Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation, Wednesday, April 8, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Speaker 2
So this control section, it allows departments to collaboratively fund projects at a landscape or multi jurisdictional scale, and it allows the Department of Finance to transfer these climate bond funds appropriated by the legislature to designated primary state entities. So if you have three different departments, four different departments funding a specific project, you would be able to instead of setting up grant agreements with four different grant agreements with one entity, you'd be able to transfer the funds to one of the state departments and to be able to do that. So, we're very excited about this. This is an efficiency. I know the legislature has been asking us, what are you doing to get more efficient?
Here's a good example.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. Great. Seems like it makes a lot of common sense, but let's see what LAO had to say about it.
Speaker 4
Morning, chair. Brian Metzger with the LAO. We found the proposed control section to be reasonable as a way to jointly fund those landscape and multi jurisdictional projects that they spoke about, and it's consistent with language that's, similar to what's in the bond link, the bond measure itself, which we think is important. However, there is a notification and approval process for finance, but there's no notification process for the legislature. So we would recommend the legislature consider whether it would be helpful to receive at least summary information about how this proposed control section is being used to kinda help track project funding and make sure that it's being, you know, that it's working as intended.
Speaker 5
We will are happy to consider, the legislature notifying, as part of the control section.
Speaker 1
Great. Well, as I said, I I think it's, it's it certainly makes common sense. Are there particular places in the bond that stimulated you to do this and say, hey. We think on these particular parts of the bond, we're gonna need this multi jurisdictional approval process?
Speaker 2
be used across the board on the bond, and I think it'd be helpful in a lot of different sections. But, like, the multi benefit land repurposing program, the regional forest and fire capacity program, the regional projects with CAL FIRE, s and c Nevada Conservancy and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the forest health and watershed improvement program. We thought that those would be ones that would really benefit from this.
Speaker 1
And in terms of how the funding, I wanna be clear on this, the funding will still go to each of the departments. Departments will approve a certain amount of funding, but then all of the reporting on that funding will come from one department?
Speaker 2
Correct. Okay. And the funding will be transferred over to that department, the one department that's gonna be the lead department. Mhmm.
Speaker 1
So when when we see a summary for the end of the year, we have a department of x. Will that funding be reflected in their expenditures or will it be reflected in in in the in the department that consolidated all the expenditures?
Speaker 1
Not in the In the other expenditures of the other department. Yes. But the revenue, we will have granted the revenue to the original department.
Speaker 2
Yes. The appropriation initially goes to the other department. Right. And then through the department of finance, it's transferred over to the lead department.
Speaker 1
Both the appropriation and the expenditure will be reported from the other department. Got it. Okay. Great. Alrighty.
Staff, any other things else you wanna clarify in terms of this? Right. Alrighty. Hey, thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Right? Appreciate having LAO run the traps on on the on this also for us. Right? Okay. We're gonna go to item seven.
And and that's biodiversity and nature based solutions, for 2026 and 2027 spending plan.
Speaker 10
Hi. Good morning. Manisha Pasiwala, Department of Finance. The climate bond allocates $1,200,000,000 for protecting biodiversity and accelerating nature based solutions over the lifetime of the bond. This funding is allocated across various programs administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board, the California Natural Resources Agency, and nine different conservancies.
Speaker 8
The 2025 budget act allocated $390,000,000 across these entities for programs such as establishing wildlife crossings and corridors, restoring ecosystems, reducing climate change risk, and improving public access to nature, and tribal nature based solutions. The governor's budget includes an additional $199,000,000 to continue supporting these and other programs. Some new proposals and program highlights in the governor's budget include the following. One is priority habitat restoration and new public access opportunities across these projects for Salton Sea communities and restoring and connecting wildlife habitats across the San Andreas Corridor. I'm joined by representatives from the departments with allocations in this chapter, and we are available for questions.
I will turn it over to doctor Jennifer Norris, executive director of the Wildlife Conservation Board, who will provide a brief overview of and new updates regarding the board's work in protecting biodiversity and advancing nature based solutions.
Speaker 9
Good morning, chair Bennett. I'm Jennifer Norris, the executive director of the Wildlife Conservation Board, also known as WCB. WCB provides grants to tribes, governments, and nonprofits to support conservation investments statewide. Since 2022, WCB has received nearly $1,200,000,000 from a mix of voter approved bond and general fund sources to support biodiversity and nature based solutions projects. We have provided grants to partners in every single county and every terrestrial ecosystem for habitat protection, restoration, and wildlife oriented public access.
We've supported seven ancestral land return projects and helped return 38,000 acres of culturally significant land to California native American tribes. Additionally, since 2022, nearly 60% of WCB's investments have provided meaningful benefits to underserved communities. We are proud of our accomplishments and excited for the work ahead. The administration's twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven climate bond expenditure plan includes $111,000,000 to WCB for biodiversity and nature based solutions investments. WCB would use these funds to support projects that are helping us meet our commitment to conserve 30% of California's lands and coastal waters by 2030, also known as 30 by '30, the state's nature based solutions climate targets, and outdoors for all strategy.
As you are aware, WCB was delayed in dispersing our twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six prop four funding while we navigated the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Thanks to the passage of a b one zero seven, we are now moving forward with prop four grants. In February, we awarded $30,000,000 across several high priority projects, including planning for wildlife crossings on Interstate 15 and State Route 62, habitat restoration for pollinators across multiple coastal counties, spring habitat for migratory birds, and meaningful access to nature for the underserved community of Watsonville. We are actively developing nearly 30 land acquisition projects throughout the state. As you know, they have a fairly long lead time, but those are coming to fruition.
Speaker 7
And nearly as many, habitat restoration projects for the conservation of rivers, forests, wetlands, deserts, and more. If approved by our board, we will expend nearly all of last year's $256,000,000 allocation by the end of the calendar year, and then we'll turn to the many high priority projects waiting in the queue for f y twenty six twenty seven funds. As I'm sure you are aware, the demand for WCB funding exceeds what is available by many times. For context, we opened our application portal last April for prop four fund projects, and by the June, we had we had received nearly $1,000,000,000 in requests, which is a good thing to have. Lots of conservation to do.
Speaker 9
We have a small but incredibly efficient and effective team and know we will be able to report on more amazing accomplishments this time next year. What's being requested this year is what we reasonably believe we can expect to get accomplished with existing staffing on our current workload. We're proud of the work we do with our partners, and we look forward to the year ahead in protecting California's natural world. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Brian Metzger, LAO. We find the overall approach taken in this chapter of prop four to be reasonable. We think it balances the demand for these solutions with the capacity of the wildlife conservation board as well as the conservancies. One program to note is 30,000,000 of the proposed 111,000,000 for the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and habitats will be granted to DWR for priority habitat and public access projects at the Salton Sea. And funding those projects likely makes sense given the tight timeline for the state to complete nearly 30,000 acres of habitat projects by 2028.
We also would note that, WCB is awaiting direction from the legislature about the geographic scope of the San Andreas corridor program, for which it proposes $20,000,000 in '26, '27 of the total 80,000,000 that's in prop four. And so to the extent that the legislature has specific priorities about, you know, the reach of the San Andreas corridor program, now would be the time to specify those.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you. Few comments before I get into questions. And number one, miss Norris, you're right to be proud of what WCB has done, but I think you're also you also have the best job in California, right, To to be able to allocate and and create sort of the permanent acquisition of land and preserve the nature that we have here. You you you hark back to, you know, Teddy Roosevelt and creating all those national parks and, you know, how many generations have benefited from that. And California and Californians are wise to keep making this investment by approving these climate bonds and these environmental bonds, you know, that we've had go forward.
I know there's a lot a lot of times people have concerns about them, but the demand is is enormous. And so congratulations to you and your efficient team at Wildlife Conservation Board.
Speaker 9
And our partners who bring us all these great projects. Sure. They get the credit.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Great. And and and that it that's that's that's certainly is true. And it's, I think, a a real something that California should really be proud of. In terms of what we've done with Wildlife Conservation Board.
Specifically, LAO has brought up the San Andreas Corridor Program, and a few things. One, my overall concept is if we expand this too much, we dilute sort of the ability to get the maximum bang for our buck. And then particularly, we expand it into areas where the land acquisition is going to be very expensive per acre, I think that that's probably not from my standpoint and my input from a legislative standpoint will be not to to expand into areas that are going to drain a lot of the dollars when we have such a big footprint that we're trying to deal with. I've also had request to slightly increase the the allocation from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 out of the 80,000,000. So not change the 80,000,000, but just accelerate it some.
Curious whether you have any concerns about going from 20 to 25,000,000, as we move forward.
Speaker 9
I don't have any concerns about that. I think, obviously, it's up to the administration, but my understanding is there is a fairly coherent set of partners with a strategic vision for that part of the state, and the work that they do will be this year, next year, ongoing. I'm sure we can find a way to get those projects accomplished.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. Department of Finance have any concerns if we went to, '25 from twenty?
Speaker 26
Good morning. Andrew Hall with Department of Finance. Obviously, we don't know know any of the details on that yet, but we're happy to together. No immediate concerns.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. The $30,000,000 for the Salton Sea project, we identified this in here. That's a that's a fast acceleration of spending at the Salton Sea. So my concern is just to make sure that we are efficiently spending those dollars, that we're not throwing dollars forward, etcetera.
What kind of assurances can you give us that this rapid acceleration in terms of salt and sea expenditure is going to be handled efficiently and appropriately?
Speaker 15
Frank Ash from the Natural Resources Agency. I I think we can assure you because there are you know, the state's completed already 3896 acres of the 14,900 acres that we need to finish. And then there are 8,000 acres of projects that are already in the pipeline underway and then 3,630 acres that are funded and where they're working with the contractor to begin construction. So things are moving very quickly there and efficiently. So I I don't think this will be a problem.
Speaker 1
And then, second question that we had there for you is, will these, projects count under the 40% disadvantaged?
Speaker 1
Alright. Appreciate the assembly member Rogers' attendance here today. And do you have any questions? We're on issue seven because we're waiting to cover issue one until assembly member ransom as our guest arrives. Anything on issue seven?
Great. Thank you. Alrighty. So that's issue six and seven. We promised, we promised, assemblymemberance we would try to wait.
So we're gonna go to eight unless the people for issue eight are not here. They are here. Good. Okay.
Speaker 11
Go ahead. Good morning, chair Bennett and members of the committee. My name is
Speaker 1
You don't have to lean forward so much if you wanna pull it even closer. Is I'm sorry to micromanage you guys, but don't put it put it to the side of your paper and then bend this thing over. Right?
Speaker 11
you morning. Chair Bennett, members of the committee, my name is Jake Scholland. I'm the deputy director of fire protection programs for CAL FIRE, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. California's fire environment has extended to a fire year. This can be seen from many fires since 2014, including the devastating January 2025 LA fire siege.
In March 2026, we have already mitigated large fires, including the Springs Fire in Riverside County, the Crown Fire in Los Angeles County, and the Paramount Fire in Kings County. Certain aviation assets have now been staffed continuously, including day and night operations to meet fire activity demands and rapid response requirements, which also increases the need for ongoing flight crew training to maintain proficiency and readiness across all aerial firefighting disciplines. CAL FIRE's fleet has also modernized transitioning to 16 CAL FIRE Hawk helicopters and adding seven c one thirty h air tankers for a total of 72 aircraft. These platforms are more advanced and capable, but also require more intensive and frequent maintenance across complex systems, including avionics, electrical, communications, and suppressant delivery systems. Maintenance staffing has scaled accordingly from 90 maintainers in 2015 to 2020 to a 152 by 2024, a 171 in 2026, and a 191 proposed under this contract.
This reflects increases aligned with a larger, more complex fleet and year round operations. Maintenance has also shifted from a five day a week model to a seven day model, though staffing remains lean compared to our federal counterparts. Pilot staffing has grown from a 108 pilots in 2024 to a 163 under the proposed contract in response to year round fire activity and increased mission demands, including support for our c one thirty air tankers. Sustaining these operations require a larger, highly trained pilot workforce developed through a rigorous training pipeline and specialization. These positions align the program with FAA part one thirty five requirements, expands the support pilot corps for transport of personnel and supplies, and enables dual shift operations and strengthens relief capacity to address absences and attrition.
At the same time, we are competing in a tight labor market. Industry labor pressures have driven contractor negotiated salary increases of approximately 51% for pilots and 20% for mechanics to recruit and retain a qualified workforce. This contract reflects today's reality, a year round mission, a more complex fleet, and the personnel required to safely and effectively meet California's wildfire demands. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity.
Speaker 5
Julian Rolfe, Department of Finance. I'd like to note for the record that this BCP said that, the cost increase would be up to a certain amount, and we'd like to note that the amount stated in the BCP, which is $66,500,000 for the first year, is the the final amount of the contract increase.
