you for that and thank you to the LAO, Department of Finance.

If I could just add one thing. So with respect to the LAO's comments about sort of the timing, the current draft of the Bay Delta plan that the water board has out there has the, the the program starting 01/01/2027. If the legislature were to wait later, so to next year, next June, we would already be six months behind. So there would already have been six months where DWR wouldn't have been able to do any of this sort of scientific and monitoring.

This $25,000,000 is really to get DWR to be able to complete year one of the program.

And as the secretary noted, we're under no illusion that this is sort of the end of the commitment that we we know that we have not met our commitment as part of the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program regardless of how much funding is provided. If we don't meet these goals, then it doesn't mean anything as far as the regulatory program goes.

So we look forward to having those discussions in the future with the legislature about how much additional funding would be needed in order for the state to meet its goals.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Any further questions for secretary Crowfoot? Yes.

I actually do have one thing that I failed to mention. But I just wanna say I appreciate all the work on the on this water issue. It's critically important. And so thank you for spending so much, energy and getting so many gray hairs over it. I I did not mention in unfortunately, in my notes and just so I just wanna circle back to the question about, you know, we do have active, livestock injuries and kills right now from wolves.

And so the, you know, last year in 2025, we had almost 200 documented. And there were, you know, there are many others as well that are undocumented. So there was no money for, livestock injury kill compensation in the budget. And I'm just wondering about that.

So that's correct. There there is no funding. I I believe there is maybe some funding that was included, last year, small amount. But it's a difficult, subject for us to wrap our heads around because, our understanding is that in some cases that, ranchers can, purchase insurance for this type of loss. So it's difficult for us to understand in what areas of the state should be providing assistance without duplicating assistance that's already been provided through through a third party, that, that, a renter can

And do you mind if I think the Cattlemen's Association is here. If could they answer that?

I can certainly I'll suggest that Department of Fish and Wildlife come up to to answer your question. Okay. It's really important the idea of if a wolf kills your your calf that you'd be compensated for that. That's really critically important. And so you all have been focused on that, and maybe you can explain where we stand with resources for compensation.

Absolutely. Thank you for the question, Senator. And yes, Cattleman is here. Kirk is queuing up to the microphone now. Chad, can I pass this to you to talk a little bit about our compensation program and where we're at on the funding?

Sure. Let's so in '24 '25, you all awarded us or provided us $600,000. We use those funds to, implement what we call prong one of the program, which is direct loss, like you're talking about. So this is for a wolf depredation on a livestock. You can apply for those funds.

Those funds are now spent. You also allocated us another $2,000,000 in this fiscal year, current fiscal year. We are working hard. That was a one year encumbrance on those funds. So we are working hard to get those dollars encumbered right now to ensure that we can continue to expend those out in the future.

I mean, I think the core question though, like, which we really need to answer. So Department of Finance understands what the perspective is is why is insurance not adequate? You know, why? Because I think that's basically what you're asking that there's why do we need to compensate when there might be insurance? So does the secretary wanna answer this or the Cattlemen's Association, so that we can really get that question answered from the Department of Finance?

I'm happy to speak briefly about this. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association. In terms of insurance, there's a couple of issues with that. There are a couple of private insurance providers that do, you know, provide insurance policies for loss of livestock, but most insurance providers that we've reached out to at the Cattlemen's Association and my colleagues at the Farm Bureau do not offer private insurance for livestock losses. So there's limited folks in the private market that would offer insurance for those purposes.

Additionally, of course, there is a cost to obtaining that insurance policy, and we know that most ranchers in wolf territory won't suffer losses. Losses are disproportionately suffered by individual ranches to which wolves become habituated. So you'll have a number of folks operating in very thin profit margins that already have really high insurance premiums for wildfire and other issues that are expending a lot of money on insurance, not experiencing that loss, and those folks, you know, are are going to really be constrained by that cost.

What I think is more important for our purposes is not the direct loss issue. There, of course, is, you know, that that that's the most tangible loss, associated with wolves for livestock producers.

But there are two other prongs of the wolf livestock compensation program here in California, which would not be addressed by most insurance policies that I'm aware of. One of those is indirect loss compensation. We know folks, you know, have increased, you know, abortion of calves, in wolf territory. They have decreased weight gain. Those things probably wouldn't be compensable under an insurance policy, but you have legislation on this point, Senator Blake Spear.

The biggest thing that we need in the state of California is funding for nonlethal deterrence of wolves to prevent that conflict from occurring, you know, in the first place. And that is probably the most expensive need under the wolf livestock compensation program, and most insurance policies aren't going to pay you for that proactive nonlethal deterrence. Does that address the question sufficiently?

Yeah. I just I want does the Department of Finance have any question about that?

No. No question.

Okay. I appreciate that. Yeah. Thank you. The non the nonlethal deterrence is a critical part because, of course, you would prefer to have the calf continue to live.

And so trying to create the environment where the wolves are not habituated to eating that hurt that that herd of cattle is a good thing. So we need to be investing in that. But does the secretary wanna respond to this too?

Well, you know, the it's it's really a partnership approach with ranching communities in rural counties. And, you know, these folks have been making their livelihoods for a century without wolves. And now wolves are back. And in other western states where there has been wolves and and conflict, government has stepped up to address this and to minimize conflict.

So we do feel like we have a responsibility on this, and we are thankful for the patience of our rural counties, the the boards of supervisors, the county sheriffs, because it is really it's a it's a deeply concerning issue to to these counties.

And so what we're working to do is demonstrate partnership and and and we've made progress. I mean, where we've gotten nonlethal deterrents out in the field effectively and early enough, we can deter wolves. I mean, coexistence can exist. But right now, we're really challenged with capacity and wolves, as as Kirkwood explained from cattlemen, that are habituating, meaning they've become, you know, it's a habit forming to to go after these these these these calves.

So it's a priority one a, I know, for the department and the agency to get our hands around this and resources help.

Right. Okay. Okay. Good.

Director I do wanna thank you for for joining us here at at the at at the table to answer the questions directly. It's been very informative and I sincerely appreciate it.

