Assembly Standing Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife

Okay. Good morning. Good morning. Welcome, everyone. Of course, we'll start as a subcommittee.

As much as I would like it to be just solely based on my vote, it's not the way things work around here. So I got a few remarks here. Give me a second, and I will just it's okay. Go ahead and open with some of these things. Well, I was gonna welcome Assemblymember Hadwick, but she's just not here yet.

So I'll do it when she gets here. I also wanna thank our this is our last regularly scheduled hearing. So we've had the pleasure of having Sean Clare seated over here. Just stand up, Sean. Sean's been a great addition to our team this past year.

He dove right in at the beginning of the year and led can you all hear me? Okay. Good. And, led on the committee's informational hearing on data centers, learned about hunting and fishing regulation, and defined an agency boundary in statute, among many other contributions. So, Sean hopes you continue working in the legislature, if anybody's looking out there.

When his fellowship wraps up at the end of October, he'll be available. Thank you for your hard work, Sean, and we look forward to seeing you in and about the building affecting policy on a daily basis, much as you have done here on the committee. So with that, let's let's start as a subcommittee. And, well, lo and behold, Senator McInerney, you're number one. Come on up.

You got a witness or two? I'm gonna put some things on the record as you make your way up, just so that we're all clear. And I know my colleagues are not here, but I may have to, announce this again once they get up here. Committee on the amendments to this bill. We've got some late breaking amendments.

That's what I want to talk about. So that everyone's clear that my colleagues, when they get here, they'll know what they're voting on. The author and I have agreed on two changes, to amendment three described in the analysis that deals with changes to water code 1298682 , subparagraph two. Lowercase i, I should say. We're gonna change the may to shall and strike the word imminent.

And if there are any questions, I'm sure you'll address them in your remarks, and, you will be accepting those amendments as well as the others. Correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Good. Alrighty. Please take it away, Senator.

Well, I'd I'd like to say good morning, Chair, Papan and, Vice Chair Gonzales and distinguished members of the committee, but you're the only one here. So I'll

I'll take the good morning for all of them and relay your good wishes once they arrive.

Well, I like to begin by accepting the committee amendments as you indicated, and I thank you for working with us on that. It was some negotiations that were a little delicate, and I think we made it through that. So I certainly appreciate your your attention and consideration, and the staff are working with us on that as well. And I just wanna say this is a rare moment in California.

Traditionally, as you know, California's water awards have been north against south, Dodgers against the Giants, and I see the the LA, Dodgers are out there.

And I'm not gonna say anything bad about it, because this is a moment of hunkumbaya between North and South. And not only that, but the water contractors and the environmentalists, we're all working together for the future of California's water. We wanna make sure that California has a reliable water supply into the rest of the century. So this is the first step in that direction.

This bill, SB 872, brings traditional adversaries together and is dreaming the two together because it addressed two major problems facing California's primary water system.

First of all, the levees in the Delta, which supplies a lot of the water to California, have been built some of those in the eighteen hundreds, and they're they're not that reliable anymore. Even the the Corps of Engineers doesn't meet their standards. So we have a huge challenge ahead of us. And not only that, but the aqueducts that bring water to Southern California are subsiding due to overdrafting of of valley water.

And I think the the subsidence threatens to reduce water carrying capacity of the state water project by 87% by 2040.

Now that would be catastrophic for for much of Southern California. We don't wanna see that. August protects California's primary water delivery system for years to come by creating the Delta Levies and Canal Canal Subsidence Fund for essential repairs and allowing waiver of local cost sharing for Delta Levy repair projects. Both of those are absolutely critical to this bill. SBA 72 is backed by more than 60 organizations.

With us today, I have Gil Cascio of the River Delta Consulting and Glenn Farrell of the State Water Contractors. And I'll turn it over to Glenn and and Gil.

Good morning, Chair Papan and Members of the committee. My name is Gilbert Cosio. I'm with River Delta Consulting. I've been working on Delta levees for forty two years. During that time, I was a district engineer for 45 reclamation districts, which is about half of the active reclamation districts in the Delta.

So I've got a long history of of working on these levees. I'm here today to provide testimony in support of SB 872, a crucial step towards fully funding both levy subventions and special projects programs. I wanna share my perspective on an amendment amendment we are grateful to Senator McNerney for spearheading a waiver at the existing cost share requirement for subventions.

I also want to thank, Chair Pappan for considering the importance of this amendment, and I'm here to answer any questions on the topic if you have any. So as district engineer, our job is to assist reclamation districts with their flood control, drainage, responsibilities.

In other words, we help them maintain and rehabilitate their levees, drain ditches, and pumping plants. Without the subventions program, multiple levee breaches would impact local reclamation districts millions of dollars of damages and the state with potentially billion dollars of damages, which have been shown in several studies. Due to all the public infrastructure protected by levies, including the state and federal water supply projects, and all the highways and the river, railroads in the Delta. The benefits of the program cannot be denied.

In fact, the subventions program has been praised among agency and academic representatives representatives for many years as a true benefit to the Delta and levees.

And at the same time, it's been very easy to implement because the the the districts are so interested in getting this work done. So the program got a shot in the arm by the 1988 passage of SB 34. SB 34 kinda kicked up the money for subventions and included the special projects Program. And just like SB 872, it was actually a joint bill because we knew in the Delta, you know, it could be adversarial to Southern California.

On the other hand, we both need the levies.

We both need the water. And so is there something we can do to kind of preserve both? And SB 34 did that. The subventions program is mostly for maintaining levies. Special projects was geared towards DWR directing some of that special projects money to some of the important islands in the Delta that protected their water quality.

And the the work under s p 34 took took place and really helped the Delta out by preserving and preventing overtopping of levees during the floods of '95, '97, '98, 2006, 2017, and 2023. So without, subventions, we would had reaches all over the place. So the limiting factor of the subventions program has always been the local cost share.

Although the program has been described as paying 75% of costs, in reality, with the inclusion of the thousand dollar per mile deductible and interest charges, cost to borrow funds, and delayed reimbursements, sometimes these reimbursements take twelve to twenty four months after the work is made on

I'll need you to start to wrap up as soon as you could, please.

The actual percentage is closer to 50 to 60%. Energy costs for drain pumps now exceed 50% of an annual agricultural reclamation district assessments. PG and E bills have skyrocketed, and that's what they have to pay for first to preserve their farming. Fully funding Delta levy investments and improvements is essential to protect communities, state assets, water supply, and the Delta economy as a whole.

Senator McNerney's bill would open the opportunity for consistent funding desperately needed to see real improvements across the Delta and would bring important stakeholders to the table to ensure we are protecting communities, economies, and water supply.

Thank you so much.

And an urge an Aye for urge an Aye for that.

Thank you. We usually keep it to about two to three minutes. So please.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Glenn Farrel with GF Advocacy on behalf of the State Water Contractors. Together, the state water contractors, public water agencies deliver water people in Solano, Napa, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Kings, Kern, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. Two thirds of every Californian gets about 30% of their water supply from the state water project. Provides 8,700,000 jobs, full time jobs, contains 800,000 businesses, and employs 160,000 farmers.

It plays a critical role in California's agricultural economy, supplying water to 750,000 acres of farmland that produces $19,000,000,000 in crops each year. Given the scale and statewide importance of the state water project, protecting its infrastructure is essential to maintaining water reliability and affordability. The aqueducts that move the water throughout the state have subsided due largely to groundwater pumping that was unregulated until 2014 when the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was enacted.

While SGMA will ensure that future damages are mitigated, historical damages, if not repaired, will eventually result in the complete cessation of state water project deliveries. Senator McNerty mentioned the 87%, delivery capability reduction by '24 by 2040, but actually gets to zero in about twenty five years from now without repair.

The cost and risk to California is high. The Department of Water Resources estimates the cost to repair the state water project, Akhulagu, is over $3,000,000,000 Our ability to adapt to climate change is reliant on our ability to move and store water when it's wet, for use when it's dry. Fully functional state water project provides significant opportunity to support the electrification of the California grid because it can be operated to increase or decrease significant loads and produce hydroelectric power. Infrastructure is interconnected.

All of its components, whether it be Delta levees or State Water Project canals, must be functional to ensure clean, affordable water delivery continues.

And with that, we urge your Aye vote on SB 872 this morning. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay. Any members of the audience wishing to come forward to express their support? Name, organization, and

I'll set the bar high for everyone.

Good morning, Jonathan Clay on behalf of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in support.

Position.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Danny Merkley with the Guoco Group on behalf of Kern County Water Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Taylor Triffon on behalf of Tulare Lake Water Storage District and a variety of agricultural associations in support.

Good morning, Kyle Jones, on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program in Sierra Club, California in support. Thank you.

Jack Worson from NOSMEN on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Good morning, Andrea Abrajal with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Morning. Jamie Minor on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District, Santa Margarita Water District, and West Basin Municipal Water District in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Beth Olaso on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency and the Municipal Water District of Orange County in support. Thank you.

Christy Foy on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support.

Good morning. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Adam Quinones, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District in support.

Good morning. Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support.

Good morning. Mark Smith on behalf of Zone Seven Water Agency in support.

Good morning. Nico Molina on behalf of the Rancho California Water District in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Pamela Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Bill Gaines on behalf of the Suisun Resource Conservation District in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Michelle Raulgava with Nielsen Merksemer on behalf of the counties of Yolo and Contra Costa in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Karen Lange on behalf of the Delta Counties Coalition, including, Contra Costa and, YOLO. But in addition, San Joaquin County and Solano and Sacramento Counties all in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Morgan Snyder on behalf of Resources Renewal Renewables Institute and Restore the Delta in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Richard Filgus with the California Farm Bureau in support.

Good morning. Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in support.

Morning. Dawn Koepke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. Pleased to be in support.