Speaker 4
Brian Metzger, LAO. Consistent with the framework we provided to approach environmental issues in the 2627 governor's budget, we find that this proposal addresses important health and safety concerns and merits consideration for budget year funding. Absent this funding, CAL FIRE would not be able to fully use its air tanker and command center aircraft to respond to wildfires. And without those aircraft, more communities and residents would be at risk. And therefore, we recommend approval of this proposal.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. My, first question is the whole issue of recruiting and trying to make sure that we we have, you know, adequate mechanics, to be able to do this. Are all what percentage of these mechanics are in house mechanics, and what percentage do you contract out for mechanics to help in terms of maintenance?
Speaker 11
Mechanics, specifically, all the mechanics within the CAL FIRE's aviation program are provided through this contract.
Speaker 1
Okay. When you said provided through this contract, they're all contract employees.
Speaker 11
Correct. And pilots? For the fixed wing pilots, they are also provided through the contractor. The rotor wing, the the Firehawk helicopter pilots are Cal Fire employees.
Speaker 1
Okay. And the how many contractors are out there providing mechanics and providing pilots?
Speaker 11
So when when, specific to your question, anybody can bid on the contract, the personnel that we're talking about would transition to the new contracts or they they're they're not replaced. And so, there's a number of folks that have expressed interest. This last cycle, there was two that put in for the bid for the contract.
Speaker 1
Anything that we could be doing to try to increase the competition in terms of these contracts? I know we have a shortage of mechanics across the country in terms of auto dealerships and and and everything else. My concern is five years from now, these costs are gonna run even faster ahead of us, as we move forward. And I don't imagine that AI is going to be something we're going to be relying on to do the mechanical work on these aircraft for quite some time. Any thoughts about where to go to protect us from five years from now real serious inflation in terms of labor cost?
Speaker 11
Yeah. In terms of the the folks or the the entities available to provide services, I believe one thing we can do is, start earlier and allow the that our our request, our RFP process to be distributed for a longer period of time. I do not believe we're in any critical threat or endangerment of somebody not bidding on that contract. It's more or less them understanding what the components of the contract are. So we had, three this last time that were highly interested.
One did not make the timeline, and then the other two obviously, did comply. I know of five that had interest at the beginning.
Speaker 11
That's on my side, sir, being able to prepare and have that contracted written and and and put out early where it get has enough time to answer questions for the vent the suppliers that wanna put in for it.
Speaker 1
Moving? Alright. Great. Thank you. Appreciate you identifying that.
The I I've seen firsthand how effective this is at knocking down those small fires when they first start and anticipate we're going to have this become a bigger and bigger problem in terms of trying to stay on top of those. What do you see five years from now or ten years from now? Any new technologies that can help us go after these early outbreaks and try to keep these things down to less than 10 acres?
Speaker 11
Yes, sir. I do think technology can assist with us. One, which is the early detection of the fires. We're we're seeing successes with the alert camera system, let alone the the satellites that are coming out in 2028. I I suspect that we're gonna see a higher percentage increase than we see today on identifying those fires at time of start and then putting resources on the road.
Technology and unmanned aerial systems is also we're looking at things in there that we can use to not only improve the initial suppression of fires, but also support them logistically to a higher capacity than what we are able to through manned systems.
Speaker 1
And how about the the technologist, for lack of a better word, that we need on board to be able to man and support those new technologies? Challenges finding those people, or are we and do you feel comfortable in terms of the supply chain of of workers that could handle that?
Speaker 11
Honestly, a challenge to find those peoples, and some of this contract does address the ability for us continue with emerging technology in aviation as well as, increased modifications to the aircraft to bring them into the the new technologies that are available now. So this contract already accounts for that. I do not suspect any challenges in obtaining those people or meet meeting those needs.
Speaker 1
So this this is a issue that's important to me in terms of trying to have us get ahead in terms of all the things we need to do prevention wise. California's at a real tipping point. We're at a real crisis in terms of our home insurance, and we have a real responsibility to try to be as proactive as we can, whether it's home hardening in terms of making sure our water systems are providing, not not prematurely one running out of water, but also how quickly we can make sure we stop the spot fires before they become large. And so look forward to each year trying to have more conversations if we're fortunate enough to continue to be here and and have those conversations with you. So thank you.
Members, any other questions on this item? It's item eight. Welcome assembly member Ransom. Welcome assembly member Conley. Right?
Alrighty. Staff, you got what you need? Good. Alright. We're gonna go to item one.
And we really appreciate that assembly member Ransom was able to make it. And, it's a non presentation items. There we go. She took off with her piece, like like all of us do. Okay.
This is the, golden mussel containment, part of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. We've had this, recent increase, in the threat from the golden mussel, and assembly member Ransom has joined us as in her role on as as a chair of the committee on emergencies. And so appreciate you being here. We will our pattern here is to hear from the agency, hear from Department of Finance, hear from LAO, and then we dive in for questions after that. And we'll let you take the lead on that.
Alright. And so go ahead, whoever is ready to begin from the agency.
Speaker 14
Good morning, chair members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Megan Hertel. I'm the new director of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I thank have our you so much. Hopefully, I'm using the microphone right.
Pass?
Speaker 14
Look at that. Two months in, and I've already got the microphone nailed. I've got the deputy director Chad Dibble here. He's gonna be giving the content detail on golden muscles, and you'll see the handout in front of you. We think a picture is worth a thousand words.
So there's some really helpful images in there that can help you see what this looks like in the water and how this is impacting people, and I will now pass it over to our deputy director.
Speaker 15
Morning, chair members. I'm Chad Dibble, deputy director for the wildlife and fisheries division at Department of Fish Wildlife.
Speaker 1
Better? Yeah. That's better. So you you guys don't wanna set it to the side and bend it over, but I'll let you do it.
Speaker 15
I'll start over again. I'm Chad Dibble, deputy director for the wildlife and fisheries division at the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Thank you for having me this morning. You had some specific questions. Would you like to dive right into those, or did you wanna have a little bit of an overview of where we are with golden mussel
Speaker 1
before get into that? Give us an overview. Not not a long overview, but an overview before we
Speaker 15
dive into the question. So just a reminder, golden mussel was first detected at the Port Of Stockton in October 2024. This discovery was the first known occurrence in The United States or in North America. Excuse me. Golden mussels are native to China and Southeast Asia, but they have invaded waters of other countries and territories and are now in The US.
Unlike quagga and zebra mussel, the golden mussel can tolerate brackish water and low calcium levels, which basically means we have a lot more vulnerable waters in the state than we do with quagga and zebra. Golden mussel adults attach to surfaces, and their larvae is suspended in the water column, which allows them to be transported through flow or conveyance systems or what have you. So, again, very fluid in the system. Gold Mussel is currently present throughout the delta, the state and federal water projects, and the water supply systems that receive water from the delta. To date, we have found no detections outside of any water body, that does not receive water from the delta.
Golden muscle threatens the reliability of the state's water supply, our beneficial uses, and the environment. Infrastructure that is located within infested waters requires costly retrofitting and or ongoing removal of the organisms to maintain operations of gates, screens, hydroelectric hydroelectric facilities, and flood control structures. To give you a little bit about where we are. So following the detection of golden muscle, the department pulled together what we call the golden muscle Task Force. This is a group of, representatives from state, federal, and local agencies.
It also includes several subcommittees, one of those being subcommittee for our partners, and that is where we, allow cities, counties, reservoir managers, and their recreational, operators or water districts to meet with us and discuss and have sort of a forum for them to discuss what's going on with Golden Muscle and work through. The Golden Muscle task force developed what we call the Golden Muscle Response Framework, which was to provide recommendations to all of you, many of our policymakers, our managers, and the public on how to respond to golden muscle detections throughout a common framework across agencies and jurisdictions. So that's really what's led our effort to date of Golden Muscle and how we're coordinating amongst state and federal agencies and our partners. Today, we continue to work within our existing capacity to delineate Golden Muscle infections or infestations across the state, prevent the overland spread, and to mitigate impacts. So this includes working with our water managers to prepare control plans, maintaining the invest invasive muscle toolkit that we have online that provides lots of public outreach and educational materials for folks to use and distribute, presenting to groups about, golden muscle.
We've done state presentations, national presentations, international presentations, local presentations. We're working with a lot of folks to get the word out and talk about preventive measures and what people are doing. We also continue to assist with water managers or reservoir operators, we like to call them, about mussel introductions, and this includes sort of education and training on preinspection of vessels and conveyance systems that might be used for equipment or other ways that mussels could spread. Digging into your questions, reminder, this proposal is for eight positions are funded by the $20,000,000 the department received this year through prop four. So your first question was how will positions requested work together?
These eight positions will work with water managers of infested and non infested waters to prepare control plans, which are required. This will help to prevent overland spread and the spread of downstream water flow from, you know, moving these invasive move mussels around. These positions will also help us to provide a new capacity to really expand a statewide education and outreach campaign so that we can do more, than we're doing now to educate the public on what they should be doing, to prevent, and contain golden mussels. And then mostly, I think the most important part is that it will support our continued efforts in the golden mussel task Force, and this is primarily in three areas of monitoring, research, and our partners' efforts. In the monitoring space, this allow us to expand greatly expand the amount of waters we're able to test now across the state.
I think we'll be up to about a 162 water bodies this year that we will be able to test. In the research space, it'll allow us to continue to coordinate with DWR, academic institutions, private sector, internally, and all to work on things like everyone's interested, which is eDNA testing, allow us to do more, villager viability studies, villager morphology, understand what's really happening with these vessel with these, muscles. It it'll it's working on research to evaluate which type of coatings or UV light systems or things that that you could add or or modify through your, infrastructure to help ensure that you can, these muscles won't attach. We're also looking at exposure times, for these muscles with heated water temperatures, and we're looking at, other ways and tools that we might be able to manage muscles throughout the system. So it's really allowing us to build that capacity and maintain our ability to participate with folks to to really look into what we can do.
In the partner space, we've created other subgroups, and we're continuing to work with the subgroups we have, which includes our local water districts and agencies and others that are affected by muscle infestations. And then lastly, it allows us to coordinate with our law enforcement division. The positions proposed here do not include officers, but it does, allow from the 20,000,000 that we received. There is, funding there to support overtime for our current officers. That 20,000,000 will also be, used to purchase a couple of new k nine officers and train some of our existing officers to be able to do to have better scent detection dogs for golden muscle.
Our wildlife officers are heavily involved in golden muscle efforts, and to date, they've made up more than 4,000 contacts on educational contacts with boaters across the state. Second part of that question was how does the department expect the boating inspection process to to operate? So part of the, changes to 23 efficient game code twenty three zero one and twenty three zero two requires us to update title 14 for consistency. During that update, we are planning to expand on the regulations to address overland movement and foul conveyances or or vessels. And we plan to establish a process in that that would allow us to vet qualified private businesses that inspect and decontaminate conveyances.
So our hope is that we can create a process that allows us to authorize individual businesses, third parties, if you will, to be able to, inspect and decontaminate vessels, which will help in the boating space. So it's not just related to the the reservoir that you wanna be at. We've been working hard to establish a date a statewide boat inspection program, which will, you know, we'll try to pilot here and work through. We're having those meetings now with, with water managers and and agencies across the state to try and figure out how best that could be implemented. The hope is to improve the consistency amongst reservoir prevention efforts so that the boaters have a more simpler process and an understandable process about how they can access one water water body or another.
We are now a part of the, administrative users of what we call the watercraft inspection database. This is a national database used across 28 states in the in the Western US, and it tracks the last known, use date and location of the water vessel or the watercraft that was of where it was. So when it comes to your water body, there's system that you can be logged into, and you can understand where that boat has been, whether it was clean, whether it decontaminated, etcetera, etcetera, and help provide a little bit more helpful information to the person who's deciding whether that water body or that watercraft should enter their water body. We've trained our staff to be trainers. We're working with folks to work through that, and we're hosting hand on training, sessions this spring for agency water managers and marinas, boat shops, etcetera, to understand better how they can have preventative measures in place at their, reservoirs and their water bodies.
Next question you had was how are these positions supported by
Speaker 1
Before you go to the next question. How many personnel did you have doing these things before this allocation, and who who is doing this?
Speaker 15
We we it's hard to I can't give you an exact number. What we did prior to this, when this was an emergency action and we took this in 2024, we essentially redirected our staff. We did have existing staff working on Quagga and Zebra, and there's many similarities to the efforts that are going on now. But we turned and basically redirected a lot of our staff to put them to this attention. We have not had a lot of ability to do these types of things.
We're utilizing the prop four funds we have now to really be able to expand into these arenas, recognizing the issues that are coming up for our boating communities, for for water supply communities, etcetera. So we haven't had a whole lot of staff. We've probably been on the order of about the same as where we are with staff that are doing Quagga Zebra work, and that is funded through a federal grant primarily through a federal grant with the state, fish restoration act boating access funds.
Speaker 14
We'd be happy to follow-up with your office and give you that information.
Speaker 8
Manisha Kapasuela, Department of Finance. They're currently, as of the current year, 18 authorized positions for the quagga and zebra mussel program.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Great. And we'll we'll need to be fairly efficient in your answers to questions two, three, and four, please.