Well, just my my appreciation back to you, chair, personally, and I have to say that the, workshop that you led with Senator Cervantes, is now a model that's going to other places around how can we help communities understand opportunities for proposition four. And just big thanks to all of you. We understand that the work that we do is simply possible because of what you do both on the budget and policy. So it's a great partnership and we we deeply appreciate it.

Thank you. And on on that workshop, to have you and your department provide information on how our counties, our our various agencies can apply for Prop four funding was really important, very informative. And I know that some other some of my colleagues have looked at the the webinar, who weren't present but who have shared the webinar with their staff. So I thank you for having taken the time to do that.

Thank you very much.

And certainly, I wanna thank you, secretary for years of service to the state. You've always been very cooperative and collaborative so it's deeply appreciated.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

So I did I had a question for a different team I think on GGRF.

I have lots of stuff for GGRF.

Okay. Well, do you wanna go first? No. Okay. And as as we're transitioning, I'll just say that I did I really appreciate the introduction about about the budget, the condition, and the fact that we have are proposing to cut our structural deficit in half, but we still have the other half, basically.

And I mean, we're not we're not in a situation where we're not gonna be potentially growing that structural deficit in a different year. So I I am with the LAO on thinking that we we need to right size. And in a in a boom time, we need to not be taking reserves, but putting more money into reserves, in the big picture. So I appreciate you focusing on that at the beginning of your remarks. So should I begin, Chair, with this question?

Okay, so we know that the recent cap and invest auction revenues were lower than anticipated, and the May revision assumes a modest decrease based on lower actual revenues. The May revision reduces projected allocations for the transit and inner city rail capital program, which is known as TRSIP, by 32,000,000 for the 2025, '26 fiscal year and 74,000,000 for the '26 '27 fiscal year. TRSIP is important for long term capital projects that improve service quality and reliability.

The May revision also reduced project allocations for the low carbon transit operations program, which is called LC TOP, by 16,000,000 for the '25 '26 fiscal year and 37,000,000 for the year after.

LC TOP funds reduced fare programs and zero emission equipment purchases. And then also the May revision does not account for CARB's proposed rule making where which CARB is like expected to adopt next week, which could further reduce the amount of money. And I'm very concerned that all of the tier three priorities under the current cap and invest framework may not receive any funding. So this involves, of course, affordable housing and clean water and transit. And I'm I'm focusing, my remarks on transit.

But I do think we need to really be seriously looking at reopening our negotiations over where the revenue from Cap and Invest goes. Because when we negotiated this last year, the the focus on high speed rail and Cal Fire, the governor's, top two priorities, and then having legislature's priorities be at the end, and now having a changed landscape where the total amount of money is so substantially less and all of the legislature's priorities, which are also the governor's priorities, but are not funded.

You know, these are really important things that we fund in the state of California. And I I'm just basically wanting the legislature and the administration to look holistically at funding for transit and determine how we can meet our transit obligations to try there are many transit agencies that are on a fiscal cliff, And that's the operating side. And then we have the capital side.

And we have obligations around clean vehicles that, agencies have to meet. And I we're just in a very bad and precarious situation when it comes to our transit funding. And so I'm I'm concerned about that, and I I want to really understand if there's any thinking from the Department of Finance, about what what are we doing about transit? I mean, what what what what is the thinking behind this where where there's not gonna be any money for these really critical projects?

Thanks for the question. So, we don't have our transit colleagues here today, but I can speak sort of around GGRF. One thing that I would like to clarify is that the mayor vision isn't proposing to reduce the funding. It's just reflecting an estimate of what the funding is that we would receive next year. So there was an auction yesterday, which was the final auction for '25 '26.

So until we receive those results, which will probably be early June, we won't know how much funding we've actually collected in '25 '26. So that's one part of the estimate. So for actually '26 '27, we similarly won't know how much funding we've actually collected until around that same time, June 2027. So there will be other updates. So again, in January, we'll be able to check-in with the legislature of of what the the estimated revenues are for GGRF and then again at May next year.

So that's one thing that I would like to highlight. And then with regard to sort of the the fluctuation of of the the funding, that was similarly, a characteristic of the previous structure for, for the greenhouse gas reduction fund as sort of the percentages where depending on the revenues, you would see reduced funding for some of these priorities for affordable housing and and transit operations and and and capital projects.

So, like, for example, during the pandemic where GGRF revenues plummeted, we similarly saw those, the allocations to those programs plummet as well because, you know, as you know, the function of GGRF is a market which we can't control. So that's just the one thing that I would like to highlight there but you know, obviously transit is has been a priority. The state has provided a significant amount of money for transit throughout the years.

And, you know, I think with regard to, there was previously the the 2024, sort of framework for discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds. And so, you know, we've heard, a lot of conversation about sort of the remaining commitment that's in there, which I think overall for '26 '27 was sort of around $250,000,000 for that funding and then sort of another tranche in in '27 '28. But there is also a lot of other funding that was agreed to in that 2024 plan that's not funded.

So there's significant amount of funding for zero emission vehicles that also remains unfunded because of some of the the decisions that we had to make last year with regard to being able to offset general fund costs with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to ensure that we didn't have to make as deep cuts in the health and human services space. So the May revision can take continues that agreement that was made last year in order to use the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to offset general fund costs.

So that we, are not faced to to make some of the cuts to some of the most vulnerable populations.

Yeah. I understand these difficult trade offs. I guess, I I'll just I just want to say in the big picture that I would rather we keep transit agencies afloat and then providing services so that the bus or the train is running than requiring them to buy new equipment, especially when they might have equipment that's not even that dirty.

Basically, the idea of having, like, clean buses that are driving around with almost no one in them because they go so infrequently that people can't use them to rely on their their trips. You know, the focus on on frequency, reliability, basically services, I think should be our priority when we are in a budget, constricted budget situation.

And I know we have different pots of money that don't fund certain things and we end up in this, like, feeling like, well, we can't move. And that but that's just not the case. Like, especially if we have CalSTA and some focus on this from the Department of Finance and the legislature and the governor to say, well, you know, what do we wanna be doing with transit here?