Good morning. Dana LaToro Keene on behalf of San Diego County Water Authority and Irvine Ranch Water District in support. Thank you.

Did you get enough water agencies there?

Not only water agents, but environmentalists. What more could you ask for?

Well, dare I ask, do we have anybody to testify in opposition? Come one, come all. Seeing none, any member of the audience just want to express their opposition? Okay. No witnesses.

No one to express their opposition. We'll bring it back to the committee. Questions? Okay. Thank you.

We have a motion in a second. We don't have a quorum, so we'll keep that on tap. Any questions? Nope. Okay.

Would you like to close, Senator?

Sure. I'll take about another 15 to 20 minutes here. I

I don't know if Senator Caballero will be your biggest fan, but I'm willing to listen.

Well, water is awfully important to to California, to our prosperity, prosperity, and we have tremendous amount of support. And I hope the, the committee supports it as well. And I thank the Chair again and and the committee for work.

Here's to getting funding. We'll take that up when we get a quorum. Thank you, sir. With the amendments. Okay, Senator.

Senator Caballero, do join us. While you're setting up, I'd like to welcome Assembly Member Hadwick to the committee. We've worked together on some wildlife interaction bills. It was a pleasure to have you then and pleasure to have you, I'm sure, on the committee. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. First, let me thank the committee and accept the amendments. Really appreciate the opportunity to work together. I'm pleased to present SB 118, which establishes the Grasslands Ecological Area Conservancy or GIAC within the California Natural Resources Agency to protect, conserve, and restore the resources of the Grasslands Ecological Area and nearby wildlife corridors.

The existing Grasslands Ecological Area located on the West Side Of Merced County within the Central Valley is the largest remaining wetland, grasslands, and working land complex West Of The Mississippi and is of statewide and international significance for the conservation of wildlife habitat, biological diversity, and ecological processes.

The area provides critical habitat for numerous migratory bird species that depend on the managed wetlands for the Pacific Flyway migration, and it connects to a key remaining wildlife quarter that provides a route for wildlife to travel between the Sierra Nevada Foothills and the coast range. It provides essential local opportunities for wildlife education, recreation, such as public hiking, birding, and duck hunting. If if you drive along Highway 5, there's not a whole lot to see.

But if you come to Santanella, which you wouldn't notice very much, except for there's an Anderson pea soup restaurant there, the ecological area is off to towards the east. It's it is the largest wetlands remaining West Of The Mississippi, and that's why it's so critically important.

And some of the agricultural and urban uses in the area have significantly constrained it. And and the the bottom line is that is a really critical flyway, as I said, for the birds that are migrating. Yet the wetlands and associated grasslands habitat have been substantially reduced and fragmented. This threatens to harm the migratory population and evaporate evaporates the substantial community benefits that the wetlands provide locally and statewide. Little pun there.

The ecological health and sustainability of the area will depend on increased resources, coordinated land, water, and conservation management efforts among the public entities, NGO, and private landowners in order to remain healthy. It it involves, federal lands, state lands, and then private bird hunting property that's been put into, an easement for, recreational activities and, part of the the, the birding activities that are there.

The proposed, conservancy will strategically channel resources into the region governed by a board of local leaders, and it will serve as a tool for generating voluntary state conservation easements to protect the land in the area and complement more geographically limited federal easements. Furthermore, it's estimated that at least 60,000 acres of irrigated farmland must be taken out of production within the proposed conservancy conservancy boundaries to achieve groundwater sustainability over the next ten years.

Through voluntary conservation easements with willing landowners, the conservancy can provide alternatives to land following.

The other part of the of the proposal involves an education center. There currently exists a a really modest center where the local students can participate, and, learn about nature and why it's important to preserve. So by providing a coordinated framework for channeling resources, the conservancy created by SB 118 will serve as a valuable to tool for conserving and restoring the wetlands area and nearby wildlife quarters.

With me to testify in support of the bill is Rick Ortega from the Grasslands Water District and Mike Michael Chen from the Audubon Society.

Great. Thank you, Chair Papan. Good morning. My, my name is Rick Ortega, and I'm the General Manager of the Grasslands Water District. We deliver the, federal surface water out to the the wetland complex to the state wildlife areas, national wildlife refuges, and and private wetlands.

SB 118 would establish the ecological area conservancy under CNRA and bring coordination to an area of the San Joaquin Valley that lacks comprehensive land protection framework. The proposed conservancy includes land within the boundaries of five different groundwater sustainability agencies, eight water and irrigation districts, two resource conservation districts, and a large amount of non districted land without surface water. Six units of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

No single entity has a jurisdiction, authority, or resources to develop and implement a broad strategy for maintaining wildlife corridor connectivity, agricultural land retirement mitigation, incentives on working lands, and public open space access. A conservancy is also very timely to achieve these state goals.

As the Senator mentioned, it's estimated that at least 60,000 acres, the equivalent of a 100 square miles of irrigated farmland, must be taken out of production within the proposed conservancy boundaries to achieve groundwater sustainability over the next ten years. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans, Merced Sub Basin, GSA, multi benefit land repurposing program have identified the proposed conservancy area as the key remaining wildlife quarter in the San Joaquin Valley between the Sierra Nevada Foothills and the coast range.

The conservancy will help accomplish the anticipated land use transition in an ecological beneficial way while providing economic incentives incentives restoring projects and habitat and wildlife beneficial agricultural easements, bringing more stability to and opportunities to ranches, farms, uplands, and wetlands in the area that face dramatic land use conversions over the course of the next decade. The unique nature of the proposed conservancy encompasses the largest freshwater wetland remaining in California and hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife beneficial range land and farms.

This conservancy will help preserve the critical area from both the biodiversity and economic perspective. For these reasons, I respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is, Michael Chen, Senior Manager of Government Relations for Audubon, California. I'm here to support our ex here to express our support for s P 1108. The grassland ecological area and surrounding areas are essential parts of Pacific Flyway, one of North America's major migratory routes for birds. Since the nineteen seventies, North America has lost approximately three three billion birds, approximately one third of its total bird bird population due to

Habitat loss and other human activities. And other human activities. To continue conserving the species we have left, California needs to manage valuable Habitats in places like the grassland Ecological area and surrounding lands that were collaborative with landowners. The grassland, the creation of this conservancy is all an idea long past due. The ecological area is already home to approximate 200 bird species each year and provides a central Habitat in the valley, where we have lost 95% of our historic wetlands and riparian areas.

A conservancy will allow stakeholders to build on and scale up successes we've already seen in the area. The conservancy will improve conservation outcomes, expand public access, and recreation opportunities where appropriate and benefit local economies. It will also lead to more cost effective conservation efforts that will have real buy in from local residents, creating more durable conservation efforts for birds and communities. Thank you, and I strike the Asharayebut.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the audience that would like to come down and express their support?

Thank you. I have a motion.

Kyle Jones with the same one. Keene Valley Water Collaborative Action Program and Environmental Defense Fund in support. Thank you.

Michael Jarred with The Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you.

Hi there. Mark Henley with California Waterfowl in strong support.

Bill Gaines on behalf of the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association and the Black Brant Group in support.

Good morning again. Pamela Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in support. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? There you have it. No witnesses. Any members of the audience?

Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Murkowski.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I've had the pleasure of visiting this area multiple times, and it's, I think, a really valuable bill, a really valuable area to support. So I'll be happy to second the motion.

Thank you. Asse,bly Member Hart.

I just wanna echo my colleague's comments. This is really a wonderful opportunity for your leadership to bring together all these complex and related, land management issues and really set this future planning effort on a really great start. And it's just incredible legacy and the tremendous research of the whole state of California. And glad to be supporting it and glad that you're leading this charge.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Anyone else? Okay. Well, thank you for bringing the bill. On behalf of the birds, I thank you as well. And would you like to close, Senator? Thank you for your work.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, speaking of the birds, I was gonna invite you to come down anytime and and go through the the the wetlands. It's there's it's really special to be able to walk in an area where it looks very much like it probably looked when the first settlers from wherever they came entered the area. It's it's beautiful. It's quiet.

But come during the time of the year where there are not a lot of bugs. The reason we have a a lot of birds is there's a lot of bugs out there during certain parts of the year. But it it's beautiful, and so I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Excellent. When the time is right, we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Okay.

Senator Blakespear, good morning. Come on down.

You have a staffer?

No. Come close. Whenever you're ready. Welcome.

Well, thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm here today to present SB 1135. SB 1135 reestablishes and strengthens the statewide wildlife coexistence program within the Department of Fish and Wildlife. This program focuses on managing and reducing human wildlife conflict through proactive, nonlethal strategies.

We're seeing a growing number of wild animals entering urban areas. This is due to many factors, including loss of habitat being driven by climate change, suburban sprawl, and industrial land use. It's also due to humans' approach to interacting with wildlife. There have been recent headlines about bears living in basements in Los Angeles, wolves attacking livestock in Northern California, and coyote and mountain lion conflicts in my district. When wildlife comes into our communities, they can damage property, threaten livestock, and create safety concerns for residents.

Over the last five years, wildlife incident reports to the Department of Fish and Wildlife have increased by 31%, and overall contacts have risen by 58%. No two animal species are the same, and each has unique behavior patterns, territories, and comfort levels around humans. In agricultural areas, wolves and other wildlife cause significant economic losses for ranchers and farmers. In 2025 alone, between March and October, there were over a 127 confirmed or probable livestock losses to wolves, including more than ninety in the Sierra Valley region.

SB 1135 gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs.

These tools can include tactics such as FLADRI, which is hanging flag strips to deter wolves. They can also include livestock guardian dogs, hazing, conflict reporting, and other nonlethal responses, like helping people understand how they should be interacting or not interacting with wildlife, keeping wild wild. Prevention is a tried and true strategy and has been successfully utilized by the department in the past.