Speaker 15
We we can move on. So we think all of these efforts will support the Delta community. They're gonna learn from the research and the water managers that are in that space. They're gonna be able to take that and utilize it to their specific operations that they need. We think that, the voluntary boat inspections will help the Del The Delta community and recreational boating happening.
We think all of these things together will help keep that understanding that the Delta The Delta is a place, and supporting the ongoing economic benefits there. So we're we're really hopeful that all of this will be beneficial to The Delta and their communities. Question three was, dealing with positions to support water managers. Again, as mentioned, these positions specifically will be working directly with water managers to develop their water control plans. That that is something that is absolutely needed.
It's an it's part of the process, and it's it's really what the staff will be dedicated to do. And, also, again, they'll be following up with the research that we're doing and participating in that. Water managers are engaged now. We're happy to continue to engage with them, authorizing them through permits or things that they need or just the research that we're able to do and the information we have that helps their research to understand how to better manage their water systems. The last question you had was dealing with, grants, and I'd just tell you that there is no, the prop four funds we have right now are not, planned to have grants.
There's they're not eligible for grants. Last year, the department did, on an emergency action, redirect, Sport Fish Restoration Act funds, boating access funds, specifically. We ran a proposal, a solicitation out. We awarded $1,300,000 to support decontamination units, high pressure water stations, and improvements to boat ramps really in the boating space because they are boating access funds. So we are working with water managers to ensure that they could try and stay open for boating access.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Before I go to members' questions, we've asked for an itemized itemized breakdown of these of the $20,000,000. Staff's asked for that. When when can we expect to get that itemized breakdown of how the $20,000,000 is going to be spent?
Speaker 14
Like to invite our director of finance to come up and answer that question.
Speaker 12
There we go. Morning, sir. Dan Reagan, deputy director of fiscal service division for department. We can have that for you today.
Speaker 1
Cool. That's prompt. Alright. We'll take it. Alrighty.
Okay. Department of finance.
Speaker 5
LAO? Sonia Pettig, LAO. No no real comments. We think this proposal makes sense. And as the department, noted, a lot of this work is already being done, but it's being done with redirected positions.
Speaker 19
So the request for these additional positions will allow them allow those people to go back to what they should be doing and allow these new positions to handle this urgent work
Speaker 1
What what has happened with the quagga muscles and the those things while these people have been redirected?
Speaker 15
As I mentioned, a lot of that is very similar work, so we're adding additional capacity to the folks that are in the field, maybe an additional stamping sample collection for gold mussel with the quagga efforts that have been going on. But we've been studying that for quite some time, so we're able to take a little bit of a of a slowdown in that workload repressing on gold mussel instead. But largely, it's a it's a combination of things
Speaker 1
and adding on to their workload of of the water bodies they're already sampling. Has the quagga ation significantly changed? No. Okay. So we've stated about the same level of quagga infestation?
Speaker 15
Containing it, which is why it's so important for us to be up in front of golden muscle and and recognizing that it's in the delta now, and we wanna try to contain it as much as possible.
Speaker 1
Great. Assembly member Ranson, if you don't mind, I'm gonna ask these three quick questions because I think I'm I'm I'm on a roll here. Guess. And and that is, how do they fight it in China? How do they fight it in Asia?
Speaker 15
I don't know that. We do not we're not aware of any solutions to this issue of treatments and things that are manageable at this point. Others the so we're still working through that. That's the research we're trying to figure out. It's a invasive species that has not been able to be handled.
Speaker 1
The one thing I would add is when a species is native somewhere, it often has other native predators or controls that keep in check. And then when it comes to a new novel environment where it doesn't have those same things to keep it in check, that is when it becomes invasive and becomes out of control. I'm not an expert on, China's situation on this, so just to clarify. But in general, you know, where something is from, it's usually a little bit more balanced.
I I I would hope that by next year when you guys come here, you can give us the answer to that question because it seems to make common sense for us to at least try to understand what's happening in the place in the world where this is most dominant in terms of that. Are are all the lakes infested? Have they just thrown their hands up and given up? And they just deal with unclogging their valves and, you know, the expense that's involved or or something else. But I appreciate if we could do that.
Is it your perception that once the the gold mussels in a body of water, you've lost that body of water?
Speaker 15
I wouldn't say lost. I think you're going to have some significant cost to maintain any infrastructure that might be in there. The water body for the purposes it was created, it's still reasonably there.
Speaker 1
No. I I I don't mean you've lost a body of water, but you've lost about you you're not going to you're not going to eradicate eradicate the gold mussel from that body
Speaker 15
of water. Understanding right now, it will be very difficult. You are pretty much going to be in a maintenance mode.
Speaker 1
And so realistically, are there any other places in the world? I mean, certainly, if if it was happening in in China, gold mussels probably shown up other places, Africa or Europe or someplace. Has anybody come up with a program that has realistically been able to stop the spread of the gold mussels since it seems to be We will
Speaker 15
look into that and get back to you on what progress has been made, but there's there's lots of research still going on here in the state. Not all water bodies are created the same same with other countries, and so we'd really need to understand that. But part of the the research teams that are working on this are looking into that. I I would I don't have the answer for you today, but our teams are working together with the universities to figure that out and understand what's happening globally and how that could apply to California.
Speaker 1
The final thing I would like to leave you with, I'm trying to identify what is the realistic goal for us in California. So realistic goal that we're able to confine it to where it is now, which is the delta and bodies of water that are linked to the delta or 50% of the of of the water bodies outside of the delta we can protect? What's the realistic goal, that we have? If if if that realistic goal is is we're going to lose, the question just is how fast are we going to lose? That's a different kind of investment, than if we really can do that.
But we really need to see some evidence about that. So that'd be really helpful for us to have that information.
Speaker 14
Chair, that's incredibly helpful. And I think that's a really useful question to be asking. The most effective thing we can do is prevent the spread of it. Right? And so if we can keep it contained to where it's at and keep it from getting into bodies of water that are not connected to the delta Right.
That will save us significant costs and management going forward. And so that's why you see a lot of focus right now on education, containment, cleaning of vessels. But we will follow-up with you from some additional context.
Speaker 1
Question is how realistic is that to keep it from spreading? Assembly member Ransom. Yeah.
Speaker 20
So first of all, I wanna thank the department for being here. Congratulations on your new position. Really awkward timing. Right? This this new invasive species is very concerning for the community.
So my community includes the San Joaquin Delta, and it's been ground zero for the golden mustel invasion and infestation. And so we're seeing the impacts very firsthand. The delta is a critical lifeline not only for, you know, boating and ports and recreation, but also for agriculture, providing nearly $30,000,000 or 30,000,000 residents, I should say, and more than 6,000,000 acres of farmland with water. And so it's definitely under threat, as you have already talked about. And so you've all seen I thank you very much.
I agree with you. Pitcher is worth a thousand words. For those of you who have not seen, there was a packet that was sent. This is, you know, what golden muscles look like, and it's definitely not. It's nothing exciting about this when it takes over.
And so we know that this is a oh, okay. We know that, right now is a spawning season. So we're really concerned that we need to act right now, with the golden mussels. And the fact that the dollars that have been allocated thus far are not getting to people on the ground is very concerning. I just wanna be clear that, like, $20,000,000 is barely a scratch in the surface to what is necessary.
It's barely a starting point, and it's very insufficient to meet the scale of the challenge, especially knowing that this thing is very resilient in comparison to other things. And so without sustained investment in, eradicating the golden mussels, California families bear the cost through higher water rates. Just wanna share another thing. This is an intake pack pipe valve. This is infestation because it gets inside and it completely takes over.
And so I know you all are are very aware of this situation happening, but we are really, really needing to stave off a crisis. And so I'm really concerned. The urgency cannot be overstated when it comes to this. And so as I I'm listening to what your request is, I definitely I know you have a hard job. I know you have the quagga muscles and the zebra muscles, but I really would love to know more details about all of these positions because what we don't want is we know everyone that has runs a department.
We've run departments. We we love budgets. We love poor staffing. But how does this actually help the people on the ground? I just heard you say that there's no grants.
Speaker 32
Well, the people that are in these different water departments, these managers, need funding to deal with the invasive species that they've never dealt with before. They need decontamination immediately. So to have all of the funding go to a department to do research research which is necessary, at the same time, we also need to do the work to start, you know, eliminating and decontaminating. And so I wanna make sure that we stand up funding that will empower the people on the ground to start, you know, scaling you know, pushing back on these golden muscles. So no funding, you know, grants to the folks on the ground is very concerning.
Speaker 20
Not having details on, like, how a marking marketing specialist is going to help, analyst is going to help. I I really am concerned that there are really a list of positions but not enough detail into how this these positions are so much different than quagga and zebra mussel. You know, I can understand if you said, hey. We wanna add a couple of positions. And then speaking with water managers, they don't really they're not excited about canine dogs.
They don't feel like the dogs do the same type of work that the humans are able to do. You I'm I'm sure we all have different opinions. Right? But I'm just sharing what I've learned from folks in the community that are very concerned. Chair, you you asked about the what China's doing.
I can tell you that they spend $4,000,000,000 annually on operations and maintenance to mitigate the cost, and and that's happening throughout the different areas. And so I just don't wanna, you know, send funding to a department, which I respect, and and we can't do this without you. And I know that we can't do it without you, but we have to consider the people on the ground. If you speak to the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California, they're estimating that it's gonna cost $100,000,000 upfront just for treatment facilities and chemical costs. Additionally, they're estimating 15 to 20,000,000 per year ongoing operations.
They're also a department, so I get it. Right? But we do need to figure out how we can do the research, but not just spend all the money on I heard research, you know, that's very big. I heard education is very big. But while we're researching and educating, the golden muscles are spawning and growing.
And so we have to figure out how do
Speaker 20
prioritize containment? How do we prioritize decontamination? And so those are kind of the things that I wanna talk about. So I do have a couple of questions. I know you're like, where is this lady going with this?
I do have some questions, but that's okay. Thank you, So when we are talking about the funding, when it comes to the Delta, should we be considering using the funding for decontem have you considered, I should say, using some of this funding for decontamination sites? We've estimated that it's at least $1,500,000 to per site for the five sites that are pretty much fighting this right now in the Delta. So have you thought about or looked at ways to get something to give relief to those that region?
Speaker 15
We have thought about that. Actually, part of our conversations with water managers in developing the regulation changes that we're that we're talking about is giving us the authority to authorize people to have decontamination sites. So third party businesses, vendors, people that could actually make a business out of this to some extent could offer those services. We've also looked into, other locations of where you might be able to strategically place different, decontamination sites, Whether those are state run or privately run or some other way, county run, is a is a conversation yet to be had about the expenses and the cost and how that would be initially set up. We have also been working with a a company that, develops what they call dip tanks, and those can be put on-site and removed.
I think you've seen those. Those are just a giant I I'll call it a giant hot tub for for watercraft, where you back it in. It's hot water. Instead of doing the system that you have to do where you're putting hot water into the boats and checking all the things, You basically just dip the whole trailer and boat into the water. So we've had lots of conversations around that and ways to work through that.
We recognize the impacts that the delta has, and that's a big portion of what we're trying to do. And so when we talk about these staff that we have, they're focused on, first and foremost, working through what the law mandates, which is the water managers need to have these control plants, which are on that side of helping out waters water structures and and, supply, all the things that you mentioned in the pictures you've shown. We're working through that to help with those managers develop those plans to help them understand what they can do in that space. The second space that we talked about is in your recreational piece that you're talking about. We've been working with those partners.
Part of that is education. Creating a statewide system is part of that process to where we can help educate each of these individuals that operate these marinas, operate these reservoirs, operate these, watercraft inspection station or watercraft stations, to have the education that they need to be able to safely deploy these techniques and tools that we're learning and we have to ensure that boaters have access, marinas stay open, people can safely travel their boat from one location to another.
Speaker 20
Okay. So with that being said, if we're we're thinking about these things, why is that not part of the funding? Like, why are we not enumerating we want the stations and how much those are gonna cost. And why are we not immediately deploying these things to these areas if we think that that is a solution? I I I know that this body would move with haste if we say, you know and and I'm just saying with urgency because this started in the Delta.
We talked about this, I wanna say, last October. Now it's all the way down south. And so while the Delta is the epicenter, we I appreciate that you're talking about dip stations, but I wanna know how do we go from, you know, talking about staffing to actually setting up these here's the dollars that we're requesting. We're going to put this many dip stations in, and we're gonna send our people out to educate the people on how to use them so that we can start to deal with the actual issue. I I hope I'm making sense, and I hope I'm not offensive.
But I I just when you're saying you're thinking about this, have you how many dollars would it cost for each dip station, and how long would it take you to set this up?
Speaker 15
We have done some research on that. We have the dollars. We've been working with the companies to figure that out. The department doesn't have the ability to determine which locations it would be and what those costs would be on on capital outlay, if it's state land, if it's private land, leasing it, how that would play out. So we're having those conversations with the parties that might be interested, but the department doesn't have the ability to to to take that on, if you will, without significant support from finance and and through the other avenues of the the the state.