We had this transit transformation task force that was formed that came out with a report that wasn't really useful and didn't provide any really any useful guidance as a road map and it was worked on for more than two years. So to me, the my observation is that we're in this a little bit of a a treading water, where, you know, it's possible that agencies in in my district, particularly Metrolink, are going to be dramatically reducing services.

And the things that were worked out in the Bay Area, you know, a $750,000,000 loan until local sales tax is passed is, you know, that's not a a very substantial investment, truthfully. I mean, it's barely keeping the floor, possibly with a a lot of local commitment.

But I I do think the state should see it as a priority that we have a functioning transit system that's actually growing ridership for our greenhouse gas emission goals, for public health, for equity reasons, you know, for the fact that sitting in traffic is one of the worst things that humans spend time doing. And, you know, having a a good transit system is something that California should care about.

So, you know, this the greenhouse the GGRF, piece of this is really important because it has funded so much of our transit funding.

But we also, you know, I just go back to what I said at the beginning which is we need to look holistically at available funding and determine how to continue and improve the way we manage transit. So that's my comment on that topic. Anyone else wanna say anything about that topic? Any other LAO have any thoughts?

Yeah. I think it just underscores our recommendation to you that given the uncertainty in these revenues, the existing framework that was adopted last year based on different revenue assumptions may not reflect your updated prioritization with different expectations. So when the budget is going to be passed, you still won't know a lot of, these things. And and even next year as mister March noted, you know, we we plan for revenues and then they come in over the course of the year and they may come in differently.

So I think our our our our strong recommendation is that you plan for a number of different scenarios and ensure that however that iterates over the course of the year is reflecting what you want it to to reflect even in a much lower revenue scenario.

And, absolutely agree with oh, Helen Kerstein. Sorry. For the legislative analyst office. Absolutely agree with everything my colleague just mentioned. I guess the other thing I would just highlight is that these regulations really could be very impactful.

I know we discussed this with the committee. And in part because they're likely to reduce the number of allowances they're anticipated to go to support GGRF. And so, really, if they are passed, I think it's reasonable for the legislature to want an updated revenue estimate of, okay, if we assume some I mean, there's a lot of uncertainty, but if we assume some reasonable price with the number of allowances that are expected to go to GGRF, what are we looking at?

Of course, there could be variation, but trying to understand that, I think, would be really important. And then one of the other things to consider is whether you wanna sort of take action on this now given that uncertainty.

There's some stuff that's in law that's gonna happen on the natural. Things will get continuously appropriated because July 1, high speed rail, you know, they get their continuous appropriation. Right? And so thinking about are you comfortable with that all proceeding as scheduled. Again, some of it's gonna happen in law anyway because it's in statute to be continuously appropriated.

Are are you comfortable with that, or do you wanna take another approach to leave yourself some flexibility if you wanna change that framework? So those are just some other things to think about.

Again, sort of, you know, we don't have recommendations specifically on that, but, I think to think about what your priorities are, how you wanna make sure that you're making the have the best information to make the decisions you wanna make based on that, and do you want to make any changes to give yourself some flexibility to potentially make changes should the landscape be different?

Yeah. I I I think we should do that. I'm glad that you brought that up. Yeah. Yes.

One note I would make about that is that it's not necessary that that that funding is continuously appropriated. So because of how the auctions work, that funding actually doesn't get sort of allocated until the auction happens. So there's not a billion dollars starting July 1 for high speed rail to start spending because it doesn't exist. Because the allocation is based on how the auctions work. So there actually is more time to reevaluate.

It's not something that has to be done before July 1. This funding isn't gonna automatically go out. The funding can be reallocated sort of retroactively later in the process.

Yeah. Okay. Well, the sooner the better. So that there's, you know, high speed rails relying on certain expectations. And so so are all the other project, basically funding buckets.

Yeah. Yes. Okay. Go ahead.

Very specifically on GGRF. I know transit is something that is extremely important. There's also been discussion about the clean water. CalMatters just had a really important article and and just to to to read one of the quotes. This is Sherry Hunter, who has long battled the arsenic leaching into the leaching into the water supply in historic Tulare County town of Allensworth.

She said if this funding goes away, oh my god, I can't even imagine. These are the sorts of things that people relied on. They relied on this kind of money coming in and because they fall under tier three. If we assume that the auctions came in lower, That assumption is now fact.

If we assume that next next week, CARB is going to issue her ruling based upon what they said in April, then we know we're going to have we can assume we're going to have $2,000,000,000 less in GGRF.

And if indeed we have $2,000,000,000 less in GGRF, all that will be funded is tier one, high speed rail, and maybe a little bit left over. Tier three gets zero. And under tier three, our transit, the the clean water program, and we still have 600,000 people in the state of California, the fourth largest economy. Six six hundred thousand people who still do not have access to clean drinking water. And I know this is important to the governor.

He he has worked hard in making sure that those numbers came down from the high number that it was before. But we still have 600,000 people who don't have access to clean drinking water. AB 617 had been funded under GGRF. In fact, in the negotiations, it was going to be 250,000,000 ongoing for AB 617 communities, which are the communities the most disadvantaged, the most polluted communities in the state of California.

Many of them already have plans on, plans that were put together and a lot of money was spent to put together those plans. And now, we have to implement them.

We're not able to and we're not going to be able to include the other communities that are also so polluted that should be included in this program. So the clean air, we have H FIPs for the the the medium and heavy duty, which are the biggest polluters in the state of California. It's not the the light duty vehicles and I want to transition those into electric vehicles without a doubt.

But transitioning and providing funding for the medium and heavy duty, those are the biggest polluters and many of those are the those truck drivers. This is their business.

They have invested all of their life savings into these trucks and we had programs that were available to them. We we need to be able to bring that back because that will have the greatest impact. I have a little flea here. That is that is what is going to provide the greatest impact directly into the community. The fact that there were negotiations and those are over extensive negotiations as my colleague has mentioned.

Perhaps, if we're going to be dealing with so much less, less than half of what we had anticipated. Because if we were looking at 3.7, now we're down to 3.3, maybe 3.4. And then we take out 2,000,000,000, we're down to 1.3, 1.4. We absolutely will have nothing for tier three. There will be zero for tier three.