When the state implemented its black bear policy in 2022, black bear killings decreased 84% from a 100 in 2017 down to just 14 in 2023. I also want to acknowledge that after months of work and good faith negotiations on all sides, we took amendments in the Senate that moved the cattlemen and the farm bureau from opposed to neutral.

These amendments clarify the nonlethal deterrence funding structure. They narrow compensation eligibility requirements to account for practicality, and they strengthen agriculture producer protections for those who are operating outside of Wolf Wolf activity area. By emphasizing proactive, nonlethal measure measures aimed at reducing the harm associated with human and wildlife confrontations, we can create a safe environment for humans and wildlife to share the state of California.

With me today in support, I have Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation and Pam Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. And should they begin when ready, Chair?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Jennifer Fearing for the National Wildlife Federation, proud to cosponsor SB 1135. As this committee is acutely aware, thanks to the informational hearing you held in January, people in wildlife are increasingly sharing landscapes and are under growing pressures and cumulative threats, like extreme heat, frequent drought, and intense wildfires that animals respond to by moving in search of resources to survive. Those movements are frustrated by barriers like roads, fences, human development, and other habitat connectivity challenges.

Yes.

Fortunately, science has produced a consensus that coexistence programs work to reduce conflicts, to keep people and animals safe, to protect property, and to promote biodiversity.

Such programs educate and support community and property owner efforts to reduce and remove attractants like trash and food, shore up access to property and pets, keep a safe distance, implement methods proven to actively deter conflicts, and promote wild animals' instincts to stay wild. Despite the need and demonstrated effectiveness, a successful three year program with trained regional staff around the state was not re upped when term limited funds dried up in 2024.

As acknowledged by agency and department leaders at your January hearing and in subsequent budget subcommittee hearings throughout the spring, the absence of this effort is being felt in urban, suburban, and rural California. Recent examples are illustrative. A statewide wildlife coexistence program established by this bill could have saved Blondie's life.

The Monrovia area bear black bear's death was preventable if we had deployed clear and repeated messaging to educate the community. When people came too close to Blondie and her two cubs, she instinctively swiped to protect them and was then proclaimed a public safety bear. CDFW decided the only way keep people safe was to kill her and send her two cubs to a rehab facility. The community was understandably devastated.

And now nonprofit wildlife rehabilitator, San Diego Humane Society, which supports this bill, faces months of time consuming expensive care to raise Bondi's cubs, stepping in for their mother to try to teach them how to be wild bears.

And when these cubs are rereleased back into the San Gabriel Mountains, they will run the risk of a similar fate as their mother. We can and must do better. In just the past month, mountain lions were tranquilized and relocated from Santa Monica and Pasadena. Cougars and bears have been sighted on or near the UC Davis campus. A man fought off a black bear near Mammoth Lakes when it attacked his dog.

How many more incidences do we need to prove that disinvesting in cost effective proactive measures increases the cost to address negative impacts of conflicts. These are paid by the state, local governments, families, communities, nonprofits, local law enforcement, ranchers, and animals. A broad and diverse coalition of organizations support this bill want to see the state invest in these strategies. They are not just nice to have, but need to have. Thank you.

Good morning, committee Members. Pamela Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the other proud cosponsor of SB 1135. Gray wolves are native to California and belong here. From OR seven's epic journey in late two thousand eleven to our 12 current Wolf packs, it is remarkable that these ecologically important animals have naturally returned to our state under their own Wolf power. However, wolves have returned to a very different landscape than that of the 1920s when they were driven to local extinction.

But wolves are adaptive critters and can survive and thrive in challenging conditions as long as humans are willing to share the landscape with them. That social tolerance is key to successful coexistence and as a direct as is direct support to ranchers and information sharing about best practices to reduce wolf livestock interactions. Things differently when it came to gray wolf recovery, but the situation in Sierra Valley last year changed things for the worse.

The lethal removal of the Bam Seo pack after they'd grown habituated to preying on livestock for over a year is a failure on in our efforts to coexist peacefully with these wild animals. The use of nonlethal strategies to reduce wolf livestock interactions including human presence, physical barriers, predator deterrents, removing attractants, and livestock husbandry practices is more effective and cost efficient in the long run.

It's imperative that proactive strategies be deployed early, often, and at the landscape scale. If one ranch uses conflict deterrence and their neighbor doesn't, the entire effort can unravel. Community wide adoption of proven practices. We must also ensure that when the state provides compensation funds, ranchers are all doing their part through the proper and documented use of practical and proactive coexistence measures.

Colleagues at Cattlemen's Association and Farm Bureau over the course of several weeks to address their concerns, such as, triggers for when the program funds fall under, certain thresholds, as well as eligibility surrounding practicability, including cost of proactive measures, sufficient time to implement such measures, terrain conditions, and the extent that routine agricultural and husbandry practices may represent adequate proactive conflict reduction measures.

We thank them for negotiating with us in good faith and removing their opposition and strengthening the bill. Thank you. We urge your support.

Thank you so much. Any members of the audience in support, please come forward.

Hi. Good morning. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon California support.

Good morning. Kim Delfino speaking on behalf of, in support with Center for Biological Diversity, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Wildlife Crossing Fund, San Diego Humane Society, the California Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Wildlife Conservation Network, and the Resource Renewal Institute. Thank you.

Good morning. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kirk Wilbur with California Cattlemen's Association. We are neutral on the bill, but want to thank the author and the sponsors for taking amendments that did remove our opposition. Thank you.

Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support.

Michael Jarred with The Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of Humane World for Animals as well as, the office of Cat Taylor, Tomcat Ranch, and I was also asked to convey the support of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Thank you.

Chair, Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau. We're also in the neutral column, strong neutral for what it's worth, and just, you know, totally okay with people supporting this bill today. And, again, appreciate the author for moving us to that position. So thank you.

Strong neutral.

Good morning, Chair. Nicholas Hackett for Social Compassion in Legislation and strong support.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you.

Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.

Great. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, any members of the audience? Okay. Let's bring it back to the committee.

Questions? Assembly Member Hadwig.

Not I don't tend to get spicy my first committee meeting. But sadly, the bills that affect my district are here. So, I have a really hard time, with this bill because of the negotiations that we did for so long. I would like to know why law enforcement is not on your list for the advisory council.

You want an answer to that? Okay.

I'm gonna ask my witness to answer.

To the Chair? Yes. Assemblymember Hadwig, we had extensive conversations with then initiate initially with you and then subsequently with your staff. When it was made very clear to us that your request for the bill was that it include the rural sheriffs, we had a very challenging, you know, conversation with our support coalition around that. But we returned to your office stating that we were willing to add them, but we wanted that to earn your support.

It's important for us that that would be sufficient for you to support the bill. And we were told that they that commitment couldn't be made.

I my district hates this bill. They do. Because they don't think it goes far enough. I knew they would hate it, but I literally get calls about coexistence every day. My phone is full of dead cows' pictures and sheep and pets and things that I don't wanna look at either.

But the rural sheriffs are the ones that are answering this call, and this is state responsibility to protect these animals that are protected and the feds at this at this point for wolves. But the we're laying all of that responsibility on the counties who are already struggling. We have many counties in my district that don't have a game warden. They don't CDFW is running on 30% of their law enforcement right now. They don't have people to respond to this.

And those those are those are the people that are trusted in the county as well. My district, I have 11 rural counties. They do not trust government. And for good reason, a lot of times we're left behind. I do want law enforcement on there.

Aye, I I don't think it's fair to leave them out. I think their voice is important in this. And I think they would be a good advocate for you guys. I was never gonna be able to be a yes on this, but I I do think that all of our negotiations that they deserve to be at the table too because coexistence is both sides, and this bill is very, very one-sided.

It has a lot of things that the ranchers have to do, a lot of things that the landowners have to do.

It does not have a lot of things that the state has to do, and I just don't think that's fair. Also, Farm Bureau and Cattlemen members text me every day about this. So I think their membership is very split, hence the neutral. And I just I think coexistence is both sides, and I don't think that this bill hits that mark.

And and I'm really, really disappointed that law enforcement is not not included in that, because they are the ones that are having to make that decision every day, And they're the ones having to explain to their their constituents why the state is doing what they're doing.

And this is an everyday occurrence. I had three mountain lion things in one week, that were in people's houses taking goats over a six foot fence with a roof, you know, and they're not allowed to do anything because we're told to coexist, which is fine. We live where we live because we love wildlife. We want to coexist, and we are coexisting. This bill just is very one-sided, and and I it's it's frankly unfair.

Madam Chair, may I also address that very briefly?

Well, there's not a question pending. Okay. Did you have a question? Okay. Okay.

Vice Chair Gonzales.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I I just wanna clarify something that you had stated. In in your conversations with the member and their office, you said that you needed her support in order to get law enforcement. Like, if you if you got her support, then you would put law enforcement on the board or commission. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So I have a I was leaning one way on this bill, and now I am not. Because what you said was we didn't get our way, so we don't wanna add people on there. And for me, that is a huge issue, especially if we're talking about including everyone in the community because we're talking about coexistence To not have them on there because you didn't get her support is a huge challenge to me.

I totally believe that in community, in every community, you need all all sides for the diversity, for equity, for an inclusion.

You need all voices, even the ones that we don't agree with. And this is very challenging when you say, we'll let them on as long as we get your support. That doesn't seem very inclusive to me.

Chair, may I respond to that?

Yes, please, Senator.

I just wanted to.

Question, but, please, you're the author. You should

Thank you. I just wanted to, kind of reframe what it is that's happening with this bill. So we're reestablishing the wolf livestock coexistence and compensation program, and we are and then it's being renamed as the wolf livestock co oh, sorry. Coexistence and compensation program. And that is being run, by the state.