Speaker 20
Okay. And based on your budget, ask, are you expecting that each individual water manager is going to fund even if there's a private authorized private contractor? So each this is a statewide issue. Right? But we're gonna ask San Joaquin Counties and, you know, Los Angeles County, each water manager, we're gonna authorize them, but then they have to go find the dollars even though that you all aren't able to give them grants.
Do they have to go find their own funding even if you are setting up the ability for them to hire contractors to do this work, private entities to do this work?
Speaker 15
Currently, the expectation is that the water body reservoir operator manager would have to fund that unless there's additional funds, which is why last year, we redirected emergency funds to go help them in that space to create the decontamination units and the things that they could they could try and buy to help ease that that burden on them to ensure that voting access stays open. You have you have a a mix across the state of folks that are paying attention or able to respond to golden muscle. We have multiple water bodies in the state that literally have nobody, no person sitting at the entrance to it. We have other folks that have completely shut down their reservoirs and opera and and water bodies, and we have others that have found some sort of a mix to have some kind of a some type of a containment process, inspection process, decontamination process. So we really have a mix out there of of the ability of folks to do this.
And so our job as a department has been to educate them and help them understand what the national standards are, what the processes are that are happening across the West with, dealing with quagga and zebra and other species, are very similar in this space, and ensure that that those protocols can be used and folks can open their water bodies safely. But largely, it is dependent on those reservoir operators who have the control to decide to be open or not at this point, to figure out how to financially staff that.
Speaker 1
And And it is I'm I'm gonna ask staff to try to be more efficient in their answers because we are Okay. We this is a $20,000,000 item. We have a couple billion dollars worth of wildfire items that we still have to get done before, 12:30. That will be equally efficient. Efficient, Jared.
Speaker 14
What's the question? Chair Karek, can I do one efficient response on this?
Speaker 14
Assembly member, your questions are very fair. And it's always the question of do you put the dollars on the ground in implementation, or do you invest in staff that can try to work across a broader landscape? Because this is such a small amount of money, we prioritize staff that could support more water managers on the ground versus putting a few limited things in place on the ground. It is a difficult discussion in that trade off.
Speaker 20
Okay. Thank you for that answer. So with the staff positions, how will the funds reduce the time in getting the permitting approvals so that the efforts can move forward?
Speaker 15
Efficient. These staff will be dedicated to supporting those efforts right now, and part of the title 14 regulations we're updating, currently, when you get a water control plan, approved, you are exempt from restricted species and SCP needs for the permitting that you're talking about, at least from the department standpoint. So our efforts to update those, regulations will include that same provision you have now for drosenid mussels. And so, therefore, you will eliminate those needs for the permitting, but you do need to comply with the water control plans.
Speaker 20
Okay. And this is a three year three year request. Right? So after three years, what is your plan, if the local, prevention efforts still require intensive coordination?
Speaker 10
Andrew Hole with Department of Finance. Yeah. This this funding is sort of a three year gap. You know, a b a a b one forty nine expanded the definition, placed requirements on CDFW. This funding would allow them to get through three years, but also included with that, was legislative intent to do kind of a broadening, a look at the harbors and watercraft fund administered by parks as well as an adjustment to the invasive sticker fee.
And so this is funding that they're gonna get them through that period until we can do the broader effort.
Speaker 20
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate you all. I just wanna say I I understand that you need money in your department. I just I really implore you to figure out what we can do, to help the folks on the ground as this thing gets spreading.
And we're in spawning season, we don't even know what to expect. So thank you for your your time.
Speaker 1
Assembly member Rogers and then assembly member Conley and assembly member Rogers, you're gonna have this
Speaker 21
Great. I'll be really brief too. I I draw a little bit of a parallel to some of the efforts in my district around, urchin. Yeah. And one of the things that they have been doing is investing in, emerging economies or finding an economy that works for that species.
Is there any economic potential for the mussels? Because I I I joke, but I'm not joking. If we create an economy of it, I have full faith in the ability for us to make it go extinct.
Speaker 15
I do I'm not aware of any efforts at this time, but that's it's a great question.
Speaker 21
K. That's something that I'd be interested in is if there are potential there because I know that there's a cost side to keeping the muscles clear, especially on critical infrastructure. But if there's some form of economy that can be created that incentivizes folks to help us with that effort, I think that that'd be really beneficial to the state.
Speaker 14
Part of what we are looking at is what economy and businesses and jobs can be stood up around, cleaning of vessels and supporting, waterways to be able to be prepared to take those vessels.
Speaker 3
Thank you. My questions really kind of were in parallel to the assembly members. So just to reiterate, and no need to answer further at this point, but why is the money not going directly to locals who are dealing with the issue on the ground? Really getting more information on how the positions will interact and collaborate with local managers and our locals in general. Is there funding available to assist water managers directly?
If yes, what is available? So I think we got some answers to that, and it sounds like there'll be follow-up discussions. While I have you, though, I wanted to ask a non Golden Muscle containment question, and that is I sent a letter last month about extending the liquidation date contract with Occidental Arts and Ecology Center for their work to develop and steward a $2,000,000 block grant to implement a program that builds California's capacity for a successful beaver coexistence. Do you have an update about extending the liquidation
Speaker 8
Good morning. Manish Kapaswala, Department of Finance. Finance is aware of and tracking this issue, and any changes that are made to the budget would appear at the time of the May revision.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other member questions, comments? I'd like to just summarize where we are, and that is I think you've heard from legislators, senate member Ranson and and others in particular, that they're questioning how much should we put this into these positions and how much should we put this into specific programs that are out there. And so I think that remains for us a question, and so we really appreciate, number one, getting the answer from your Department of Finance head that we'll have the itemized breakdown that that will help us. For the benefit of of everybody, I'd like to just give the overview in terms of how I I I see this, and that is we have a crisis with the golden muscle that's come in.
We reassigned staff that was working on the quagga. I would hope that we've that that Quagga team does not necessarily have to be as large forever that that it is, you know, right now. You know, hopefully, would get the education done and and be able to have some of those people transition into the golden muscle team. Maybe we don't need as many positions, therefore, in the golden muscle program. So I'd like the Department of Finance to continue to to look at that.
But I I I want to caution us on the other side, which is every water body would like us to fund their gold muscle sort of containment efforts. And yet no water body wants us to tell them make the major decisions for them about their water body. For example, are you going to have recreation or you're not going to have rec if you wanna have recreation boating, you are putting your water body at a lot more risk. And therefore, those people dependent upon that water body for water potentially have a lot higher expenses. Are the benefits of the recreation, enough to off to justify that risk?
Should the state be funding if you decide that you want to have recreational boating on your particular water body, should the state be funding the golden muscle issue, or should the people taking advantage of that recreation be paying for the actual, that? We're we're certainly going to hear from the water bodies that they they want that. So I I it is not an easy as you identified, it's not easy, particularly when you have almost an unlimited demand from water bodies for, this help. So, specifically though, you're sort of trying to say, we wanna stay away from the actual investments in, you know, dipping tanks and, you know, these other things at at least at this point in time because you don't know how much bang for the buck you get. And if you do it in two or three places, but you you don't do it statewide, etcetera.
So the answer I'm hearing from you is that you have you think you can have more leverage with personnel who can then leverage these water bodies to maybe coordinate their investments or coordinate the rules or get grants, etcetera. Canine dogs seem like they're a specific thing. Why is that investment an investment you are making when you're not making these investments and these other things? Can you help us with that? And if you can't do it in sixty seconds, I'd like to take it offline and have this conversation go offline.
I'd like to take
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. That's fine because we we we need to move on. So I was trying to do a summary and and ask that if
Speaker 1
Alright. Thanks. Alrighty. So we will now go on to what's that? Elio already weighed in that she had nothing to weigh in about.
Right? Yes. She was our most efficient spokesperson today. Right? Okay.
On on this issue, at least. Thank you very much. And we're going to move on to wildfire prevention and response and overview, and this is coming from the LAO's office. And I want to emphasize, LAO alone is doing this presentation, and then we will have CAL FIRE representatives up for more specific questions about this. So the member Ranson, thank you very much, and let's stay in touch.
Alrighty?
Speaker 1
Yes. You we have the benefit of, having staff plagiarized most of your report and put it in staff's report also. So we have had the benefit of reading your report potentially twice. Okay. So let's go ahead and get into a quick summary of your report so that we have questions.
Right?
Speaker 4
Sounds great. Good morning again, chair Bennett and members of the subcommittee. Brian Metzger with the legislative analyst office. Our office was asked to provide a brief overview of state wildfire prevention and response funding, to help set a baseline for the subcommittee's consideration of other topics on today's agenda. And in preparation for this hearing, our office prepared a handout that we will use to guide our remarks today, and you should have received a copy of that ahead of the hearing.
On page one of our handout, we felt it was important to acknowledge the different levels of government that are responsible for wildfire prevention and response activities in the state. In each of these responsibility areas, one or more entities lead the administration and funding of these activities. Who leads the administration and funding of these activities can be important as it informs where and how the state uses its funding for wildfire prevention and response. Most of this is self explanatory. I'll be very quick about it.
You know, first, we have the federal responsibility area, the federal forest service, and the the newly created wildland fire service are the lead entities in that area. Second, the state responsibility area where CAL FIRE is the lead state entity. And third, the local responsibility area where we have local city and county fire departments and fire protection districts that lead those efforts. It's important to say that while each one has its own responsibility within that area, they coordinate across them for things particularly during wildfire response activities. On page two of the handout, we describe the increase in state funding for wildfire resilience activities over the past several years.
We focus on CAL FIRE, but acknowledge that a significant amount of money has been appropriated to state conservancies and other state departments for these activities. We have a summary figure later in the handout that provides some of that information as well. But on this page, we show that over the past ten fiscal years or so since twenty fifteen, sixteen, the amount of funding for wildfire resilience activities at Cal Fire has increased from about 100,000,000 to about 700,000,000 in 2526. The amount of funding has fluctuated over time. A large amount of that new funding came through wildfire and forest resilience budget packages that were approved in '21 and '22.
And since twenty eighteen, nineteen, about 200,000,000 in greenhouse gas reduction fund monies has been available for use on forest health and wildfire prevention as well as fuels crew cruise research and monitoring. We'll come back to those monies later in our testimony and in the hearing as well. On page three of the handout, we felt it was important for the legislature to have the additional context for the increase in wildfire resilience funding as it still remains a relatively small percentage of CAL FIRE's overall budget, about 10 to 20% over time. The vast majority of CAL FIRE's budget remains dedicated to base fire protection, such as firefighting personnel and equipment, and to emergency fire suppression through the e fund. We acknowledge that it's also difficult to pull apart CAL FIRE's budget into these respective categories, so some of that base fire protection money, may be used for some wildfire resilience activities as well.
On page four of our handout, we provide the summary figure I mentioned, that provides the kind of list of funding categorized for all state departments and conservancies. Just to be clear, this figure does not include prop four funding. That will be on the next page. There are a lot of programs on this page, so I won't go into each of them, but I did wanna highlight just a few. We bucket the greenhouse gas reduction fund monies into two categories.
You'll see the forest health and wildfire prevention category at the top is about 990,000,000, and then there's 210,000,000 for fuels crew, research and monitoring. Later in the agenda, you'll be able to see a further breakdown in the agenda of the, 200,000,000 for GGRF across the different programs. You'll see a lot of funding for the forest health program, fire prevention grants, state conservancy projects, and notably less funding for some of the community hardening projects such as defensible space and home hardening as will be discussed in a later panel on successful wildfire prevention. And as we noted in our framework on how to approach environmental issues in the governor's budget, it will be important for the legislature to revisit that balance and to make sure that the monies are being expended on its highest priorities. On page five, we provide a summary of prop four, the wildfire and forest resilience chapter.
This also will be covered in subsequent items. I won't go into it too much, but wanted to note that there are additional community hardening monies in this chapter that, were not reflected or that that would build on other monies in the previous page. Together with the 3,600,000,000.0 in the previous figure and the roughly 600,000,000 through 2526, that's about 4,200,000,000.0, in total wildfire resilience funding over that period. There are about 300,000,000 in prop four funds that are proposed in 2627, an additional 600,000,000 that remain to be allocated. However, prop four funding is only available over the next several years.
And so for the last page of page of the handout, we wanted to address the issue of ongoing state funding for wildfire resilience efforts. The agenda poses a question about these sources of funding, and it's an important question as there will be a notable decrease in state funding expected over the next several years as a lot of that one time funding is expended. We find just a couple of sources of ongoing state funding. The first and largest is the GGRF. Again, like we said, since twenty eighteen nineteen, there's been 200,000,000 as a fixed allocation for wildfire resilience activities.