And so as as as or to Blake Spear has mentioned, reopening negotiations on how to spend this money. What are our priorities? Initially, tier one, that's such a small amount. But in tier two, it was supposed to be high speed rail, 1,000,000,000, legislative priorities, 1,000,000,000. And then we get the the January proposed budget and 750,000,000,000 of that is going to, to Cal Fire, which is a very, very important to all of us here.

But we're back filling the general budget with let what would would have been late legislative priorities. And that was part of negotiations, part of the discussion. But now, not even that is what would be taken care of. What is happening to GGRF is something that should concern all of us. I would like to hear from both Department of Finance and LAO on that.

Yeah. So maybe I'll I'll start. There are many points that you made. So maybe I'll start with the last point.

I know you've heard them all and I'm going to keep repeating them because there's this is so important.

Yeah. So with regard to the last point, so so two things happened last year. One, the budget was passed and it has specific language in there authorized clarifying the intent of the legislature and the administration for certain, amounts of GGRF that would be identified, to offset general fund cost for Cal Fire. So our understanding is that we are just filling that agreement. There was no indication that we had any authorization to backtrack on that agreement because that that language was not changed.

So just wanted to clarify that there. I understand maybe there may be a difference of opinion here, but our understanding is that we we are merely fulfilling an agreement that we made with the legislature last year.

May may I interrupt you for just a second? That all the parties negotiated in good faith. That is my assumption. But there is a big difference in what was being negotiated with and that is 3,700,000,000. It could have been 3,400,000,000 because that part we don't have any control over because that's the auction.

But when you remove $2,000,000,000 from that 3.7 or 3.4, that's a big difference in what was being negotiated in good faith. And now we're told, well that 3.4 or 3.7 or 3.9, it's now 1.7.

I I appreciate that. I was just sort of referring back to this sort of I know it's it it was we had the we passed the budget and then later was, the negotiations on SBA 40. So trying to marry the two into the framework given that there is still the the sort of legislative and administration intent sort of around the the backfill.

With respect to to the SAFER funding, which I I I thank you for pointing out that it was a priority of the governor and he introduced the the SAFER program in 2019. Originally as sort of a broad based tax and then it was shifted to be funding by by GGRF through negotiations.

So previously that program, if auction revenues came below $130,000,000, the the program would be offset by general fund to make sure that it received a $130,000,000 as part of SB 840. That backfill was eliminated. So just wanted to to point that out there. That was part of what the ultimately how SB 840 was drafted. And then again to to your priorities, these are shared priorities of of the administration for these various activities.

As you noted I have no doubt. GGRF is it.

I know the governor. These are important things to the governor. I recognize that. But we're here we here we are. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

No. No. No worries. I understand you're very passionate about about these. You know, as you noted, it's a it's a function of the market.

And at the end of the day, the revenue from GGRF is I'm sure you've heard is sort of a byproduct of of the program. And as we get closer to our our caps, we we have fewer allowances that are available overall. So if you look at the the allowance pool, I mean, it's it's reducing quite a bit. Just even from 2027 to 2030 under the revised regulations in order to meet our 2030 cap.

So fewer allowances that you know, the GGRF revenue is a function of allowance and allowance price.

So if you have a million more allowances and they're all selling at the floor, that's still you know, quite a bit of funding that's going back into the program. So naturally, depending on what the price is, there are fewer allowances overall as we get closer to the caps, which could mean that there's less funding for GGRF. That it it could be a declining fund source unless there's some sort of commissure offset with prices.

May I ask a question? However, that if we're going to give 118,000,000 free allowances as being proposed, to be voted on next week, If we're giving away giving away 118,000,000 free allowances, then whatever we have left to sell at auction, who's going to want to buy those if they're going to get them free? And I'm not saying that they would all get them free, but these are all these are all factors that we have to consider. But

Yes, I mean with respect to the MDI, my understanding is sort of outside of the, the allowance allocation. And there's a lot of uncertainty about when those allowances would be used and brought in depending on the projects that industry would bring forward. So if, you know, even if you took away the MDI, it's not that those 118,000,000 allowances would be available for GGRF. They they technically just don't exist. They exist outside of that that space.

There, you know, there could be arguments made that there could be downward pressure because there are more allowances available which I'm not an economist so I'm not gonna speculate and I think, you know, many people it's it's it's very difficult to project these things, for the market. But, overall, we have a declining cap. We have revenues that could decline over time. So I think to the LAO's point, it's it's something that needs to be considered is that it's not necessarily a stable funding source.

If it is declining, does this meet our shared priorities?

Would you agree that if the negotiations anticipated we we know that the market is such that we could never say this is exactly what it's going to be. But we had anticipated 3.7. We may end up with 3.4, which is still understandable. Would you agree that if, in the end, because of a ruling next week, that we end up with 1.7 as a result of the ruling, that that would be a basis for negotiations, for negotiation?

I think the structure of SB 840 does not anticipate any auction revenues below $2,400,000,000. So the and to be clear, there's no actual direction in SB 840 on how we would prioritize in tier two. There's no sequencing, so it's not it's not clear in statute whether it would just be proportionally split between sort of the discretionary funding and high speed rail or it would go to high speed all types of rail.

I'm glad to hear you say that.

So so I would say that, yes, if there was, revenue below $2,400,000,000, we would have to come up with a, with additional, clarification on how the funding would be spent.

Thank you. LAO?

So, I think Department of Finance covered most of the ground. There are just a couple of things I wanted to highlight. It is true that the cap is going down, and so there will be fewer allowances. Just naturally a part of the program structure. I think there was expectation when we talked about reauthorization last year that part of what would happen is we'd have some upward pressure in allowance prices.

I think we collectively, many of us, including our office, I think we thought, okay, there's gonna be more certainty in the market. Also, there's gonna be more scarcity in allowances. Right? And so these are gonna probably increase allowance prices. That's gonna sort of have an offsetting effect, so we might get a little bit of a bump in near term revenue, maybe long term revenue would go down.