And then there's an there's an advisory a technical advisory committee, which which is fairly broad in who's represented on it. So the idea of having a a diversity of interests, you know, they're they're really not being excluded. So there are agriculture interests on here, rural community interests, conservation and environmental science, tribal national natural resources management, human wildlife conflict mitigation practices, wildlife biology, urban community, animal behavior, and veterinary science.

So it's there are no fewer than 11, no more than 15 members appointed by the director representing expertise or experience in the following areas. So I think, you know, we we are all legislators who go through the process of trying to create consensus, which we were able to do with the Cattlemen's Association and, with others who were initially opposed by working very closely.

But but it is the nature of this that when you are negotiating, you ask for, we will make that change, which maybe the coalition partners don't think is additive if it will bring someone on in support or at least neutrality. But if that doesn't happen, then there's there's no good reason to add something in that the rest of the coalition doesn't believe is additive.

So so, you know, just just to state that, I appreciate the honesty of of of my witness say being willing to honestly answer why that is not the case in here. And I think the reality also of whether rural sheriffs wanted to be included, whether the sheriff's association wanted to be included. There's, there's a lot of nuance in that.

So it's not as if everybody was clamoring at the door to say we wanna be part of this. But, you know so just to provide a bit more context.

I'm gonna interrupt you for one second so I can get a quorum. Yeah. I'm gonna come back to that. Madam secretary, please take a roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Great. We've got a forum quorum and a forum. Did you wanna continue, Senator?

Well, just to the point of the this is not exclusive. So they could be a representative from the a rural community. It could be a rural sheriff. So it's not suggesting that they're they're excluded from this.

Understood.

Can I respond to that?

Sure. Absolutely.

Thank you. I was just looking at that, and I appreciate the could. And of the list of folks that are on there, absolutely valuable absolutely valuable to have every single aspect of that because it's it's a complex issue. Right? It's across the board.

I'm not gonna get into it, but it it is a complex board. What what I would like to see from my perspective is that we we are including a a public safety representative within this because, again, it's very complex. They're the ones that are answering this call of of of of this encounter. So I'd like to see that a public safety person is on there as one of those listed because to me again, the 911 call is going to them.

And all of those others are great.

But the the could, the maze don't you know, that's they they could be excluded. And I don't want them to be excluded because we depend on them, every single one of us. And we want them to be a part of the conversation and have that nuance of what they're seeing on the ground. So I I'd encourage the author, to to to look at that and potentially, change that. Thank you.

Yes. We're absolutely happy to take that into consideration. A broader public safety type of category. Yeah.

Assemblymember Hart.

Yeah. I just wanna appreciate the bill and the fact that this is not easy and that you've been working really hard to bring a diverse group of stakeholders together and to work through these complicated issues and really celebrate the fact that, you know, the recognition of there was a problem that was being Harabedian the program went away, and the problem got worse.

And so we're it is so obvious that it needs to be reinstituted, and this is doing that, and it's gonna make things better because we realize you can't just leave things alone. You have to intervene, and you have to coexist, and you have to figure out a way to manage, wildlife and take actions, because specifically with all the stakeholders involved to accomplish, you know, a result that benefits everybody.

And so I don't want us to be lost in the details when we're really focusing on the big picture here today with this bill, with the words that we have in front of us, and appreciate the comments, you know, that it could be better.

Everything could always be better, but this is a really good bill. And this is a really important moment to have support for the idea that we're gonna have a coexistence program in the state of California that's gonna reduce conflicts and improve public safety and improve, agricultural viability in places where wildlife interacts all the time, every day. And that's really important to keep foremost in our minds.

Assembly Member Alanis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry I'm late to this, and I missed the the testimony. But to my colleague's point with the coexistence as as I see here for coexisting act, I think we we need to coexist together ourselves. So I heard the points that our vice Chair just made, about law enforcement. So it sounds like law enforcement is not part of this at all?

Category that is called out.

Is at what point was that maybe a decision where that wasn't a good idea to have them included?

There's nothing in the bill that precludes them from being a representative from a rural community or agricultural interest or urban community. But as we just mentioned, we like the framing of the public safety, which could include also include a state warden with CDFW as well.

And so the ones that are already included in there, did they ask or were they put on?

You wanna answer? Go ahead.

I'm relatively certain. I think the agricultural interest was added at the request of the negotiations that we have with the Cattlemen and Farm Bureau.

But I think there's a whole laundry list of others that are on there. Did they specifically ask also, or did you just figure they'd be good to be in coexist?

Yeah. We were looking for experience and expertise. We tried to work with those categories.

Okay. So at that point, you didn't think law enforcement was a good one to ask also?

They did not spring to mind when we generated the original list, but we had meaningful conversations with the author about it, and we, again, agreed to do it. We want to coexist and want a bill that works for the member. That was the request she made of the bill. So we thought it was good, actually, to agree ultimately agree to it. We want to be rowing in the same direction to your point on we all coexisting.

K. Well, I would hope that would happen. Obviously, I'm not gonna be able to support this bill because I think this should have been in the beginning, but we'll carry on. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Assemblymember Bennett.

Just just like to echo the comments of my colleague and just add one other thing, and that is from the global picture, we have a real crisis in the world in terms of losing diversity and programs like this are going to be essential for us to be able to maintain sort of that ecological balance that that's out there. And I don't think that we should interpret this particular issue of public safety as being hostility at all towards towards public safety or anybody else.

I think there's an openness here to continue those conversations, and we've heard the author say she was open to continuing those conversations. So I'm happy to be seconding the motion and congratulate the author for good work on this. Thank you.

Anyone else? Going once, going twice? Okay. So I do wanna thank the author for bringing this, given the hearing we had with the Assembly Member Hadwick a few months back. Clearly, we had an issue.

And so I appreciate you taking it on. I appreciate the further discussions as it relates to who might be delineated on the list of who to include. And thank you for being open to considering law enforcement slash public safety, you know, whatever it might be. Because it is clear they do have an outsourced role.

So while ag or whomever else is on that list has a role, I do hear you as some member of Haddwick that they're often the first in those 11 rural counties.

May not be the first in my community, and I got issues in my community, but I don't know that law enforcement is always the first that we call. But so I appreciate your openness, Senator, to perhaps being sensitive to that and maybe giving them a delineation. I recognize we got some broad words in there, and we can put some folk in there, but that doesn't necessarily perhaps include those that are on the front line in our rural counties.

With that, you do enjoy a do pass, but I hope you would consider a future amendment. We don't have amendments in this, committee, but, with that, would you like to close?

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you. I I'm absolutely open to that, and and I I hear the concern about it. I I just wanna recognize that this is a difficult topic because what we're talking about is we're talking about when wildlife are interacting with humans or humans' pets or their livestock, and, Assembly member had with receiving texts about it and people upset.

I mean, there's just there's a a high emotionality that can come with that. And so I just wanna recognize it as a difficult area. The point is for California to through CDFW to establish a program. And part of one of my budget asks this year, which was not funded, was for this program to be funded. And the idea was that we want to be able to hire people who will work for a Department of Fish and Wildlife.

We wanna be able to compensate cattlemen when they do have loss of their cattle because of wolves. But but it's really instructive to look at how well we've done with bears in that example that I gave in my opening, which is a reduction in of over 80% of having to kill bears. Because the that phrase, a Fed bear is a dead bear, you know, that is happening because of the way humans are managing themselves.

Are we putting out our trash cans that are easy to get into? Are we actually feeding them in our backyard so that we can post it on Instagram?

Do we have a way for local law enforcement to respond to that or for CDFW or others to respond to that and say, to give counseling and guidance? You know, this is not something you should be doing. You don't go and touch that little baby that was just born. You're not helping it. You're, you know, you're habituating it to humans.

So we need to have money in order to do those education programs. It need to be on the ground in these communities, and we will be able to reduce the carnage. And the the reality that Assembly member Hadwick said, you know, it doesn't go far enough. And part of that is that we're not gonna be eliminating and eradicating wolves. Wolves came over from Oregon.

They are here in California. And when you look at, secretary Crowfoot testified, at the budget sub hearing too that I'm on that's related to this topic. And and he said, we wanna get in line with other Western states, you know, Montana and Wyoming and Idaho. They've been dealing with this for longer than we have, especially around wolves. And so compensating cattlemen is part of that.

They're they are not being compensated through insurance, and we need to have a system for that. So so pushing on saying we need state resources. We need a program. This is the first step of creating this program. And then next year, hopefully, there will be another ask for money so this can be funded, and we'll be able to, help everybody.

This is definitely a a let's help everybody. Animals, wildlife, and also humans, and also humans' pets. So with that, I respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Thank you. So the motion is due passed to appropriations.

So it's item number three, SB 1135. [Roll Call]

Okay. That item's on call, and we will leave it open for additional votes. Thank you, Senator. Senator Richardson, I see is here. I don't see any other Senators, so please come down.

Good morning, Senator Richardson. Nice to see you.

Nice to see you.

Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Let me state for the record that I was a police cadet for the Beverly Hills Police Department, and my ex husband was a police chief, and so I'm a great supporter of law enforcement. So we'll start off there with my comments in light of the last conversation. Madam Chair and members of this very important committee, and as I'm listening to some of the bills, it's really interesting, and, I applaud your work.

Let me first begin my testimony by accepting the committee amendments for Senate Bill 1305.

The loss of grizzlies severed the enduring relationship between species and many California Native American tribes for whom the grizzlies remain a vital and honored relative. It is its erasure and destructive cultural teachings, spiritual traditions, and reciprocal stewardship practices deeply tied to the land and its living systems. For thousands of years before their loss, California grizzlies coexisted with the ancestors of contemporary California Native American tribes and European immigrants and formed a long standing ecological and cultural relationship with the environment and cultures cultures around them.

So long before we saw the beautiful flag there that represents California original eighteen forty six bear flag revolt to today, the California grizzly has been synonymous with our golden state. Unfortunately, the last known living California grizzly bear was driven to extinction in 1924 after several targeted persecutions and killings.