Speaker 11
With the adoption of the new cap and invest structure, starting in 2627, the amount of GGRF revenues allocated for these activities may vary depending on the projected revenues for the cap and invest system, and that is because the new structure prioritizes certain activities based on a tier tier structure. So while the new structure maintains an up to 200,000,000 in GGRF, The final amount will depend on revenues, and it will depend on how much money is already allocated to those prioritized projects. And so in the governor's budget, they they project that for 2627 GGRF revenues will only be able to fund a 142,000,000 of the 200,000,000 for wildfire resilience activities. Another source is base funding for CAL FIRE operations. It's tens of millions of dollars that go into resource management and fire prevention operations, and some significant portion of that does help with wildfire resilience activities like defensible space inspections.
Speaker 4
However, we would note that these are resources that are are occurring through the state budget, through the state, you know, budget process that that we're dealing with today. There are other sources of funding that are available for this work, notably utilities that are collecting billions of dollars from ratepayers and are spending some of that, to, you know, fund fire prevention activities related to things like electricity transmission, you know, undergrounding power lines, you know, clearing vegetation. There are also long standing federal grant programs that when a major disaster declaration is declared, allow us to have some funding for wildfire resilience activities as well. But, again, this issue is a very important one. And, with that, I'll conclude my remarks.
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. I'm gonna try to do this efficiently. I know we have a lot that we want to do. I know assembly member Rogers indicated and Connolly.
So we will handle that. Very quickly, the things I'd like to focus on is number one, LAO does a particularly good job of giving us overviews and giving us background information. So I appreciate that. I'm curious as to the capability of LAO to dive in if we ask for identification, a long term ability to dive in because we, from the dais, just have difficulty analyzing how effective is one investment versus another investment. Investment?
Our our contained burns versus forest clearing versus clearing right around a particular community. And our partners at Cal Fire are, I think, doing a, you know, an improved job of trying to get us that data. But LAO plays such a unique role in terms of being able to come in and objectively look. I'm interested in LAO playing that role for us, not in every area, but in this particular area because it's so hard for us to identify. So I'd like you to take that back to the LAO's office and let them know that's something I think it'd be really beneficial if we could turn to LAO and say, what's your analysis of Cal Fire's breakdown in terms of of their spending and stuff.
Right? The second thing is, you know, the ongoing funding that's out there. If it wasn't for prop four, we would really be in trouble in in in a lot of ways. And I think, unfortunately, that's just how we're going to be funding, quite a few of our our environmental programs. And with prop four funding, if you look at it, probably two more years from now, we're pretty close to having we will be close to expanding most of that.
So we have a a dependency on that that I hope CAL FIRE I mean, LAO could help us start to figure out how can we rearrange because there are many people in the legislature, and I've been upfront with CAL FIRE about this, that believe CAL FIRE is an essential function of the state of California. It should be funded by California's general fund. We should be allocating a certain percentage of our general fund to CAL FIRE. And instead, we're trying to take it out of temporary sources like GGRF, etcetera. And that is not a healthy way for us to fund as important of a general function of the state of California as CAL FIRE is.
I recognize that because of climate change, because we passed a tipping point recently, we have made a commitment to scale up our Cal Fire funding. And so temporarily, may be difficult for the for the general fund to have taken on that whole spike. And so we have temporarily dipped into GGRF and prop four. But it should be temporary, and we should gradually shift that back to general fund expenditures for that. So I'd like you also to take back to CALF to LAO that we would really appreciate your an ongoing effort for us to try to help make that shift as we go back.
That's it. I don't have specific questions. I just wanna get those two things said in in, you know, in front of all the stakeholders here and make sure that we're upfront in terms of that. Assembly member Rogers and then Connolly.
Speaker 21
Yeah. Thanks so much, chair. I actually just wanna piggyback on that as well and express my concern that in a couple of years when, the bond funding and some of the other one time investments are gone, the backfill is GGRF, which the work that the legislature did last year deprioritized to a tier three, not a tier one as it had been under the Dodd bill. And I think many of us are expecting that there's going to be very little from GGRF four tier three priorities. And so would hope that we and this is for kinda all of these presentations we're about to do.
Speaker 4
I'd hope that we can have a conversation about how better to fund those critical services. And I think especially right now when you look at draws at the local level in the the LRA, which I know is not what Cal Fire is supposed to do, but is increasingly being asked to participate in. And then also in federal territory, we've seen the US Forest Service just pull back significantly from California, and there'll be an additional poll, I think, on CAL FIRE's resources to try to make up that gap or plug that gap as well. So I I I hope in the next couple of years, we can talk about what that next step is going to be as those funds start to expire because I do think that there's going to be a need and an expectation from our community that we maintain that that effort.
Speaker 3
Yeah. Very similar, and I think both colleagues said it well. Obviously, themes are given the importance of of this block of funding to our communities. The sense is it's very cyclical right now, and it is kind of drawing from different pots of money. I guess a quick couple questions just to get your thoughts.
I mean, there a consistent funding amount that wildfire prevention programs receive or is it gonna continue to just vary by budget cycle? And kind of related, what options could the state explore to secure ongoing stable funding for wildfire prevention activities?
Speaker 4
Yes. Brian Metzger, Elio. That is a very important question. I think based on our, you know, initial analysis of the ongoing state funding that is avail available for these activities with the new cap and invest structure being dependent that that portion that's for wildfire resilience activities being dependent on GGRF revenues, it will continue a continue to fluctuate year to year, and the base CAL FIRE operations funding is limited in what it's able to assist with when it comes to wildfire resilience activities. So in terms of, you know, to your other question about options for potentially raising, you know, ongoing sources of revenue, I mean, there
Speaker 3
Or and or stabilizing. Or stabilizing. So I think we're pushing back kind of on the premise Mhmm. Effectively. But go ahead.
Speaker 4
Yes. Apologies for interrupting. Yeah. There there are some options that present themselves in terms of revisiting the cap and invest structure the way it's currently you know, the the tiers are, you know, structured and maybe potentially thinking about whether the tier three allocation should be the way they are, thinking about potentially securing more fixed ongoing funding through the GGRF in that way. There are potentially, you know, thoughts about reinstating a state responsibility area fee or some other similar fee structure wherein beneficiaries of these fire prevention services are paying for them within the state responsibility area.
We understand from, you know, a policy rationale at least that that would make sense. We have heard that there are some administrative difficulties with that fee as it was previously structured, but there could be something similar that could provide ongoing funding. And then as we've mentioned with our framework for budget decisions, thinking about looking at the current Cal Fire budget as it's constructed and the money that we're putting in and thinking about whether the activities that are being funded could be funded in a different way or be used for wildfire resilience activities in a different, mix than is currently envisioned. Those are kind of three top of mind ideas, but, again, we're certainly happy to bring this back and think about it more.
Speaker 1
I just wanna yeah. Excuse me. Assembly member Cottie Petronoris has to leave. She has some questions for CAL FIRE, and so she'll be sending those to you and asking you to respond. And if you could if you could copy all of us on the questions and you could copy us on the responses, That way, we all have the information.
Thank you very much. Assembly member Gallagher.
Speaker 22
Yes. Thank you. So I I wanna agree with comments that were made, by the chair and the assembly member. One, we should not be funding suppression out of GGRF. You know, that that should be in our general fund.
I've totally disagreed with moving that over. Yeah. One, reducing greenhouse gas and wildfire prevention activities make a whole lot of sense. And you guys have reported, I think, time and time again that the that activity, forestry management, per dollar reduces more carbon than many other activities that we do in the state. Is that correct?
Speaker 4
Unfortunately, I don't have that information today, but I could get back to you.
Speaker 22
It's in your reports, but, you know, so that I mean, to me, you know, we need to get back to a general fund commitment to our men and women at Cal Fire who are doing, you know, that amazing work fighting these fires, which, by the way, we're having to fight these catastrophic fires because we haven't been doing the work on prevention. Right? Which means that should really be the priority, you know, is making sure that we're getting that money up. But in fact, we're actually decreasing that money. Is that correct in this in this year's budget?
Speaker 4
In this year's budget for the GGRF component, yes. We're the the $1.42 is less than the 200 that has previously been allocated.
Speaker 22
And can I think maybe the peak was 2021 when we, I think, allocated close to about a billion dollars for wildfire prevention and resiliency activities? Is that right?
Speaker 4
Have to go back to my chart here. Actually, it was more recent than that. It was 2324. But, again, there were significant amounts of wildfire resilience monies that were approved through packages in, as you said, 2021 and 2022. So that may have been the multiyear.
Speaker 22
Yeah. And I think that's just working that's just tracking CalFire's wildfire resilience funding, which is a key part of it, no doubt, but there's other, you know, funding that we put into that. So we we reached about 1,000,000,000. What did we spend last year total on wildfire prevention activities?
Speaker 22
that? I mean, look, I I do know the answer. I just wanted to get it out on the record. It's decreased every year since 2021. And now, you know, as as was brought up by the assembly member, we've deprioritized the prevention funds and put it in the third tier.
Is that correct?
Speaker 22
So they're getting third tier. What's ahead of them? Is high speed rail ahead of them?
Speaker 4
High speed rail is ahead of them. There are a number of other there's state operations money. There's, a pot for legislative discretionary spending, $750,000,000 of which is going towards Cal Fire's GGRF, fund shift. So those are some
Speaker 22
of things And this this legislate that was by SB eight forty, right, authored by Senator Limon and Maguire last year?
Speaker 22
Passed by this legislature. I voted no. I don't think we should have done that deprioritization of wildfire prevention. Now what we have is high speed rail gets greater priority, a billion dollars a year, approximately, out of cap and trade, and we're lowering the amount of money that we're giving to wildfire prevention. Now 147,000,000 compared to 1,000,000,000 for a project that has serious problems.
Speaker 16
Audit after audit has found that money's being wasted, right, and we're not spending it on what should be the most important priority, stopping peep these catastrophic wildfires that these men and women have to fight every year, right, because we're not doing the work that we should and funding the work that we need to do on the prevention side and destroying our communities. And we're losing our community members because we're not making that a priority. It's completely back asswards, and and I'm just tired of it, quite frankly. Like, we need to get back to the right priorities, not deprioritization, but prioritization of wildfire prevention. And I I think that's where this committee's at.
Speaker 22
I hope we can do that work and and and right that wrong, you know, that's that's been going on, but it certainly was made even worse by 08:40 last year.
Speaker 1
Appreciate your comments, and we have issues three, four, and five where we will be touching on these exact same issues again, only we'll have Cal Fire up here with us also. And so if everybody's comfortable, we're gonna move on to issue three. And finally, CAL FIRE, after being here at 09:30, gets to come up here at 11:00. So hopefully, we'll be able to get through these next three items because these this is the meat of what I think we wanted to have these these conversations about. So, you know, the title of issue three is what does successful wildfire prevention and resilience look like?
So I'd like us to focus on what is what is it that Cal Fire believes that looks like? What is it that Cal Fire and Department of Finance think we should be investing in? And then what kind of vision, and what kind of thoughts do we have from a legislative standpoint that we'd like to share with CAL FIRE and the Department of Finance? And so, with that, turn it over to you and let you, start us off. Chief?
Speaker 12
Alright. Thank you, chair Bennett, members of the committee. My name is Joe Tyler. I'm the director and fire chief, here at CAL FIRE. Every day, CAL FIRE along with our partner agencies and grantees focus on fire prevention efforts.
The work begins with helping homeowners maintain defensible space and offering guidance on home hardening. It extends to supporting neighborhood level mitigations, such as fire wise communities and large scale fuel reduction efforts creating fuel breaks in and around communities, conducting prescribed fire, and advancing forest health and landscape level restorations. Together, these actions help prepare communities for wildfire, reduced fire intensity, and strengthen our ecosystem. This is the work that CAL FIRE has been performing, for decades. And while we were internally aware of the work we were doing and the fuels reduction projects that were an effective tool for fire prevention, we really didn't have a system in place that tracked and evaluated the effectiveness of these approaches.
And so that's been important especially for assemblywoman Petrie Norris and this committee to really show and be able to track those efforts. So in the 2024, the department launched the fuels treatment effectiveness program application. It can be found on the public spacing website of CAL FIRE to effectively evaluate the impacts of vegetation management treatment treatments have on fire behavior and a highlight of how fuel reduction activities not only assist prevention efforts, but how they protect life, property, and our natural resources. Now every time a wildfire occurs within a quarter mile of a fuels treatment project, local CAL FIRE unit personnel are notified in order to evaluate any potential impacts the project may have, may have had on on a on a fire, such as reducing fire behavior and assisting in emergency operations. This isn't just our 21 units, but also our six contract counties.
In fact, between 07/01/2024 and 06/30/2025, there were 65 fuel reduction treatments that were documented as having a positive impact with most treatments providing multiple positive impacts. 54 of those projects, reduced damage, 53 assisted in containment, 30 assisted in ingress and egress, and 17 reduced the fire behavior. We provided a chart to you today, and it's posted on your committee website as well, that displays the positive impacts of these 65 treatments. Thanks to the fuels treatment effectiveness program, we can now better measure the effectiveness of the vegetation treatments. As an example, a fuels treatment project on Brome Ranch Road in Ventura County was completed in 2020 and positively impacted the university fire.