So I think we are in a different space. And part of it is because we didn't see that upward pressure on prices that we thought we would see. Part of it is this rulemaking. I don't know that there was an expectation. I don't well, the legislature was did not clearly direct how the allow allowance allocation should happen, which sector should receive which percentage.

But I think sort of the baseline assumption was, maybe it'll be about the same as what we've seen in the past. GGRF getting up, you know, close to half. And what we're seeing with this proposed rulemaking is that there's a significant reduction in the share, not just the overall pie, but the share that's going to GGRF. And so that really does, I think, fundamentally change what we how we might view potential revenues in the future.

And notably, CARB is only proposing to make those allowance allocations through 2030, so there's quite a bit of uncertainty about what the what they're envisioning for, you know, the sort of post-2030 world.

But I still think it it puts us in a very different place. And so it seems totally reasonable for the legislature, in light of that, to think about whether this structure still represents the what what the legislature envisioned, last year or whether some reevaluation would make sense.

Thank you. Are there any other questions on GGRF? Yes, Doctor Choi?

Yeah. I would like to ask a question related to GGRF and then also transit. We all know that the high speed rail project began long, long time ago. When was it? It was twenty something five years ago and still in in a very uncertain stage, and it's become political kickball.

And now I hear same concept. In the news, I read that the bullet instead of bullet train, bullet bus concept. And I understand Caltrain is planning on the stage. I don't know whether whether anyone from Caltrain today, but if you have any knowledge about that because whether that the funding will be from the GGRF or something else, where the funding will be coming from. And what I read was that the existing freeway is gonna follow existing freeway, but it's unsafe and unstable.

They will need extra lane. So that means another long term project sounds like a good initial transit solution problem idea. However, if a new acquisition of the land for the new lane and the construction of the new lane, that'll be smooth. And what I hear is that the bus is gonna fly, like, 140 miles per hour, and it'll take only three hours. That that'll be equivalent to bullet train idea.

So if you can explain further, if you know about that plan, what exactly that is about, and not too many people seem to have learned about it. So if you can elaborate on that plan, it'll be helpful.

Senator Choi, two questions, if I may. If it is related to GGRF, absolutely, this is where we're gonna talk about it. But it sounds like it may be more related

venting because

If I may?

Yeah. It's not gonna be definite.

If I may.

Senator Choi?

Yeah. It's

Yeah.

If it is related to transportation in general, then I I would I think that we should defer that to the subcommittee Five. Five on on transportation. But if this is something that is being considered for GGRF, absolutely would you would you

Whether the funding will be coming from that because of, obviously, bullet train is a purpose to for low emission and speed. But, obviously, the bus, to my knowledge, is not gonna be based upon electricity. I don't know whether that will be EV or or allow that kind of a long distance, one charge and the flight at a 140 miles.

And so that means whether the funding will be coming from GGRF or something else, I think that's definitely related to the issue and then also in the the emission issue because

to my knowledge that the current technology, EVs, bus is not gonna run that one one one charge and with the the large bus and the rate that will fly that faster from LA to San Francisco.

Yeah, thank you for the question, Senator Choi. I'm not familiar with that project and and we don't have, my colleagues from from the transportation unit here. I'm not familiar with what what the source of funding would that would that that project would be. I would just note that the funding that is included in GGRF for the transit intercity rail capital program and the low carbon transit operation program, traditionally go to local governments.

But I'm I'm happy to follow-up with my my colleagues and see if they have any more details on sort of that that project that you mentioned and sort of and what the funding source would be.

So my understanding is that right now that the project is initial planning stage by the Caltrain.

Thank you, doctor Choi. Senator McNerney.

Thank you. I'm gonna ask about the GGRF. The intent in my mind about the GGRF is to help the transition, reduce carbon emissions, make California meet our goals to have zero emissions in the future. Some of the programs that I've advocated for, like the farmer program, very effective FPIP, manure management, and others. I have a large ag constituency and these are very effective programs.

How are these gonna be affected by what we're seeing as the large reduction in GGRF revenue?

So so those programs that you mentioned have have historically been funded by discretionary funding, so they don't receive a direct allocation in statute. So if there's excess revenue, then, then they would receive funding. So under the, the the January budget and the May revision, there's there's limited discretionary funding. As previously mentioned, a large portion of the discretionary funding is being allocated to offset general fund costs for Cal Fire. And then, there there's specific funding that's called out in SB 840, around $250,000,000.

But going forward, I think as as Senator Reyes noted, that if there's reduced revenues, there may not be additional funding depending on on sort of how the the program is structured, for discretionary programs like like Farmer or FPIP.

Okay. That's not the answer I wanted to hear. I'm gonna yield back.

Welcome to tier.

Yeah. Thank you. I guess, I'll just, kind of make the big picture comments that I I recognize that GGRF is something that's an unstable fund. And and I I think some of our programs that we fund through GGRF are are not maybe as directly related to emissions reductions as what CARB is proposing to do with its new proposal that we just heard about and had a a whole hearing on.

And I think that that the program as described to me seemed like if we thought of it as the legislature, it would be something that we would be very proud of and we would wanna move forward with because it does seem like it's it requires polluting industries.

It allows them to access government money if they're putting private money into reducing the amount of emissions and they only get the money if they're showing that they're doing it. So to me, it seems like it is much more closely related to the goals that GGRF that that our cap and trade program cap and invest program has.

So but, you know, we it puts us in the difficult position of having to figure out how to fund all of our priorities, which is always a zero sum game of whatever the pot is. How do we divide it? And so I think there's just an enormous pressure on, on us to say these programs are important to us.

They have been funded by GGRF. Is it CARB's responsibility to figure out how to fund those things? I mean, to me, it does seem like it's not necessarily directly their responsibility because we that's the legislature's responsibility. And I know there are different opinions about this, because, because it makes our job harder, basically.

But but recognizing that these are important this is why my position and feeling is that we do need to reopen the negotiation to say, GGRF funding is going to look different than it did last year and we need to reassess what amounts of money go to what things based on what's important to us.