Their rapid demise was not due to habitat loss or lack of food, but to but due to the direct result of deliberate extermination effortS By a small number of settlers and government agents who hunted, trapped, and poisoned them relentlessly. For these reasons, I present to you SB 135, a study bill that takes important steps by having the state assess the feasibility and reintroducing of the grizzly bear.

SB 135 would establish it is official its official state policy to determine whether the reintroduction of grizzly bears iS Biologically feasible, advisable, and to what extent their reintroduction would restore the ecological functions they once provided. To achieve this goal, SB 135 would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to, upon appropriation, conduct a study to develop and publish a road map for potential reintroduction.

This road map would have to include scientific assessment of habitat suitability and population viability, consultation with the California American tribes, engagement with local communities as has been discussed earlier, and recommended procedures to minimize risk of human wildlife conflict.

SB 135 is not a bill to reintroduce grizzly bears. What it does is give us the opportunity to study, plan, and prepare for their potential reintroduction, something that they were here before all of us. Something we never forgot with the reintroduction of other predators when we look at wolves in other situations, we can learn from those situations

and how they could have been successful. With that, I'd like to introduce, my witnesses and sponsors to the bill. We have here with us chairman Octavio Escobedo the third with the Tejon Indian tribe and Tianna Williams Clausen, director of the Yurok Tribe Wildlife Department.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. My name is Octavio Escobido the third. I'm the chairman for the TONE Indian Tribe, one of the proud cosponsors of SB 135. I'd like to start off by thanking you, madam Chair, for your engagement and that of your committee staff. We appreciate the collaboration on the thoughtful amendments to SB 135.

California calls itself the bear state, yet today, the grizzly exists merely as a symbol. On our flag, our seal, and our institutions, but not on our landscape. For the Tohono Indian tribe, the grizzly or Huni'at is not a symbol. It's a relative. Its lot was its loss was not just ecological, but cultural and spiritual.

SB 135 does something very simple and very responsible. It asked California to do the work before making any decision in the reintroduction of the species. This bill does not authorize reintroduction. It requires a state to evaluate whether suitable habitat exists, what impacts restoration would have, and what it would take to do it right.

It also ensures that this process is grounded in science, tribal consultation, and with amendments we took after meeting with opposition, meaningful engagement with law enforcement, landowners, outdoor recreational groups, and important other stakeholders.

That last point is critical. Restoration cannot be imposed. It must be built with the people who will live with it. The bill recognizes the realities on the ground. Human wildlife conflict is already increasing across California.

Agencies like Fish and Wildlife need better tools, planning, and long term capacity. SB 135 creates a road map, not just for grizzlies, but for how California can manage coexistence moving forward. The grizzly sets the highest bar. If we can plan for that, we can strengthen our ability to manage wolves, mountain lions, and other species already reshaping our landscapes. Ultimately, this bill is about readiness.

A century ago, California made a decision to eliminate the grizzly. Today, we are not being asked to reverse that decision, only to examine it honestly and prepare for the future. SB 135 gives California the information it needs to answer a simple question. Is it possible to bring our state animal home responsibly, collaboratively, and based on science? We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, madam Chair and Assembly members. My name is Tianna Williams Clausen. I'm a Yurok tribal member and director of the wildlife department for the Yurok tribe, which is cosponsoring this bill. I want to first express my sincere admiration for the leadership of the Tejon Indian tribe and Senator Richardson and coauthors in forwarding this bill and my appreciation for my for the time to make my address. We're here today to speak about the California grizzly or Nequetch.

I can see the ways in which my homeland has suffered from the loss of iconic species such as the grizzly and that this loss lingers in our heart and in the attenuation of a millennia old relationship. This resonates in my work, as a restoration ecologist, recognizing the lingering imprint of the grizzly on our lands and that our management would have historically been done in partnership with such keystone species.

The full scope of that loss and its impact to our health and wellness, I think, is yet to be fully understood. California is recognized as a powerful leader in conservation, overseeing and co managing roughly 52,000,000 acres of public lands and committing to further increasing and improving conservation. California is also a highly complex state in terms of ecological and cultural and socioeconomic diversity.

I am proud of this bill because it recognizes that complexity and leans into it. This bill takes a proactive approach to assessing the potential for grizzlies return while deliberately not committing to reintroduction, which is an entirely different process, unless or until it can be determined that this is the right decision for grizzlies and Californians and how that balanced endpoint could be attained in explicit collaboration with tribes, local governments, law enforcement, conservation organizations, and private land managers, and other key stakeholders.

This bill is already inspiring important concert conversations. If passed, the feasibility analysis will lead us through the next steps on a journey to reestablishing a relationship with the grizzly for all Californians. Unlike when the grizzly was locally extirpated, a decision was made by a relative few.

We have an opportunity here to bring together all those who would be impacted by or benefited by grizzly, and we can grow our understanding of the role of that that grizzly once played in our ecosystem, in turn growing in our understanding of what California truly needs to return to full ecological health, whether through the return of our relative or through our own hands. I encourage, the Yurok Tribe encourages, an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Do we have any members of the audience that would wish to express their support?

Good morning, Chair and members. Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation in support.

Good morning. Tasha Newman on behalf of the Wildlands Conservancy in support.

Good morning. Devlin Gandy, California Grizzly Alliance in strong support.

Good morning. Rocky Rushing for Alt C in support. Thank you.

Hello. Peter Alagona, faculty member, UC Santa Barbara, founder of the California Grizzly Research Network. We're in support.

Shannon Labuschagne on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity in strong support.

Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Bill Gaines, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Deer Association and several other wildlife conservation nonprofits. I'd like to begin with one simple question. The California Grizzly Alliance's own study largely concluded that this proposal is likely not feasible. So why would we ask California taxpayers to spend years and millions of dollars studying what we already know?

Proponents describe SB 1305 as just the study. It is not. It directs the Department of Fish and Wildlife to begin developing a road map towards the possible reintroduction of grizzly earth into California. That means years of taxpayer funding, staff time, public outreach, regulatory planning, conflict response planning, and agency resources devoted to the proposal as biological, logistical, fiscal, and social obstacles are already well understood. We already know enough.

We know that California's wildlife professionals are struggling to keep pace with increasing conflicts in black bears, mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, livestock depredation, and growing public safety concerns. We already know our deer herds continue to decline while predator populations continue to expand. And we already know that today's California has little resemblance to the landscape where grizzlies once lived. We also know grizzly bears are not simply larger black bears. They require different management strategies, specialized training, additional personnel, new safety protocols, and significantly greater long term costs.

So why exactly are we hoping another study would tell us what we don't already know? There's a profound difference between managing wildlife that is naturally persistent on our landscape and deliberately reintroducing North America's largest terrestrial apex predator into modern human used landscapes. This proposal asked the legislature to intentionally create a wildlife management problem that does not exist today. That is not simply managing risk. It is creating new risk through public policy.

Public opinion certainly has a place in this discussion, but good wildlife policy cannot be based solely on the views of people, many of whom will never directly experience the consequences of the decisions that are made here today. Most Californias live in urban areas. They will not be the ones dealing with grizzly bears near their homes, around their children, threatening their pets or livestock, or affecting their livelihoods.

Those consequences will fall primarily on rural families, ranchers, farmers, outdoor recreationists, and communities that live and work where these conflicts would occur. Their voices deserve to matter.

California already has over abundant black bear populations in many regions. As a result, we are experiencing increasing human bear conflicts, property damage, livestock depredation, and dangerous encounters in communities across our state. Introducing grizzly bears into that same system will not occur in isolation. When two large bear species compete for the same limit of habitat and food resources, displacement is a predictable ecological response. Black bears will be pushed into more marginal habitat, much of it along California's urban and suburban interface where people live, work, and recreate.

Instead of solving a wildlife management problem, we will create, two, more black bear conflicts where Californians live and new grizzly bear conflicts across that same landscape. We believe it is irresponsible to reintroduce grizzly bears into a system where existing management policies and landscape and social realities make failure and conflict nearly certain from the outset. Good public policy should reduce human wildlife conflict, not knowingly create conditions that make those conflicts more frequent, more dangerous, and far more difficult to manage.

I'll need you to wrap up.

And when those conflicts occur, California will not only have practical management tools necessary to respond effectively. Regulatory constraints often delay action. Suitable relocation sites are extremely limited. Qualified facilities rarely have space for grizzly bears, particularly problem animals. In many cases, wildlife managers are left with few realist

I'll need you to wrap up.

Other than euthanasia. Good wildlife management is about solving problems, not creating new ones. The question before us today isn't whether grizzly bears once lived in California. The question is whether California, as it exists today, can responsibly manage their return based on the evidence before us. We believe the answer is no. We are here to no vote.

Thank you so much. Okay. Statements of opposition from the office from the audience.

Greg Herner on behalf of SCI and the SCI California Coalition. I think Senator Blakespear presented it most appropriately that we can't even fund the conflicts we have now, so we are opposed.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Karen Lang on behalf of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. This is absolutely a massive concern for Senator or Assembly member Hadwick's district. Every Wednesday morning, we speak to the Siskiyou County board, and every Wednesday morning, there's been another issue with wolves. They don't wanna double it with grizzlies, and we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Staci Heaton, Rural County Representatives of California representing 40 rural counties statewide that are strongly opposed respectfully to this bill. Thank you.

Kirk Wilbur with California Cattlemen's Association, also strongly opposed. Thank you.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in opposition.

Richard Filgas, California Farm Bureau representing over 20,000 farming and ranching members respectfully in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments. Assemblymember Hadwick.

I wanna start off with just thanking the author and the Chair and the sponsors of the bill. I don't know where she's at. And, because they really worked this bill the way bills are supposed to be worked, and they immediately came to us. And then knowing that it was gonna affect my district and met with us and had great conversations, and included us along the way, which I truly appreciate. It's no secret that I'm opposed to this bill.