It began on 11/14/2024. The project slowed the rate of spread and intensity of the fire and allowed firefighters to use Brome Ranch Road as access to the fire, which they're able to contain that fire with, at approximately 15 acres. We also provided to you a copy of the fuels treatment effectiveness report for that specific incident, which is what we're doing regularly and posting them on the public facing website. It's small incidents like these that demonstrate the how effective fuels treatment can be, and many times, the public never hears about them. The treatment helped the university fires, to keep it small and allow firefighters to engage in direct mobile attack.
We're also able to see how multiple projects impacted larger fire wildfire incidents such as the Park Fire in 2024. More than 429,000 acres burned starting in Chico burning through Butte and Tama County. The damage could have been worse without previous, prescribed fire treatments, But in total, there were 15 treatments that reduced both the fire behavior and reduced damage. Eight treatments on that fire assisted in emergency evacuations and another eight assisted in containment. When the wildfire reached areas that had been targeted by prescribed fire, the reduced fuel slowed the spread, gave firefighters a safe place to work and protect those communities.
I'm proud to say that our fuels treatment effectiveness reports are publicly available as I talked about earlier on our website. Now more than ever, as has already been talked about in previous discussions, we need to be focused on preparing our communities and our natural real landscapes before the next wildfire. So one of the things that you ask is an important to note is how can we be successful and address our wildfire crisis? Well, after the work that we have done and seeing where we are at now, we have to maintain a strong wildfire suppression response. We have to continue vegetation management that includes healthy and resilient forest lands.
We must maintain community level preparedness and parcel level mitigations. This comprehensive all of the above strategy has proven to be an effective approach to mitigate wildfire impacts and enhance community resilience while at the same time recognizing we need to do more, especially after seeing the devastation in January 2025. Defensible space and fortifying homes against wildfire are important actions, but community level and broader landscape scale projects are also critical in protecting the built environment. For example, when you have an actively managed landscape where fuels have been reduced and beneficial fire can be a management tool. Both the heat energy and number of embers produced from wildfire that landscapes, in those landscapes are reduced, and fire won't spread as hot, which is less damaging and easier to contain, creates fewer embers release, meaning fewer embers that make their way into the homes and the communities.
As California's climate continues to undergo transformation, it threatens the way of our life for our citizens. Consequently, we must collectively strive to create a more fire resilient natural landscape and foster a society that is keenly aware of and responsive to the benefits and threats posed by wildfire. Achieving those goals necessitates collaboration between state, local, federal, tribal, and private partners to effectively implement our all of the above strategy to be successful in California. It's important to thank the legislature for your support so far and the continued support that you have. And as a result, California has made continued major investments in mitigation efforts to be crucial in our strategy.
I am happy to answer any questions you have when that time comes. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Department of Finance. Oh, I'm sorry. Patrick with the task force. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chairman. I'm Patrick Wright, director of the governor's wildfire and forest resilience task force. Happy to walk through, prepared a brief set of slides just to give you a little bit of a framework over what's a a very, very challenging topic here. Maybe I can so I could see it. Just to start with, for those of you who, may not be familiar with the task force itself, the most recent version of the task force was launched way back in 2021.
And the major purpose of the task force was to provide oversight of what, at the time, was the nation's first comprehensive plan. Whereas Eliot talked about before, we've got a dozen different state agencies, federal agencies, local agencies. The whole point of the original action plan in 02/2021 was to compile all that in one document so that you and others could get a better handle on the relative roles and responsibilities of all the agencies involved and to and to set a path forward that would then guide the levels of spending that we've had over the last several years. A big big emphasis, as chief Tyler said, is to try to align federal, state, local, private, and tribal organizations that otherwise would be working in silos. The way we're structured reflects that.
We've got an executive committee that has federal, state, local, tribal representatives that's co led, by secretary Crowfoot. Chief Tyler is also on our executive board as our variety of other senior folks. And then we have an interagency team that tries to pull all that together, an advisory council, and various interagency and key stakeholder work groups. Our signature is our quarterly meetings. We rotate between Sacramento and going out into the region.
These meetings have been just a tremendous opportunity for the local folks to have an upfront candid conversation with secretary Crawford, chief Tyler, and the federal agencies on what's working, what's not working, to showcase their projects, to to basically challenge us to align better, to help them get where they need to be. We had a meeting just last month in Jamestown. We had 850 people registered for a meeting that had no action items. So it's a real testament to the level of interest and enthusiasm there is for folks to work together and align ourselves to try to tackle this problem. We have accomplished a lot.
I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this, but it's important to note that we have collectively invested billions of dollars since since 2021. We've treated collectively more than 700,000 acres annually with a huge in key increase in particular in prescribed fire, largely to the leadership of of chief Tyler and Cal Fire, really stepped up in that way. We've streamlined processes. You're familiar with the governor's last year emergency proclamation that provides now a one stop shop for permitting that otherwise would have taken more than a year is now thirty days or less in most cases. Certainly hope to extend that.
The Department of Conservation has a very large sizable regional fire enforced capacity program in which is we're building capacity throughout the state to allow local and regional groups to better tackle the specific issues in their area. We have a number of interagency work groups on a lot of different topics to make sure the agencies are aligning their assistance programs in particular. And then we have a whole series of new apps and new dashboards, in particular, interagency tracking system that will show you where literally all the projects have taken place for the last several years, federal, state, local, state parks, Cal Fire, Forest Service. You can see it all on our dashboard. So we've accomplished a lot, but we've got a long way to go.
We tend to organize our work into three different buckets. One is community protection, landscape protection, and then a framework for regional action. As you can see, all of these, of course, are overlapping. As every day goes by, regional and local groups are doing a better job of integrating their work, particularly integrating landscape and community work as they move forward. On the landscape side, just to put it simply, our highest priority, studies, modeling, our scientists tell us we've really gotta have a laser focus on high hazard landscapes.
We're finding out more and more, the more we can target those landscapes, the more cost effective our investments are gonna be. So that's gonna be high priority. We also now know that strategically based fuel breaks work. There was some question about that several years ago through Cal Fire's work and other works. We know if they're placed properly in both Northern California and Southern California, they can be a key part of both our resilience, program and our firefighting program.
Speaker 1
Gonna I'm gonna stop you. I'm gonna I'm gonna interrupt you right there just because I don't wanna lose that question. What's the evidence with with these wind driven Santa Ana fires? What's the evidence that suggests the the strategic fuel breaks work when the embers are spotting half a mile ahead?
Speaker 7
That's a good question. The the key is in many areas, an analogy might be a seat belt. If you got a seat belt on and you're in a crash that's a 100 miles an hour, seat belt's not gonna help you. But for most fires, what happens when you have a fuel break is the flames literally drop from being crown fires down to surface fires. We saw this in Lake Tahoe where the city of South Lake Tahoe was literally saved because of the fuel break system that was built by the Forest Service and Cal Fire surrounding South Lake Tahoe.
Same is true in Southern California to a lesser extent. Yes. They're not gonna solve they're not gonna stop fires, but they do two things. They reduce the rate of spread, and secondly, they provide a place for firefighters to stand to make a stand. That's been a really critical distinction that hasn't been evaluated until recently.
Speaker 7
And then finally, reforestation, think, is gonna be a bigger and bigger topic. A recent study by Cal Fire show that unless we get a better handle on reforestation, we're gonna lose millions of acres, up to half of the Sierra Nevada's conifer forest could be turned into highly flammable shrubs. So we've got a lot of work to do with our forest service partners to try to make sure that those landscapes remain healthy and resilient. So that's the landscape strategy. Of course, I wanna emphasize that the priorities of Northern California and Southern California are very different.
In Northern California, the highest priority by far is reducing the density of our forest through thinning and prescribed fire. We'd like to do as much prescribed fire as we can. Unfortunately, given the density of our forest, most often, you've gotta go in there and do mechanical treatments first to make sure it's safe and then move with prescribed fire. So that's the highest priority to together with the fuel break system in Northern California to try to get a handle on things. In Southern California, you can see it's a very different picture.
In the montane forest with that are high elevation, you have the same issue. Forests are too dense. They need to be thinned through mechanical thinning or prescribed fire, but the highest priority is dealing with ignition reductions along the state's roadways. So we've just partnered with a group of agencies down south. It's called the Southern California Ignition Reduction Program that is organizing themselves through an interagency process.
It's got the Forest Service, CAL FIRE, Caltrans stepping up in a big way to try to get a better handle on ignitions. You can see from the slide, 95% of ignitions are human caused, two thirds along roadways. And what's critically important is we need to get rid of the invasives along the roadways, which are much more flammable than the native chaparral. So it's a multifaceted problem, but we are organize or getting organizing ourselves to try to take a holistic approach to it. It's a good example of what the task force brings to to to the table, a forum where agencies like Caltrans and the feds who would never previously work together are working very closely together to try to identify the highest priority areas in Southern California.
Finally, let me just mention briefly our framework for how how to better get this done, how to get it done more quickly and efficiently. What we're trying to do is assemble a statewide network of five and ten year plans through the Department of Conservation's Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program, where in one plan, have all the federal, state, local, private, and utility projects. So you and others can see where those projects are being made so they can jointly invest. They can do larger projects across boundaries. That process is up has been up and running now for a couple years and is beginning to bear fruit as you'll see these as as these plans come along over the next couple years.
We're also, of course, trying to continue streamlining. We're working hard internally to come up with a long term version of the governor's emergency streamlining process, so we can look forward to seeing that soon. And we're doing more and more to try to align funding, as you heard earlier, between all the different agencies that might be able to contribute to these projects. Just to give you a flavor of that on the next slide, here, this has been our current approach, fund dozens and dozens of projects in Southern California and track each of them. This sounds good and has enabled us to hit a lot of high priority projects.
Speaker 2
The problem is you're talking about dozens and dozens of grant applications for individual projects, dozens of reporting requirements, dozens of individual cases where you've gotta hire crews and contractors to get the work done. So we're trying to with Cal Fire's help, Department of Conservation's help, to scale up. So the next slide is the future. We've got six areas of Southern California here with six regional forest and fire capacity plans. You've got Cal Fire stepping up with block grants that funds a whole range of projects across this region With the RCD of San Diego as the lead, they took 5,000,000 from their forest health grants, 5,000,000 from their wildfire prevention grants, and then that money was distributed to the 23 of the highest priority projects in Southern California.
Speaker 7
So, again, instead of having 23 separate grants and projects, you've got one block grant, $10,000,000 that gets all that work done at one time. That's where we need to be. We need to scale up. We need to move more towards block grants, more towards bigger, larger projects. And then finally, of course, as you and others have mentioned, we need to better capture the benefits of these projects.
We're getting increasingly sophisticated about doing this. This is an example again from Southern California where folks have evaluated the benefits of getting this fuel break network in place using ignition reduction percentage as a key indicator. So we're rapidly moving away from acres treated into a whole series of metrics that can tell you and others what the true benefits of these projects are. How are we reducing density of forest? How well are we reducing fire risk?
How well are we protecting communities, etcetera? So that's the package that's moving forward together. To sum it up, we need to be smarter by using these tools to better target our highest priority landscapes. We need to go bigger through block grants and funding multiple projects at a time, and we need to go faster by continuing our one stop shop for permitting. And then finally, as you and others have emphasized, we need to do a better job of capturing the multiple benefits of all these projects.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. My staff will be reaching out to you. I'd like I have lots of questions as a result of this, and so I'd like to have a a good opportunity for us to to really sit down. But I really welcome you can just feel your passion about wanting to get this right, and that's exactly what we need right now.
We've we've really crossed the tipping point. California is at great risk. Great risk economically if we don't get home insurance rates under control and businesses Let me just
Speaker 7
emphasize. I appreciate that, but I just wanna emphasize. We get all of our work done through our partners.
Speaker 1
Sure. Absolutely. I Caltire being the I wanna I wanna pick your brain about how to get all that work, you know, about how all that work's getting done. So so it's it's but your patience is is important for coordinating all of this activity going forward. So thank you very much for that.
We do have we do have questions. And so, Britney, you're here from Sierra Nevada.
Speaker 23
Good morning, chair Bennett. Britney Kovich. I'm with the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. I'm the policy and outreach division chief. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy, we are a state agency under California Natural Resources Agency, and our work really focuses on conservation and restoration in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade region of the state of California.
I'll give a little bit of background on that region for everyone. So it is 27,000,000 acres that we serve. It's roughly a quarter of the state. We cover about 24 counties, and so it's a large portion of the state. And it includes, as you saw in Patrick's fire risk map earlier, a large percentage of the state's high fire risk.
One point that I wanna make is that about 67% of the landscape that we serve is federally managed. So we have close relationship with our forest service partners, our Bureau of Land Management partners, and the National Park Service. And I make that point just to kind of iterate that all of our communities are really embedded in these forested landscapes. So we have many small communities up and down the Sierra Cascade region. They are all very deeply embedded in the forested landscape.