And so there was a different a different game last year and different expectations. And so we need to proceed with where we are right now in the same way we do with our budget. If it's bigger or smaller, we have a renegotiation of what things we're spending where. So I think there are still the things that GGRF is funding that are important to us, like the trans transit and clean water and affordable housing. And we have to find a way to incorporate those in some way.

And so if it maybe it's a general fund or maybe it's a different, a different place. I don't know exactly where. But to me, it seems like we should we should be seriously having that conversation because the landscape really has changed as the LAO. Said. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other question?

Thank you for turning on my mic. I turned it off so that I wouldn't be going back and forth.

I do wanna thank you for for your input. This is extremely important especially after having received the May revise. To be able to review that in light of our structural deficit, in light of our priorities, and making sure that we remember that we do have priorities and that we do get to to share those priorities. We today's today's comments are extremely important to us as we make our recommendations. And again, thank you for for your input.

Now we're going to move on to public comment. Anyone who would like to present public comment, we are going to provide thirty seconds for for each of you and I I I I thank you so much. We'll have a timer on in just a moment and when you hear the beep, just wrap it up. Thank you.

Great. Thank you madam chair. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. Three quick items. First, on the wildfire coexistence, it was nice to see that mentioned in the May revise.

The amount of funding there feels homeopathic compared to the need, so I urge the legislature to round that up appropriately. On the proposal to for additional staffing over at CNRA to deal with the permit streamlining for vegetation management projects that's been happening in the executive order. That makes a lot of sense, but I'll note that that executive order sunset that streamlining sunset sunset at the beginning of this month. So it'll need to be a whole statutory process to create an ongoing system there.

There'll be an important part of the conversation in the next few months.

Lastly, on the GGRF appropriation, I'll just highlight that previously wildfire funding, the only ongoing funding for wildfire prevention, that $200,000,000 came off the top that got moved to tier three. So now there is no ongoing funding for wildfire prevention from the state. It all falls to the utilities, which is part of our affordability challenge there. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair. I'm here on behalf of Citizens Reashore Parks. We're a forty year old organization created by other environmental organizations to address the derelict and industrial and dumping uses along the East Shore of San Francisco Bay. And we've been working forty years to green that area. The biggest, the Mount Everest of that problem and that project has been Golden Gate Fields and now we have the opportunity to do something about it.

And if I could paraphrase the governor, this is a big idea and California is not afraid of big ideas. We lead the country in big ideas. And so this bay belongs to all of us from our friends in Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa, and our friends in in the Inland Valley in San Diego. This is a wonderful opportunity for us to do this. It's a big idea, takes a big commitment, and we know you'll provide the leadership. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair, members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation and others. I wanna thank, particularly you, Senator Blake Spear, the secretary Crowfoot, and and you, madam chair, for, the ongoing discussions that you've been having about the significant importance of investing, further in proactive wildlife coexistence across the state. And a million dollars of existing funds is wholly insufficient for a department that is only funded at a third of its mission. And we're at the same time we're proposing sweeping a 164 of their positions, including 45 wildlife officers.

So we're really counting on the Senate and the assembly to prevail, in negotiations with the governor, to make sure that we're adequately investing in this very successful program that will save us more money on the back end when we spend a lot on response and where people and communities are and animals are harmed instead of being able to deal with it upfront.

So we hope the governor is listening as well and and encourages his team to weigh in with you all and do something meaningful here. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chairman. Cliff Berg here for the Museum of Tolerance. Since the question was raised, why should that be a priority this year? I would just urge you to stop and think. Intolerance on our society, hate, antisemitism, violence, hate crimes directed at every ethnic group that you can imagine is surging in our state and in our country.

The governor's proposal is to provide leadership for California in addressing those issues, which costs us like a cancer for our patient in eroding our society and costing our society much more. Some numbers just to make the case, 8,000,000 visitors to the Museum of Tolerance, 3,500,000 middle and high school students, a 175,000 criminal justice professionals, 75,000 teachers. The museum provides law enforcement training, teacher training, a resource to all the schools.

Part of this funding is for a second mobile Museum of Tolerance to take the museum to Central and Northern California and those parts of the state where the students can't get to the museum located in Los Angeles. So urge your support.

We're in a critical time in our society, and this funding is urgently needed in the cost of not addressing these issues. And reaching out to our children when they are in school is gonna be much more immense than the money that the governor has put in the May revise. So thank you. Urge your support.

Yeah. Like, I did notice the mobile unit that was being used and the students that are benefiting from that. And this is providing a second well

Funding provides a second mobile Museum of Tolerance to visit schools all over northern and central California, which is critical. The current mobile museum is booked up completely. The demand from the schools is just amazing. People want to they want their students to understand, to learn not to be biased, not to not to drown in intolerance and what they're inundated with from social media.

So having the Mobile Museum go to the schools is a huge, huge solution to the problem.

Thank you. I did see the students' reactions. It was very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair and members, Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. We're disappointed to see there wasn't any funding in the May revision for the very cost effective, farmer program and urge you to consider that in the final budget, prioritizing that.

We also want to say as you're thinking about heavy duty funding, incentive funding, that you should consider requiring that projects meet Carl Moir guidelines, because then that way you can ensure that they are state implementation plan creditable, and that's important, especially important now with all the federal rollbacks.

And the last thing is we're deeply concerned about the cap and invest regulation and what that means for programs like the farmer program, but very much so the AB 617 community air protection program that have made significant gains in getting public health benefits for disadvantaged communities. So, thank you.

Thank you.

It is still morning.

Yeah, I did have to check. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association wanted to speak specifically about the wildlife coexistence program and the Wolf program at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Good morning, Chair and members. Kirk Wilbur with California.

Like you, Senator Blake Spear, we're thrilled to see, some mention of wildlife coexistence in the May revise. We're dismayed to see 1,000,000 and absolutely no funding proposed for the Wolf program. A lot of discussion today about health and safety. I think there's a clear health and safety nexus when it comes to the wildlife coexistence program as we see increased bear and mountain lion conflicts in our suburban and urban areas.

Also wanna mention that with the Wolf program, particularly with my northern northeastern California members in wolf territory, clear, human health and safety nexus there.