My district is very, very scared, honestly, for for the what could happen for this bill. I do I just have a couple questions. We just talked about that we can't fully fund CDFW. We can't file fund the coexistence program, wolf depredation, wildfire, you know, mitigation projects. CDFW is running with 30% of their law enforcement right now.

Why should the state focus on this and fund a study to bring another Apex predator in? Like, what is the need? Why because I have the study, the book that says what what we're supposed to do. Like, what are you looking for in this bill that's different than what's already here?

Permission to answer, Chair?

Of course, please.

Thank you. So let me state a couple things. First of all, you can count on my unequivocal support to support additional funding for the Fish and Game and Wildlife enforcement, not only regarding sir sir, excuse me. Could you, so I can speak to her.

Could you either move forward or move back? I, unequivocally, support funding whether this bill is passed or not passed. I get an opportunity to come to your community, just about a month ago and it was simply beautiful, coming from a girl who's from LA, who lives in pretty much all concrete, it was pretty amazing. And so I support the concern that you have and of the community, of coexistence of various species, whether they're wolves, black bears, whatever they are. Given the fact that the animals do exist in our state, people do exist in our state, we certainly need a program to protect families, their property, and our community.

So you can count on my support of that regardless of what happens. Why is now, to answer your question of the study, why is this study different? Because that study does not authorize or give the state the opportunity to then take those words and say, okay. Should we consider doing something? That study is helpful to build upon a study, but that study was not authorized and would not give us the ability to actually do something with it.

So that's why we need to take this next step. But as you heard from the author, I hope the author, with his expertise and the knowledge that he has, would be able to assist us in avoiding and making sure we're hitting all the key points that we should. So that's the difference of why we need a new study or an additional study is so that we could use it to be able to move forward.

In terms of moving forward though, I really want to state for the record that, and I guess at this point would be a good time to address some of the comments that were made. The opposing witness said bears having having animals that have naturally persisted, have have stayed in California.

The reason why the grizzly bear has not persisted and stayed is because it has been killed. That's why. The grizzly bear has not benefited like deers. Deers have been able to come up to people's neighborhoods. My family is from New York and so that's the only place really I've seen a lot of deers.

And so when deers come, people put up the little fences to keep them from eating your flowers and eating your food and all that and I've seen that. Bears are different. Grizzly bears are different. And the point really today isn't to debate that a grizzly bear could cause harm. A grizzly bear could, just like a black bear could, just like a wolf could.

The issue is that we're talking about today is in California, do we are we open enough to actually ask the question, is there a role for animals in California that have been here? And my point is that the grizzly bear certainly, apparently, had a role because out of all of the animals imagine, I almost feel like Noah.

You know, out of all the animals that Californians pick the grizzly bear to say that that's what we symbolize, that the strength of it, the the life of it, the history of it. And so that's what this bill is about. This is this bill is about us as a state saying, are there dangers?

Yes. Do we need to take precautions? Yes. And that's why the bill actually says within it, it needs to study the actual feasibility of whether a grizzly bear is habitable in the current California. And so I'm open enough to have that answer be heard, and I'm open enough to accept that answer that would be heard.

But it is certainly not the chairman's intention, the California Native American tribes intention to have grizzly bears everywhere throughout California. It would be my hope that they would be monitored, would be safely introduced. Grizzly bears are different than wolves. They only have a pup, you know, every couple years versus wolves that can have four per year. There's many differences.

But the bottom line is today's discussion, SB 135, is about whether we're willing to ask the question, not implement, ask the question of what was the role of the grizzly bears. And yes, we are suggesting to have a road map. We are suggesting to understand what would it mean because how could you then take a final answer on whether we should implement grizzly bears if you don't even know what would that entail? Where would they go?

How would that be impacted? How would we monitor them? If they came into communities, what would be done? We have to answer those questions, responsibly, in order to ultimately determine whether this is feasible. So that's the difference between the study of what you have and what we're proposing.

We're simply not simply. I always hate you know, we always use that word a lot. And what we do isn't simply. It's actually quite extensive. What we're asking to do here, today, is ask the question that if the grizzly bear, in fact, is our state symbol, let's determine why and whether they really have a role here.

But the bigger picture of your concern, and I respect your community, I am all in to support funding regardless of this bill. We should not be having various animals coming in. People can have their dogs out. I have a dog named Pauline who was attacked and mauled and ran a mile that I was chasing down into the reserve, lost her paw paw pads, had to have a toe amputated. I understand the conflicts of coexistence, but it doesn't mean if we can coexist and figure it out.

Certainly, I think a grizzly bear might be able to. Where in my final comment, I'll say, unless the question is asked, let's not forget, they were actually here first. And they learned to coexist with us, which, unfortunately, was their existence. And I'm simply saying that there is a role for for what has been here, and in my mind and in the chairman's, has a role of California. Thank you.

Thank thank you. I've temporarily taken over the seat of as the Chair here. So I'm just, we're we're at we're at the point where we're taking questions and comments from from the members. I think probably that was as much your close, but

Yes, sir.

We'll we we will I just wanna make sure that we have all the questions and comments from members here before we move on.

I have a couple.

Yeah. I will too. So I it's funny that bear bills are, like, the most controversial thing. Last year, I had one too, and it unbearable.

I'll be briefer in my answer.

Yes. You heard the dad jokes are just keep coming. I we get the most calls, the highest number of surveys filled out for this. It's very touchy in California right now. I have spoken with other states, Canada, Alaska, everywhere that has grizzly bears and tried to learn more just so that if this study does come to the fact that this is going to happen, we're ready. And to just know more in in general.

I've talked to tribes. It feels like the tribes are a little split as well even just within the membership of whether they want this, but and I try to be a voice for the tribes. My family is native. I truly try to represent. I have 13 in my district.

Some of my tribes, they're not revered as, like, they're they're to be feared. And, so I I just wanna make sure that moving forward that that is also brought into the conversation because I I don't think that's fair to the the smaller tribes that don't have the the lobbyists and the groups and the people to help push their interests up. I'm very nervous for this bill. I I can't I I you would not believe the phone calls and letters and emails we've gotten on this bill.

And it's not the fight I thought I was coming here for. Truly, I did not think predators was gonna be my everyday all day, and it has become that. Because that's what my district's facing. And this is gonna be in my district. It's they're gonna live there. That's where the forest is and it's cold.

And I don't see them wanting to live where 37,000,000 more people live than when they were here originally. You know, we have we have a different California now. And and I just don't think that our California today is ready for a grizzly bear. I I think it's it's a very scary scary option to even look into more than this.

And I think there's a lot of other things that we need to fix before, because we just we are so out of balance in our wildlife management right now, that I I fear for all those other species: the deer, the elk, the antelope.

I have now seen wolves more driving. I drive a lot, a six hour commute every week. I have seen wolves eight times. I have seen a bear off the highway twice in my entire life. I've seen elk off the highway four times.

And now I've seen wolves more than any of those. I can go now where I don't see a deer my entire way home. And our deer herds are just plummeting because that's what they're eating besides cows. And that makes me nervous. We have one of the biggest migratory herds in the in the nation or used to.

And and I I just I don't think there's enough for them to eat, and that means they're gonna move into town. And my district, unfortunately, has had people killed from mountain lions, had people killed from black bears. You know, this is going to be another thing that we have to fear walking out our front door, and that that's very scary to me. But I am so thankful about the way that you guys did this bill, though.

I wanna reiterate that that the conversations and the meetings and checking in to see asking us what we could do to fix it. Unfortunately, none of them knew how to fix it, because the idea just is scary to them. So, I am respectfully opposed today, but, do wanna thank you for for all the meetings and conversations and and hope to look forward to working with you in the future too.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Thank you.

I'll keep mine appropriate because I know when you get a BNP and get our votes in. But for the sponsors, I'll be honest with you. I didn't know till today there was already a study. I don't know if you guys were aware that there was a study or not.

I did beforehand.

Okay. So if and it sounds like this study is saying no. If there's a new study and it still says no

It doesn't say no. It doesn't say no. That's my point.

But

Well, then let's say hold on. One moment. So if it does say no, will you guys be okay with that?

Okay. The other thing is is you have a a wonderful Senator carrying this bill. We all cherish her. But, unfortunately, the bills prior to this with the wolves and stuff and the way that the government is handling with the ranchers and everybody else does not set a good stage for you guys, unfortunately. Our our cattlemen, our ranchers, they're not, they're the victims throughout the state, and we're we're using the oh, we're bringing back the wolves.

Absolutely.

So we're bringing back what other predator we're doing. And it's unfortunate that they're losing lots of money. They're losing herds. They're losing pets. And I don't, I know California is not stepping up.

We're not providing the funds that they need for that. And so I don't I don't know if they would be able to provide all the funds for yours as well since we're not doing it on the other. So, I I also can't support this right now, but, I I get why you guys are doing it.

And, I I just wish we did a better job with that, making sure that we take care of our ranchers and everybody else who, unfortunately, are the ones that are gonna have to endure this problem unlike others. That's it. Thank you.

Other members with the comments or questions? Assembly member.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thanks to all who have contributed to the conversation. To to the point of the concern, which I think is universal concern, you've you've acknowledged it in in one of your responses, and I think has been a theme today. Is does I I was trying to look through the language of the what's being asked in the study.

Is there a sec is there a section of this or that is going to be requiring that as part of the feasibility, if we can call it that, that we identify also or that the study must identify where the funding will come to ensure that the plan or whatever the recommendations are, if there are recommendations to proceed in one way or another, that that be identified as well.

The bill does state that the study would not go forward unless it was appropriated. I don't

The study or the actual results of the study?

The study.

K.