Also, I wanna make a point that we have a very small population, a core compared to the rest of the state. However, we have tens of millions of visitors that come to the Sierra Cascade every year to visit places like Yosemite National Park, Lake Tahoe, Mammoth Lakes, etcetera. So not only are we looking at reducing wildfire risk to the people that live there, we're also looking at reducing wildfire risk to those folks that are coming to visit. And the our region really is the backbone of the state's water supply. So all of the reservoirs that feed the state water project, the Central Valley project, and many of the municipal water agencies, so San Francisco Public Utilities District, East Bay Municipal Utilities, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, those source watersheds flow from the Sierra to the remainder of the state.
So it is a critical piece of our state's water supply system. We also represent about 50% of the state's forest carbon. So a good portion of the state's forest carbon is locked up in trees in the Sierra Cascade region. And I think that is important to note because we are a fire adapted ecosystem. This part of the state relies and many parts of the state rely on fire to remain healthy.
And so for us, we look at that and recognize that it is not a matter of where fire will hit or it's just a matter of when. We know every part of this landscape is going to be touched by fire at some point and needs to be, and it's our job to help make sure alongside all of our partners that that that that is, make sure that that is when fire hits, it hits in a way that is beneficial and not damaging.
Speaker 1
That's what I was gonna it's not just when, but it's how the fire hits so that it doesn't we don't lose the trees, we lose the other
Speaker 23
other one. Right? Yes. Precisely. So because of that, the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, we fund a lot of wildfire risk reduction projects, and we do our best to prepare the landscapes across our region for fire so that when it does hit, it doesn't do damage.
A lot of times measuring success for that can be tricky because we are trying to assess damage that hasn't occurred. We are trying to look at at at the disaster that didn't happen. And so that can sometimes seem invisible, but there are a few metrics that we do look at that you can see. So for example and these align really, really well with the the metrics that Cal Fire has been tracking. For example, one of those measures of success that we look at is was there avoided or reduced damage?
So good example project of that in the Caples Creek Watershed in El Dorado County, there was about a 4,000 acre prescribed burn that was completed. When the Caldor fire came through that area, it both changed the trajectory of that fire. And, also, when the fire came through the Caples Creek Watershed, the the prescribed fire project, essentially, little to no damage was done within the footprint of the prescribed fire area. We also look at, did the project aid in fire suppression efforts? Very similar to how CAL FIRE is tracking.
Was it a safe place for fire crews to stage? Was it a place that allowed for safe evacuation? Great example of that is the Park Fire, that chief Tyler spoke about, the Cohasset project that we helped fund with CAL FIRE, essentially provided a buffer for evacuation and for fire crews to be able to get on scene and do fire prevent or suppression work that they were in expecting to do to reduce the risk of that fire. The town of Cohasset and much of Forest Ranch stands, and the trees there are green because of that work that was done previously. And then another measure that we look at is did the project make the landscape more resilient than it was before?
Speaker 19
So a good example of this is the research that's been done in the Illawat Creek Basin in Yosemite National Park. That is a landscape where beneficial fire has been happening for a number of years. It's restored that forest to a more historic state, and the research coming out of there indicates that the water yield coming from that landscape has either maintained stability or actually increased even during drought. So there's enough evidence and enough energy behind that that even some of the water agency partners that work within our region, so you have a water agency, Placer County Water Agency, even the state water project through the Department of Water Resources are now starting to engage in and even drive forest restoration projects because they know it's so critical for maintaining stability of the state's water supply. Oops.
Speaker 23
And then a last another measure that we look at is, did the project protect or enhance other benefits? So we oftentimes will fund a project to reduce wildfire risk, but it has other co benefits associated with it. Good example of this is the Sly Park vegetation management project that was done just outside of the community of Pollock Pines. Not only did that project that's actually a long term collaborative project with fire adapted fifty that CAL FIRE and a number of others have been really engaged in. Not only did that project protect the community of Pollock Pines when the Caldor fire came through, but also our grantee, the Eldorado Resource Conservation District, had reported to us that the trail community in that area where the fuels reduction work had been done along the trails, it actually enhanced the trail community's experience on that landscape.
It was a better trail experience for all that were involved. And then last measure that we look at is avoided carbon emissions. So, we know that if you reduce the intensity of a fire, if you reduce the, damage that a fire causes, you leave more trees alive, which leaves more of that carbon locked up in a stable fashion in our region. The next question that I kind of wanted to answer is how do we how does the Sierra Nevada Conservancy prioritize projects or prioritize the funding that we receive? And the short answer to that is we take the priorities that are given to us by the legislature and the administration, and we match them with local priorities on the ground.
So good example of this is a Sierra Nevada Conservancy received great very, very gratefully, the wildfire funding from prop four in early action. That was very clearly a a signal was sent very clearly to us that community protection was a high priority. So we ran a grant program that was very narrowly focused on community protection. We received $40,000,000 worth of project concepts for $15,000,000 available. We said no to projects that were not immediately adjacent to communities.
That was the priority. Good projects, but not not the priority at the time. I also just wanted to kind of end with another key point. It would be really easy for us to kind of focus in and say protecting homes, protecting people is the priority. But the reality is the most damaging wildfires that have been happening in our region recently have come from well outside the community and have burned the community after they have come through the forest.
So when we examples of that, Dixie fire came from well outside of the community, burned down the community of Greenville. Park or a campfire came from well outside the community of Paradise, burned down the community of Paradise. Caldor fire started well outside of Grizzly Flats, burned Grizzly Flats. So when we look at projects, we have to look both from the community out and the forest in. And that is also kind of a big reason why we do look at a wide variety of benefits when we're looking at the projects that we choose to fund.
Speaker 1
I wanna ask you a question about that specific thing before we sort of dump jump into the next. And that is those those fires that start out, are you suggesting that there's a better investment that could be done out to protect the community than doing three times as much as we had done in the community? In other words, I'm really just asking from a common sense standpoint. Would a half a mile or a mile fuel break between the community and the forest have been much better. Is that not better than forest clearing someplace out there?
Because the farther you get out, the more, know, just the more range. Do we you mean, you're you're suggesting there is science that says it's better to go out 75 miles, 50 miles in a in a broad arc than closer and tighter around the community?
Speaker 23
It's a great question. I actually really appreciate that question. So I think what we have found is that the majority of our partners are looking at projects in and around a community, but that's not the only place they are looking at reducing wildfire risk. So even though we would love to treat, you know, a good portion of the landscape, The concentration does tend to be in and around communities because we know that's the place that we can do the most protection. But if we are not also looking beyond farther into the forest, we run the risk of losing those resources that we find really valuable, our water resources, our recreation resources, etcetera.
So it's a little bit of both.
Speaker 1
I I I appreciate that. If if there's a place out there 50 miles away that creates a great opportunity to break that fire so it doesn't race for the next 50 miles or because you treated that fire, you're able to get there quicker and actually control it. It's just I'm trying to adding up the common sense of that. Yes. There are other ancillary benefits, watershed protection, etcetera.
But we're we're always gonna be fighting limited resources. And if you have $15,000,000 and $40,000,000 worth of projects, I think you heard from the legislature really clearly, and I think you still are hearing from the legislature really clearly, they want community structures and community lives. It's not that at and and I want to be very sensitive about that from this committee, and that is there the the other is very important too, and I have every year a greater appreciation for the other being important. It's just how do we prioritize and and how do we, you know, make that distinction. So okay.
Thank you. Give me give me one second. We're gonna go here. Do you have a specific about that particular issue or do you have general comments or general question?
Speaker 22
Quick question on that is part of it, think, is working with our federal partners, which there's been more of that lately. I think it's been very positive. Right? There's legislation that allows us that that would, if it passes on the federal level, allow us to do more on the the federal lands and streamline some of the processes. Fires have burned on federal lands for quite some time and not been put out.
I'll add to that the Bear Fire that was burning near Quincy for quite some time on federal land before the wind picked up and burned down the the town of Berry Creek, which, by the way, had a reduction project planned for it. Mhmm. But CEQA said, no. Sorry. Eighteen months out before you can do that project.
Mhmm. Then the project was never done, even though it had already been studied Sure. By the four you know, the Butte Forest Fire Safe Council to do that project.
Speaker 1
Right. And and I guess that's that's the point. Even though that fight on the federal land Even though that federal fire burned for a long period of time, that specific project, and there that's where your task force is really helping to make sure we're not waiting eighteen months. You finish with your presentation? Alright.
LAO, and then we'll oh, go ahead. You you wanna follow-up?
Speaker 27
I had a follow-up question to your point because I think you you crystallized it. And I wanna bring the chief into the discussion as well because I think we're hearing correctly that it's really an all of the above approach. And that kind of ties back into the prior discussion about funding levels and stability and avoiding kind of cyclical approaches. But that having been said, are in the the world of reality with limits. So chief, has has the the agency identified certain types of projects that are most effective at preventing future harm caused by wildfires?
Speaker 12
I appreciate your question. I'm probably gonna bounce around that because as we heard already, it is an all in approach. And across the state of California, approaches are different. As we watch our communities continue to build out into the wild land urban interface area moving out into the rural areas, we find that there is a need. It is the position of the California Fire Service as a whole to protect people, property, and the environment.
We are not just a fire suppression organization, but we are a natural resource protection organization as well. And as was said by Sierra Nevada Conservancy earlier, we have broad forest lands across the northern half of the state and the central half of the state that provide valuable recreation and watershed to our communities. Now we have built upon using technology things like, fire hazard severity zones that show you very high fire hazard severity zones, high fire hazard severity zones, and the impacts of those. We also recognize that, as you saw in January '25 and you've seen in the Park Fire and other incidents that we are releasing hundreds of millions of ton of carbon of communities burning. This problem is an all in approach of everyone all the way from the all the way from the the parcel owner to the local government to the state government to the federal government to our private partners.
We have to work together. That's what the wildfire enforced resilience task force is doing. To answer your question, making sure that we're taking that all in approach, we have to begin the process of making sure that we're doing community wildfire mitigation that are critical to those areas as well. And you can't just harden or mitigate a single home. You have to mitigate the whole community or where the fire front would most rapidly advance from.
So those are the areas that we're gonna continue to concentrate on.
Speaker 1
I I'm just gonna follow-up now with with just that it is not a question. I I don't think for the legislature legislature and and for this committee that it's a question that we don't wanna do all of it. I think the question is what are the relative priorities and and and to have the have the priorities in the past emphasized community protection as much as legislature thinks it should have versus the environmental protection aspects of it out there. We we have a responsibility to all of it. We we we have a responsibility to not have 50% of the of the forest, you know, disappear and turn into brush land because that puts us all at more risk also.
But in the in the era of limited resources, just where are the priorities as you allocate that? I would say if you had 15,000,000 and $40,000,000, I would have been happy to just make sure that community hard you know, community protection projects got a the priority of that didn't necessarily have to have all of them. Maybe they got all of it, you know. So that's that's really what we're wrestling with and trying to get better and better at each year as we have these conversations as we go forward.
Speaker 3
And we see that as you as you well know, we see those approaches working as well. We've all toured the neighborhoods after a fire. Why are certain homes standing and others nearby not? Some of it might be luck. A lot of it's that home hardened itself, managed its vegetation, and the like.
Right? So to go to that point.
Speaker 1
Let's get to LAO, and then then we can dive in. And, again, remember what we're talking about, what's a successful overall wildfire prevention and resilience look like? That's the topic that we have here. Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 4
Brian Metzger, Elio. We're we're here to have to answer any questions you may have for us, but no real specific comments at this time except one to kind of parallel the the point that you made about, prioritization of projects. And given the funding that we do have, I think another question is the cost effectiveness of the different treatments across the landscape and trying to understand based on the treatments that are available to us, which of them is most cost effective so that we make the best use of available funding.
Speaker 1
And next year, you're gonna come back as an expert to be able to answer that question based on our earlier conversations, correct? The you're actually going to be our and I I I wanna say this frankly. You you we count on LAO to be sort of our objective eyes working with the administration, and we hope you can work collaboratively with them to to try to analyze this. But that that takes me to the first question that we have. You have much better reporting than you used to have.
Really appreciate that. I think it's helpful, and it must be informing you of a lot of things more than you could possibly convey to us in in this short period of time. But what are the lessons that you're learning in terms of what's are some things better than others is is, you know, are controlled burns better than fire breaks? And I know there's no one straight answer, but what's changing as a result of the data you're picking up? Are you moving towards more of one and less of another?
Or in these situations, more of one? So what what are the lessons learned that you could give us in the next few minutes?
Speaker 12
Chair Bennett, I appreciate that. And I brought a gaggle of subject matter experts. So as you saw, our deputy director of community wildfire preparedness and mitigation, which was a program that was brought forward by the legislature, and supported by the administration. So I'm gonna give, that answer to, chief Piccolo.
Speaker 13
Yeah. Thanks, chair Bennett. Appreciate the opportunity here. And, you know, I just kinda wanna set the the framework here for about how we're measuring the effectiveness because I think this gets to the answer of your your question is we've made a fundamental shift in how, we, determine this from output based measures to, outcome based. So from output to outcome.