There's a real physical and mental health impact of cohabitating with wolves on ranchers and other rural residents in that area. So we'd like to see robust funding for the wildlife coexistence program, for the Wolf program at CDFW, and it's about much more than compensation. It's about staffing at CDFW. It's about research. It's about education.

It's about prevention of conflicts. So, hoping to see additional funding for those programs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Charles Watson on behalf of BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Just wanna thank the committee for your comments on on the transit piece within GGRF and express our our strong support for the state's prior commitments to transit through SB 125 and our significant concerns with the impacts on tier three programs, including transit and affordable housing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, ma'am madam chair member members. I'm Allison Brooks. I'm the assistant general manager for external affairs at the East Bay Regional Park District and we are the largest park district and the oldest park district in the country. We manage a 127,000 acres of land to serve East Bay residents and beyond and are truly excited, and have been working with the Trust for Public Land on the acquisition of Golden Gate Fields.

This is a truly generational opportunity to open up what is, currently a privately owned property along our wonderful shoreline, open it up to the public, what will truly be a phenomenal resource for generations to come.

We are so excited to have a truly awesome public process with the cities and with our partners to create something magnificent, not just for East Bay residents, but for really, you know, the entire region and and for so many people that traverse that highway and look out there and and see the incredible opportunity we we have. So really appreciate your consideration and excellent questions you had today about this, really truly amazing opportunity and and would encourage you to reach out if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the committee. Brandon Garcia with Advanced Energy United. We were disappointed that the mayor revision maintains the proposal to transfer the participants of DSGS over to the CPC.

I think this committee and other, subcommittees in the legislature have indicated how successful the program has been at scaling up megawatts and truly still have a lot of concerns with moving over that participants over to the program, and don't feel that the program would perform as well as it would be with the funding it has now and the position that it has now.

We'll say that we do appreciate the governor is still maintaining to transfer the debuff funds over to GSGS, and we think that maintaining that for 2026 is not just critical, but we would encourage that to be a part of the earlier budget negotiations because we really do need to see that market signal to show that that program will continue throughout the rest of the year.

If there are still concerns about how to use the cow shaped interest money, we would encourage the legislature to, again, adopt the DIVA funding and spend the rest of the year to see how well we could use this interest funding on where the program would be appropriate for summers '27 and '28. I'll just reiterate, OTC plants are expiring. There is a very real concern that in the future, we might not be able to have a reliability. So just clean energy. Let's do it.

I agree.

Juan Altamirano with the Trust Public Plan. We are very thankful to the governor for the proposed a $125,000,000 in the budget, and and we're thankful for this committee, in raising all the questions that you all have. This is a once in a lifetime generation opportunity to be able to purchase have the option to purchase this property that would expand, access to the outdoors for millions of Californians.

We're thrilled to be, you know, part of this, acquisition, and, I know we spent, some time with, committee staff over the last couple days, talking about this project, and we're certainly still open to continue having our conversations and answer any questions that you all may have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kyle Jones on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program today. I just wanted to, express disappointment that there's not more urgency around moving prop four groundwater recharge funding out the door. DWR indicated that they won't they likely won't get guidelines done until fall this year and won't get funding out until late 2027 or 2028. We know that there's very limited wet years between now and the end of when, basins need to be in compliance under Sigma.

And so we're hoping the legislature consider increasing that allocation to all the funding, and also putting some language in the budget bill to include priorities to support disadvantaged communities, critically over directed basins, and add ask DWR to move in a faster manner. We also just wanna urge legislature to find ways to fully support the safer program. That $130,000,000 is intended to keep making sure that there's progress being made on long term solutions and that families don't go without bottled water or emergency access in the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mariela Rocha with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Senator Reyes, and we appreciate your comments on the GDRF tier three. We are even more concerned when it comes to the governor's May revise in which he makes even more significant cuts to GGRF tier three programs, especially critical programs like SAFER and AB 617.

We urge the you, and the legislature to ensure that SAFER has a general fund backfill and urge the legislature to fight for these priorities in light of the major changes to the cap and invest programs in which it cuts significant funding for affordable housing and transit and safer in AV 617

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good day. My name is Anthony Wright from Albany Berkeley Soccer Club. We represent approximately 1,750 families. We are a club that's been in existence for fifty years, and we are in the Bay Area, so have families from Albany, Berkeley, Richmond, El Cerrito, and Emeryville.

We support the Golden Gate project. It's really important for kids, especially kids who don't have an opportunity to have more outdoor space. I think this is a really good investment for the generation coming up. It helps us get off and get kids off the phone, get kids out, and I think it would be a great investment for our future. Thank you very much for your time. Have a good day.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Amaya Williams Segovia, and I'm speaking on behalf of Citizens for East Shore Parks. I just want to express my strong support for governor Newsom's recommendation for a $125,000,000 in state funding for the acquisition of Goldgate Fields. I think it's a great opportunity for a really deserving community and yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair, members. Gabriela Fassi with Sierra Club California. I wanted to express strong support for the acquisition of Golden Gate Fields and would like to see similar robust investments in the park access in underserved communities. We also support increased investments in active and clean transportation and building decarb, which are woefully underfunded right now. Thank you.

And we strongly oppose CARB's proposed weakening of the cap and invest program and the continued general fund backfill for rom GGRF. I believe that this funding that should be reserved for critical climate and equity programs, and we are in line with LAO's recommendation. We oppose the proposed 25,000,000 for the healthy rivers and landscapes program, which would allow state agencies to avoid strong, enforceable, and science based water flow standards in the Bay Delta Region and the gutting of vacant positions at so many environmental agencies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting speaking on behalf of the Climate Center and Environmental Defense Fund. We'd like to echo the comments of mister Garcia with Advanced Energy United. We support the DSGS program staying at the CEC and, of course, support the DIVA funds coming over to support it this summer. In addition, on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, we'd like to voice our strong support for the light duty zero emission vehicle proposal.

Thank you.

Staying at the CC right

Good morning. Lizzie Guanzona here today on behalf of the Humane World for Animals, Tomcat Ranch LLC, and the office of Kat Taylor. Very similar to many of my colleagues, appreciate the administration's inclusion of wildlife coexistence resources, but want to echo the need for additional resources to really match the need at hand.