Regarding the results, I would be certainly open to that. I I don't it doesn't it's not included in the bill because the bill you can assume that there is going to be a reintroduction. However, if they were, I would certainly be supportive of there would have to be adequate funding, which is why the law enforcement is included, the community is included to understand what those impacts would be so we would know what funding would be needed.

But as I stated, to the Assembly member Hadwick, I agree that in general, coexistence wildlife funding is not sufficient and it needs to be addressed. Certainly, even long before we talk about introducing bears, we're talking about, you know, these other problems as well. So I support the broader question, which is is adequate funding needed? And, yes, I would support that.

And if in the event the study called for, yes, we could do a reintroduction, then certainly, I would support, legislation would say that it would have to be adequately funded.

If that's something you'd like us to state in the bill, I'm more than happy to do so and include that in an amendment. That's no problem.

Yeah. Because I don't think there is anything that calls out for specifically quantifying a cost of reintroduction as part of the the bill the way it is today. So I think I'd like to definitely-I I I just wanna be respectful of people who actually represent districts and communities where they will be impacted, acknowledging that I will likely not be one of those communities. And and the fact that there seems to be just universal agreement that it's not sufficient today. And unless that gets addressed,

if it comes to the point where the recommendations are reintroduction, that it won't be sufficient the way it is today. That at minimum, we should identify what those costs would be as part of this plan and that we should identify where the funding would come from, I think, would be appropriate as a part of the ultimate product that you receive at the end of of the work that's gonna be done.

Because worst that can happen is you come forward and there's this recommendation. Okay. Well, now how much is that gonna cost and how are we gonna pay for it? Definitely seems to be something we've gotten wrong. And I think I know you well enough and highly respect that I don't think you want us to put us in in that position whatsoever.

And I think it'd be unfair to do that to a future legislature if those are the results. And so I would ask that you consider that as you proceed with this proposal to try and identify how to do that in a way that's fiscally responsible in addition to, obviously, the other ways that you're hoping to be responsible with the way you're doing this work.

So permission to respond? Back to our Chair?

Yeah. Please. Because I I think there are things in the bill that address your concern. So go ahead.

Well

If you want.

Did you want to answer, Senator? I can certainly come in later.

Okay, no problem. Assemblymember, as I stated in the beginning, we accepted the committee's amendments. I'm prepared to accept right now. I have no problems with that.

If there is not sufficient clarity in terms of identifying the cost, funds would have to be appropriated in the event a reintroduction would be recommended. I have no problems with that being added. Regarding your point of respecting the areas, again, I think you heard pretty clearly I've been respectful. So what I would hope, though, is that you would consider what this bill is asking, which is SB 1305.

And what that is saying is to have a study to determine if.

So we're not at the stage yet, frankly, of these other concerns that have been mentioned, and I have not minimized them. In fact, again, I've made a commitment that I'm wholeheartedly supportive of helping to address the existing problems that exist, and certainly would want to continue to build on that if other species were introduced.

So please clarify for me then. I understand it's a study, but the way that I have read this is that it's a study, and then it will evaluate and will propose under which conditions reintroduction would be. So do you believe it'll just be a study, and then someone else would have to make a decision of reintroducing?

Yes, there would have to be a subsequent decision and work with the legislature and with the agency. And I'm just glancing at it right here. This bill would also require the department by 06/30/3030 to submit the road map

document to relevant budget and policy committees of the legislature. This bill would prohibit, I'm looking on page, in this introduction here, that this bill would actually prohibit the reintroduction of the grizzly bear in the state until the department or others have carried out various actions, including, among other things, the following things listed. So this isn't something that, because there happens to be a study, suddenly you're going to see a reintroduction.

Even if that study recommends that its reintroduction is possible, and it recommends certain conditions.

That's correct, because it absolutely says these other steps would have to be taken. And I don't believe anything should move forward that's not appropriated. I agree.

Assemblymember Bennett?

We've been at this a long time, so I'm just trying to keep my comments really brief. I think it's really a financial question that I appreciate my colleague bringing up. And the financial question is twofold. One, do we have enough money to do the study? Which I think is what the opponents are partially bringing up.

And then, do we have enough money to do the planning for a road map? That's the conundrum for me. We might have enough money to do the study, but it's hard to do the study unless you have the road map all the way done. But should we do the spending for the whole road map side of it? And if the study doesn't indicate that it's a total.

So my only request, I'm gonna support this. I appreciate that the Chair has an aye recommendation as amended support this.

But I think it would be appropriate to have some intermediate step here that deals with what is the realistic feasibility of this. I mean, almost anything is possible with enough money. So the question isn't, is it possible? The question is, is it realistically where California should go, given that budget constraints are part of that.

So I just hope you can find a way to get that clarified so that we could have a study about realistic possibilities before we spend a lot of money on planning something that only is barely possible. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you very much.

Well, the bill does state if appropriated. And as the Chair of Sub 5 and the Assistant Majority Leader, and I still have six and a half years in my boat at least, a legal opinion will have to determine if I actually have ten. But I know I have at least six and a half. So I am more than willing to work with the committee before the bill comes to the floor to maybe add a step in there, maybe after the initial, or at the point when we appropriate money for the study. Let me strike that.

I would probably suggest that we would say that appropriated funds would need to be able to cover the study and the road map, so that that would be covered. And when we say, do we have the money? I mean, we're all sitting here passing bills all day long,

and we have that same question, right? Which is why it has to be appropriated. So I'm committed enough that I believe that the discussion about the introduction of species that were here prior and reflect what we are as a state. I'm not just talking about a butterfly or a bat or who knows what.

We're literally talking about what's right in front of you that represents who we are. We're simply asking the question, is that something that is feasible for us to consider? It's not saying it will happen, but I am certainly willing to take the comments that have been here in the committee. The questions about making sure the clarification on appropriations is absolutely correct, and we will make sure that's addressed. And I thank you for making the bill better.

Absolutely. That's what we always want to do.

Assemblymember Hart.

And I'll be very sure. Just in answer to the question that you just posed, is it, you know, should we ask the question? And I'm an enthusiastic yes.

I missed a little bit of the discussion. I do want to comment that there are some provisions in the bill that do relate to trying to create an estimate of what it would take to actually implement a plan should one become feasible and advisable. So I think the inquiry was a good one by my colleague from San Diego. And if this bill goes forward and the analysis is done, there is something to be said for how much it would actually cost.

And everything would have to be upon appropriation, including how one would ever even carry out a reintroduction.

So I appreciate that there's an attempt to quantify, and I'm sure by the time it comes, from today, it'll probably have some inflationary costs or whatever it might be involved with how we estimate it. But in any event, I thank you for bringing the bill forward. My apologies for not hearing all of the discussion. It does enjoy do pass as amended at this point, which included the verbiage that related to whether or not it would also be advisable to do this.

So I thank you for accepting those amendments. And with that, would you like to close, Senator?

I respectfully ask each and every one of you for your aye vote. Give us a chance to at least know. Can he or she be here? Thank you.

Thank you. With that, do we have a motion or a second? I was not here. Yeah, okay.

And you're going to make a motion? Bennett, Hart. With that, let's take a vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that's on call. We'll leave it open for future Assembly members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. I see Alvarado-Gil is here. Oh, no. Excuse me. Senator Cortese.

We've got a motion and a second from Assemblymember Alvarez. When you're ready, Senator. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you, madam Chair and members. California is one of the most biodiverse places in the world as I think everyone in this room knows, yet our transportation system continues to fragment critical wildlife habitat. Highways divide habitats, making it harder for wild wildlife to find food, reach breeding grounds, and adapt to changing conditions. Over time, this week's populations reduces genetic diversity and increases risk of local extinction.

As we invest in our transportation system, we must also consider its impact on the landscapes it crosses. Wildlife connectivity is about protecting healthy ecosystems, not just individual species. This is even more important as climate change forces wildlife to move in search of a suitable habitat. California's invested heavily in habitat conservation through efforts like our 30 by 30 goals, but these investments only succeed if landscapes remain connected. SB 1250 makes wildlife connectivity a core part of how Caltrans plans and manages state highway system.

It requires Caltrans to include wildlife connectivity in its transportation asset management plan, otherwise known as TAMP, to establish performance measures and coordinate with the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the public. The bill recognizes wildlife crossings, culverts, and fencing, essential transportation assets, not just optional extras. Today, these projects are often planned separately, leading to a disjointed effect and leading to missed opportunities and higher costs. SB 1250 integrates connectivity in a routine transportation planning, allowing solutions to be built as highway projects move forward.

This approach also improves public safety by reducing wildlife wildlife vehicle collisions, and that's a very, very important part of the bill.

We know these investments work. The crossings paired with fencing can reduce wildlife collisions by up to 90% while reconnecting habitat. Sometimes the fencing is already there, and it's just a matter of preplanning so that it can be cut or used properly for wildlife purposes. This is a practical common sense approach that delivers healthier ecosystems, safer roads, and better use of taxpayer dollars.

Here with us today to testify in support of the bill are the sponsor Michael Jared on behalf of Nature Conservancy and Kelsey Seamer from Seamer from the Honey Lake Valley Resource Conservation District.

I'll turn it over to back to you, madam Chair, and to them. But at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Excellent. Please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Michael Jarrett, the Nature Conservancy, and we are proud to sponsor SB 1250, which would support better planning and agency coordination for wildlife connectivity. TNC thanks Senator Cortesi for his leadership on this important issue. At its core, SB 1250 is about protecting California's natural resources while improving public safety and recognizing that those two goals are interconnected.

Our highways cut through landscapes that wildlife have been moving across for a hundred years or hundreds of years. When we build roads through these natural corridors, we don't just get animal, vehicle collisions, we create barriers. Those barriers limit animal access to food, water, habitat, and mates. Wildlife vehicle collisions are a preventable safety problem on California's roads. Analysis by the UC Davis Road Ecology Center documented an annual statewide cost of above $200,000,000 with collisions concentrated in predictable hot spots.

Studies show that wildlife crossings paired with continuous fencing typically cut large mammal collisions by 80 to 97%. SB 1250 wide wildlife connectivity to the transportation asset management plan, which will change a piecemeal approach to wildlife connectivity to one that is systematic and consistent with other aspects of transportation planning. According to Caltrans, the TAMP represents, an investment philosophy of prioritizing preservation activities seeking progress towards broad goal areas.

We believe integrating wildlife connectivity into that prioritization will ensure that Caltrans is not just looking at the condition of culverts, bridges, and drainages in a narrow sense, but finding ways to improve the condition of these select number of assets for wildlife connectivity. This can mean a lot a bigger culvert is replaced or a ledge is placed in an underpass.

These are simple and cost effective solutions. Many of these projects are eligible for funding through the Wildlife Conservation Board, federal funds, and private funds. With the right planning, there is a huge opportunity to leverage funds to make our roads safer, reduce traffic congestion, and benefit our wildlife. For all these reasons, TNC urges your support on SB 1250. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Please.

Good morning, Chair Clapham and members of the committee. My name is Kelsey Seamer, and I'm the district manager of the Honey Lake Valley Resource Conservation District and a proud resident of Lawson County, California. Our district covers more than 2,200,000 acres across the greater Lassen Lassen Modoc region where we work with landowners, partners, and agencies to advance conservation and natural resources and sustainable agriculture. I'm here today to speak in support of SB 50 because of what it means for both public safety and for wildlife connectivity.

Anyone who regularly travels Highway 395 between Reno, Nevada and Susan Hill, California knows how dangerous it can be for drivers and for wildlife.

When people visit who aren't familiar with the area, I always give them the same two pieces of advice. Only pass in designated passing lanes and don't drive at dawn or at dusk when wildlife are most active. My commute is 11 miles each way. Yet if not every day, at least every week, I witnessed the aftermath of a wildlife vehicle collision. This is a reoccurring reality for our region that affects the safety of our residents, our visitors, and our wildlife.

More than 830 wildlife vehicle collisions have been documented along this specific stretch of three ninety five. And Caltrans district two has the highest number of deer vehicle collisions in California. These collisions are preventable with the right investment in crossing infrastructure. Our district has been fortunate to work with state and local partners to identify solutions that make Highway 395 safer for both wildlife and for people.

But too often, these efforts depend on one time funding and the capacity of local entities to identify priorities, secure grants, and move projects forward.

That places the burden on rural communities like ours to protect the people that travel our highways and the wildlife that cross them, Instead of making wildlife connectivity a routine part of transportation planning, SB 1250 could change that. It could create a statewide network and framework to integrate wildlife connectivity into transportation investments, ensuring these projects are planned proactively, not just where and when local communities have the resources to make them happen. I respectfully urge your support.

Thank you so much. Do we have members of the audience that wish to express their support?

Good morning. Kim Delfino, in support on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, and the Trust for Public Land.

Jeanne Wardwaller for the Wildlife Conservation Network, Pew, and Climate Plan in support.

Rick Ortega, grassland water district, grassland resource conservation district in strong support.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the boards of supervisors of the counties of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz in support.

Tasha Newman on behalf of Peninsula Open Space Trust, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, and the California Council of Land Trust in support.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Park District, and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County in support. Thank you.

Hi there. Mark Henley, California Waterfowl Association in support.

Morning. Jennifer Faring in support of SB 1250 on behalf of National Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Crossing Fund, Wildlands Network, and San Diego Humane Society.

Good morning again. Matt Robinson on behalf of Humane World for Animals as well as the Animal Legal Defense Fund, both in support. Thank you.

Ruth McDonald with Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Bill Gaines on behalf of the California Deer Association and the California Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation in support.

Okay. Thank you so much. I know there's no opposition on file. Sorry. Yes, sir.

Yeah. Doug Houston representing Sierra Consortium and Save Mount Liable also in support. Sorry about that. Thanks.

Excellent. No opposition on file. Is there anyone who wishes to testify in opposition and or express opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Do we have any questions, comments, or a motion?

Assemblymember Hedrick. I I

like it better when I get to support things. I just wanna thank you and well played bringing in a constituent. This we actually just finished the first wildlife crossing in the state in my district in Siskiyou County, long time coming. And, it is unfortunately an everyday occurrence for us and very dangerous. And I've seen some of the wreckage and people killed from hitting wildlife in our district.

So I'm happy to support this and happy that the state and that the author in the state is willing to look into it because it really does every other state that has wildlife like us has these frequently. So, they really do save both the people and the cars, which will in turn, hopefully, keep our insurance lower and, and the animals. So it's a it's a good well balanced approach. So thank you, and I'm happy to support today.

Okay. Anyone else? Assembly member Hart.

Yeah. I'll move the bill, and I just wanna thank the author for the really thoughtful approach to understanding how the transportation asset management program is the way to really make sure that this is deeply embedded in the culture of Caltrans and that there's thoughtfulness about wildlife connectivity when making improvements to the state highway system. It's really the way to go. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else? Assemblymember Bennett? Do we have a second?

Sorry. They're motioned. Oh, I

knew that. Okay. Anybody else? Anybody else? Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you to the committee.

Thank you, Senator. With that, we'll go ahead. The motion is a do pass to appropes.

It's item number four, SB 1250, Pappen?

Pappen, aye. Jeff Gonzales? Nope. Jeff Gonzales, no. Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis, not voting. Alvarez?

No.

Aye.

Alvarez, Aye. Avila Farias? Aye. Avila Farias, Aye. Baines, Bennett?

Aye. Bennett, Aye. Burner, Colosa, Padwick? Aye. Padwick, Aye.

Hart, Hart, Aye. Rogers or sorry. Rodriguez, Rogers. Aye. Rogers, Aye.

Okay. That's out, and we'll leave it open for coauthors. Senator Alvarado-Gil. Please, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. First, I'd like to say that I will be taking the committee's amendments, and thank you to our Chair and committee staff for allowing us that opportunity to improve our bill. I'm here to present Senate Bill 1397, which will require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to maintain and enhance a statewide human-mountain lion conflicts program in a specified region of the state, to be determined by the department.

The bill further requires the department to continue and expand scientific research efforts to develop and evaluate nonlethal methods to deter mountain lions from entering our communities.

Mountain lions have the widest range of any terrestrial land mammal in the Western Hemisphere, and they have the ability to adapt to various environments. Proposition 117, which was passed by voters in 1990, enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act, which classified our mountain lion population as specially protected mammals. Since its passing, there has been an increase in the mountain lion population, which has led to competition for food sources, not for humans, but for mountain lions.

This has led to lions moving into lower elevations in more populated areas, which has led to more frequent encounters with humans, oftentimes in metropolitan and suburban areas. This behavior by a mountain lion is unusual since they are more elusive by nature and prefer to be out during dusk or dawn hours.

The pattern of behavior has become more and more common over the past few years, with lions being sighted in populated areas across the state, including San Francisco, Sebastopol, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and most recently in the city of Davis. El Dorado County is in my district and has been deemed a hot spot for mountain lion activity, where in 2024 alone there were over 200 livestock kills. And between 2019 and 2024, there were over 150 depredation permits issued for problem lions.

In El Dorado County, it's is, El Dorado County is also where we mourn the loss of Taylor Taylen Brooks. He lost his life in 2024 to an unprovoked mountain lion attack while he was hiking with his brother.

Given the increase in population of both California residents and mountain lions, it's imperative that the department be more proactive in these efforts to move mountain lions to higher elevations within less populated areas and to make public safety a priority for all California residents. This will not only keep California safe, but will also keep mountain lions safe from depredation for their own poor behavior.

Senate Bill 1397 has enjoyed unanimous support so far, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this much-needed Senate bill. Thank you.

No witnesses in support?

No.

Any members of the audience in support?

Hi. Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels, rural Californian, in support.

Bill Gaines, on behalf of the National Wild Turkey Federation, the Tulelake Basin Wetlands Association, the Black Brant Group, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, San Diego County Wildlife Federation, California Rifle and Pistol Association, San Francisco Bay Area Safari Club International, and Missouri Safari Club, in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any witnesses in opposition? I don't believe there are any. Okay. No members of the audience.

We'll bring it back to the committee. Questions? Motion? Oh, we already had a motion and a second. Did we not?

We did. Great. Any questions, concerns? Assemblymember Hadwick.

I'm trying not to talk so much. It's my first day on the committee, and I've talked about every bill, I think. I just want to thank you for your work on this, and I know how important it is to you and our district that overlaps, and I really appreciate you moving forward with smart legislation that we can try to get some help, especially for the Brooks family,

To give them some peace. So thank you for the fight. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. With that, the motion is do pass to appropriations. So we'll go ahead and take a vote. Thank you. Did you want to close?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote, and thank you so much for the time.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That's on call, and we'll leave it open for additional votes. Let's go ahead and do some cleanup voting. And with that, Madam Secretary, we will start with item one.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you.

This is item number one, SB 872. Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. [Roll call]

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

[Roll call]

That's on call, and we'll leave it open. And that was do pass as amended. Do, I believe we already had a motion and a second for Caballero. We didn't have a quorum. So we'll need to the motion in a second.

We have a motion from Assemblymember Hadwick, a second from vice Chair Gonzales, and this is do passed as amended to appropriations. We'll go ahead and take a vote.

K. So this is item number two, SB1108. [Roll call]

[Roll call]

Okay. Great. That has enough to get out. Did you say madam secretary? Thank you.

Alright. We'll take item number three, Blake Spear for add-ons. This is do pass to approves.

[Roll call]

That's still on call. We'll leave it open. And then we have item number four with Senator Cortese. Do pass to approach. Okay.

Baines. I think we got everybody that was here, actually.

We don't need to do that. Okay.