Additionally, on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor and Tomcat Ranch, very concerned with the proposed cap and invest amendments and the impact on tier three GGRF programs, including the sustainable agricultural lands conservation program, which protects California's farmland and advances our climate goals. Thanks so much.

Chair and members, Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau. I'll plus one to that and just say, an appreciation to Senator Blake Spear for her questions to the department. We I'll take a different tact and say that I'm appreciative of the governor including a million dollars for coexistence, but really just wanna highlight something that I think that the Senate knows and that the assembly knows that, woefully short of meaningful dollars that go into coexistence and wolf livestock conflict that we're seeing.

So hoping that we can see some more funding in the that department, and that's from a joint budget request that both agriculture and conservation folks, are in favor of. So thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Reena Hachme. I'm the cofounder of Women for Wolves. Continued funding for wildlife coexistence efforts is critical, especially as wolves return to California. And nonlethal coexistence tools help prevent conflict before it even happens.

And if California is serious about coexistence, we must continue investing in it. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Still good morning. Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. Just wanna say thank you to Senator Blake Spear for all the, the questions and comments around the wolf program and as well as the wildlife coexistence. When do you see the fit the Farm Bureau, Cattlemen's Association, Defenders of Wildlife, and a litany of other animal welfare and conservation organizations agreeing on one thing, which is our state really needs to invest in wildlife coexistence.

It is it is the preventative health care that we need to avoid conflicts and more expenditures later on down the road.

Also appreciate the comments that Jennifer Fearing made about the need to increase investments and save the open positions at our wildlife agency. and then, finally, Defenders of Wildlife Resources Renewal Institute and Golden State Salmon Association, we oppose the $25,000,000 of general fund for the voluntary agreements. We do not believe this is a good use of general fund.

We've already invested a billion and a half dollars into the voluntary agreements, and frankly, that money could go to clean water such as a safer program where we're seeing a reduction to disadvantaged communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. Good morning. I am Marj Atkinson. Aye, have an I was a former mayor in Albany, and I'm also a board member of Citizens Free Shore Parks, which was founded by Sylvia McLaughlin.

As you know, the Save the Bay founder, one of them. And as you can tell, we've been working for over fifty years to protect the shoreline along the bay, east the East Shore Bay. First with McLaughlin Park, and our group has just, been able to get Pointe Milady.

And now this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a, park that actually looks at the Golden Gate Fields Golden Gate, plus, we have hundreds and hundreds of people who come from all over the Bay Area now even with the small area we have to enjoy our shoreline.

I was actually elected almost twenty years ago in a continuous line of people who are protecting Golden Gate Fields, trying to make sure the shoreline is accessible to all people and have the opportunity to enjoy this area.

It's it would you know, I've got a string of of winds now for the along the bay, and we hope that Golden Gate Fields can be included in one of those winds in a lifetime opportunity. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and committee members. My name is Scott Cox. I'm here on behalf of CalSTART and the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, commenting on the prioritization of greenhouse gas reduction funding. We respectfully ask that the legislature prioritize these investments into the state's existing portfolio of zero emission vehicle and infrastructure programs.

These programs are proven, vetted, and successful, and they can rapidly provide stability to a sector that's under extensive pressure from federal withdrawal and provide a more affordable, equitable, and better managed clean transportation transition for all Californians.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Griselda Chavez on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, we'd like to offer strong support for under item 3340, the appropriation of $229,000 in prop 68 funds as grants to a local course. These funds will enable the expansion of eight of our existing prop 68 projects from right here in Sacramento all the way down to San Diego, providing more ecological benefits and job training opportunities for the young adults in play through our programs.

And we also wish to reiterate our comments made in previous hearings and express your support for the fiscal year '26 '27 prop four appropriation of $12,000,000 for demonstrated job projects. We are to approve these items when appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Anjali Ranadive. I'm the founder of Women for Wolves here on behalf of a 189,000 supporters in favor of funding wildlife coexistence. While it was encouraging to see the mention of a need to invest in wildlife coexistence by the governor, it's just not nearly enough. When we exhausted our wolf and wildlife wildlife sorry.

When we exhausted our wolf our wolf and livestock compensation program, we saw four endangered wolves get killed, and we saw ranchers suffer more losses. So it's essential that we invest. We've lost over 70% of our wildlife in the past fifty years. So really investing in wildlife coexistence isn't an option. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair Reyes and members. Mikayla Bird with The Nature Conservancy. TNC appreciates the inclusion of the 23,500,000 to CNRA in the May revise for projects that improve conditions on wildlife refuges and wetland habitat areas and respectfully request the legislature's support for this appropriation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, chair members. Kehinde Ojeikere with the Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen California. I'm here to express first our significant concerns with CARB's cap and invest proposed regulation and ask to remove the manufacturing decarbonization incentive, which would gut the greenhouse gas reduction fund risking funding for community air protection programs. Two, to request restored funding for the demand side grid support program and maintain CEC program oversight.

And three, request passage of the $200,000,000 dev incentive program and expansion of funds to also support medium and heavy duties of emission vehicles. Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair Reyes and members. Alana Hitchcock with 2-1-1 California. Slightly different topic. As you know, 2-1-1 is overseen by the CPUC, and we are here to ask for the member's support for the 2-1-1 budget request to provide emergency funding to ensure that we have 2-1-1 service not closed down in close to 20 counties around the state. The CPUC has established the goal of having statewide service for full time 24/7 one one end disasters.

And right now, that is at risk of falling apart across the state. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Good morning, committee members. My name is Claire Margarson. I'm the director of 2-1-1 with United Way Bay Area. So we cover two one one services in the counties of Marin, Napa, Solano, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties.

Thank you.

As my colleague, Alana, said, we are at risk of either shutting down two one one or drastically cutting services in those six counties. And to really bring this home, I wanna, share a story with you from one of our callers who's also one of my colleagues. So this is from Juan. I recently called 211 when I was struggling to help to find help paying rent. I'm a student at UC Berkeley and a formerly incarcerated person who's trying to rebuild my life through education.