And this is moving beyond acres treated as you heard Patrick talk about and or just the inspection, number of inspections completed, but measuring how a community's risk has actually been lessened or reduced. And today, use more sophisticated fire behavior modeling, AMBER, exposure analysis, and GIS tools to see how treatments have affected fire intensity. And this this is different for every single community. So when we talk about what is the single most effective tool that we have at our disposal to reduce the risk to a community, it's really community specific. We have to determine that through using our modeling tools, using our professional experience to determine exactly what is the most effective.
Speaker 28
Because for one community, it may be a fuel break around there that makes all the impact. For others, they may have a lessened amount of vegetation around it, but because there's forested land nearby, the ember exposure now becomes the most, important aspect that we have to reduce for. So that would be then be defensible space immediately around a home and making sure that they're ember resistant homes. But improvement in data collection from standardized grant reporting and detailed damage inspection information, it allowed us to compare, hardened versus non hardened home and track defensible space performance and evaluate community readiness using resilience maturity assessments. And then these tools together allow us to paint a clearer picture for you and for us of what is actually working, what is the most cost effective, and how we can strengthen wildfire resilience for California.
Speaker 1
Thanks. I wanna jump to the next I'm gonna start with a comment and and then get into the question, and that is, you know, a couple of years ago, I think when we all get elected, we think, well, go up there. I I've got some answers. Right? You know?
And I'm more humbled now, other than I was four years ago, about how challenging it is to measure what is effective, what's not effective, and what do you do with limited resources. You know, it's devilishly challenging. And particularly, the issue that staff did a good job of writing up about and you mentioned, and that is how do you measure the value of avoidance? It's one thing to say, hey. You know, this fire you know, this this happened and we we did it, but to not have the fire at all or to not have the fire hit a community at all is is much harder to measure, you know, what what that is.
So I'm I'm not making these comments at all from the standpoint of I have the answer, But but I'm humbled at the same time because it's so complicated, because there are so many different variables, so many that you have to say, we have to do it by community by community. We can't can't do that. I I just say common sense. What does my common sense tell me? And it takes me back to the fundamental question that we have, which is it's lives saved, its structures protected.
It it it has to be the the far and away, the the number one issue. Then it's the environment, number three. I think it's just has to be that that way because we can't protect the environment if our economy goes to pieces because we can't afford our home insurance, for example. And so when I think about lives protected and structures protected, I think about proximity to the structure. Proximity to the community seems to be have to be a really high priority.
And, you know, and so I really appreciate that we've gone away from just number of acres, you know, cleared. That that number is almost meaningless. If number of acres cleared a 100 miles away from the community doesn't say much to the community that burns down because they didn't have a good fuel break around the community or whatever it what whatever it is that science tells us should be around that community. Or because they didn't have the community hardened properly because we didn't invest enough energy and resources in education and incentives for people to to do those things, you know, in the community. So the other the other side of that common sense thing is it seems like when you protect a narrow band around a community or when you harden a community, that's much more permanent protection than when you try to clear a forest that five years from now, you have to go back and clear again, you know, over and over again.
Now that's just my common sense talking. It's not I don't have a scientific data how often you have to go back. But I know one is far more permanent, the hardening of homes, than the other, which is you have to go back and do it again. Both of those things lead me to to saying, I think, from a legislator standpoint, maybe we're there, but we feel like there needs to be more of a shift. I I I a year ago, I identified over a billion dollars being spent on forest protection and less than a $100,000 spent on community protection.
And I'm saying that does not feel like the right mix. And and so we're going to be much more assertive this time about working with you to try to come up with changes in that mix that makes sense to you and makes sense to us. So I wanted to get that on the radar screen. And the other thing I I wanted to like, the final thing I wanna say before I turn it over to my colleagues is that the state of California, although we have this breakdown of the federal and local, etcetera, the state of California and CAL FIRE is only responsible for the CAL FIRE area, you know, not all but the state of California has to be the lead in keeping the state of California from burning. And that's the Eaton fire and the Palisades, etcetera.
The state of California does have that role. So I really welcome, and that's what I look forward to talking with you about how your committee can really work, the task force can really work with CAL FIRE, with all these other agencies to be able to to pull that off. So I offer that in in in genuinely, this is probably one of the most important things, I think, for California to work on. Certainly, of the most important things from my perspective for this committee to be working on. So this this is all offered in the spirit of of partnership and cooperation in in terms of trying to get there and stuff.
So I hope we can all work together to try to take the expertise and the things that you guys are learning and translate that into sort of the passion that the legislators are bringing to community protection and and and new changes and stuff. So thank you for your attention to that. I'll be curious about have these questions, but I'll be curious if you have any response to the proximity prioritization that I just referred to. But let's go to assembly member Rogers and then assembly member Connolly again. You got it done.
Okay. Assembly member Rogers.
Speaker 21
Great. Thank you so much. So first of all, chief, I wanna thank you for taking the time last week and and walking through a forest with me. It was a good opportunity to talk about that balanced approach that we're talking between wildfire ready as well as, the restoration work that is occurring and and needs to continue to occur in our forest to make them healthy and make them more fire resilient. So I wanna thank your whole team for for that experience.
One of the things that I have heard over and over again from folks is around prescribed burns and the commitment to that. As you know, I have the good fire act this year, AB sixteen ninety nine that all of my colleagues at the dais are supporter supporters of. My colleague has a b eighteen ninety nine. Doesn't have a cool nickname like the good fire act, but it all deals with prescribed burns and indigenous knowledge. And I have heard that commitment from you all.
Jumping the shark a little bit to the next item, we'll be discussing trailer bill language that could be read as backtracking off of that commitment to do that prescribed burn. So I just kinda wanna hear from folks that that that is not what that is intended to do, how you are going to square that changing trailer bill language with the overall intent around wildfire management and the the benefits that we have from that.
Speaker 12
So our commitment to, cultural indigenous knowledge, cultural burning, as well as, our efforts to increase the pace and scale of prescribed fire. I always go back to a story, and the story is that when I took this position in 2022 or was appointed to the position in 2022, the strategic plan for beneficial fire set our goal at 30,000 acres, but that wasn't enough. So we moved it to 50,000 acres. And my leadership within the organization said that can't be reached by 2025. Well, by 2025, they met and exceeded their 50,000 acre goal to 67,000 acres within within Cal Fire specifically and then utilizing our partners to be able to continue those efforts.
We don't stop just because we've hit a goal. We continue those efforts. So I am committed to ensuring that our prescribed fire goals and the prescribed fire and good fire across the state of California continue. Excellent.
Speaker 21
Second question for you, and we we touched on it very briefly the when we saw each other. But I think now we're a little bit further in since the announcement from the US Forest Service about consolidating their operations. I think it's into Utah and pulling out of parts of my district like Trinity County and and others that, the Conservancy gets to help oversee. Have you started to evaluate what the impact could be on that partnership and on Cal Fire with that move? And does that change the request or the need for additional resources in this year's budget to make sure that things like the Casper Creek Watershed Project, continue to be managed, which they've traditionally overseen.
Speaker 12
I, I appreciate that. Following it closely, in fact, the administration has sent letters, in support during the public comment period about the consolidation and reorganization of not only United States Forest Service, but, the Department of Interior, fire programs pulling into the US Wildfire Service. So let me hit on the first one, which was the United States Forest Service. Initially, we were told as part of that consolidation effort that leadership was going to move from California Region 5 to Salt Lake City. Our argument was that we still needed leadership in California, and to consider taking on a model similar to the Bureau of Land Management, which had a state director level position.
For California and the Pacific Islands, we got just that. So while we will not have a regional forester in California, we will have a state level director in the in the United States Forest Service. That state level director will be located in Placerville, California. They have an existing facility there. Their assistant state director will be located in Riverside.
Their resources across the state, their emergency response resources will continue. Where our concerns are and where we continue to monitor closely is all the research stations, including the Casper Creek Watershed that are gonna be affected by the federal research that is not going to be in place anymore. So working with our natural resource management program, we're evaluating how do we continue that critical research absent our federal partners in that area.
Speaker 21
Yeah. I hope, as we move forward towards the June adoption of the budget, as you know more and as you have more ideas, please share with the legislature. Because I think that there is that commitment that we do want good research to continue to happen in in California. Then my my final question for you is a hyper local one because I can. I had a town hall in Garberville this weekend, got an earful from my constituents because you have a Cal Fire employee who utilized a Cal Fire hazard exemption to remove redwood trees from an area that is not allowed in the county in the q zone.
So my question is, do does CalFire think that its hazard mitigation supersedes local ordinances, And how are you making sure that those exemptions have checks and balances so that it doesn't create conflicts with locals?
Speaker 12
I am aware of that concern, and I know that that concern is actively being evaluated related to the Cal Fire employee, the Cal Fire's personal property, and the actions the Cal Fire employee may have taken on that property. As it relates to regulatory efforts, we are working closely, to make sure that we're meeting everybody's objectives. Let me let me be clear. Whether this employee was right or wrong in their efforts based on the community, that one single employee is not representative of the entire 14,000 employees that Cal Fire has. So I will go back.
I will evaluate that with deputy director Huff in the room who just heard that comment as well, and then we will get back to you and your staff on this.
Speaker 21
I I appreciate that. That's why I made it is when it lands on my desk, I wanna make sure it lands on your desk as well because you are doing a good job of building relationships in many of our local communities and don't wanna see that undermined. So thank you.
Speaker 12
If I might go back, I I missed the piece. I talked with the United States Forest Service. I just wanna talk about, the US Wildfire Service. Here's the important piece that we're evaluating closely there, and that is that it is pulling fire from land management in those federal agencies. So we have to balance that because we're still going to work with the land management agencies, but the US wildfire service is going to take on all things related to catastrophic wildfire as well as prescribed fire.
And that goes back to an important point that was talked about earlier in this discussion about how do you break up, the difference between those who are doing prevention and those who are doing suppression. Chair Bennett, engaged me last year in that discussion, and I want to reassure you still to this point that Cal Fire employees are doing both.
Speaker 1
I have four quick specific questions. And first, I'd just like to get a response from each of you, if I could, about this fundamental question of how much should we make proximity to the urban to urban areas, proximity to structures, proximity to lives, the priority? And do we have the right mix now, or should that be adjusted? And if it should, how how can we how can we adjust it? I must I'm just gonna Let me take
Speaker 7
a shot at that. Sure. We actually asked our independent science advisory panel those exact questions we talked about earlier. Hey. Do fuel breaks actually work?
What about treatments in the WUI versus treatments in the general forest? What about prescribed fire versus thinning? They have produced that report. We can get that to you. As I said earlier, some of their conclusions were things like, yes, strategically placed fuel breaks actually do work, that we need both thinning and prescribed fire.
That in Southern California, ignition reduction is really the top priority. And with respect to priorities on the landscape, the real key from their perspective is is the high hazard areas. Whether you're a quarter mile from a community or 10 miles, we've gotta hit the high hazard areas. If we can do that, then we'll have much less risk of these catastrophic fires because our forest won't be so dense that fires move through them much more swiftly than they otherwise would. So it's not so much community versus outside community as what is the condition of the landscape.
If you're surrounding a community, but you have widely spaced trees and natural fuel breaks, that's a low priority area. But then maybe outside that community might have a real dense forest that needs to be thinned or vice versa. So the real key is do you have a healthy resilient forest and vegetation whether you're in the WUI or not. Having said that, most of our areas that are in the worst shape are near the WUI. So there's no question that in terms of prioritizing funding, you'll find that CAL FIRE funding, funding of the other agencies is disproportionately going to thinning and prescribed fire projects surrounding communities because those are the highest hazard areas.
Speaker 7
Okay. But, again, the the the key is to think about the hazard of the land more than is it in the community or is it outside the community?
Speaker 1
And your response, you know, reminds me of how different Northern California versus Southern California. We just don't have that much forested land. So we don't have those situations. We have all this brush. Much of it's, you know, now just quickly flammable.
It's not native any longer. So that is where am I correct? In Southern California, proximity to the community is probably more important because you don't have that much 10 miles away than
Speaker 7
Generally, but you've also got some so called montane forest at high elevations that are very thick and dense. So those need to be thin Sure. And and burned as well. So I think the message you're hearing is that we've gotta attack all facets of this problem. Yes.
We need to prioritize based on the hazard that those lands present, but we've really gotta hit all three areas pretty hard if we're gonna be successful. Meaning, the house with the five foot zone, the community with fuel breaks, and dealing with the high hazard areas and the general force.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I'm a start with with you and work work our way across. Where are we on yeah. This this idea of proximity prioritizing it. Should we do it more?
Have we done it enough lately? Just anyway, just general reactions for us. I'd appreciate it.
Speaker 12
A very similar, discussion to Patrick, that, that I think we have technology, and and resources to us now that we haven't had in the past, whether it be, as I said earlier, fire hazard severity zone maps. We have the interagency treatment tracker. We're able to stitch together projects that are being do being done by various, organizations and being able to coordinate and make that dollar stretch as far as possible. We recognize that that proximity around communities is different across the state that that, as you said, in Southern California, we can find ourselves where we're really focusing around that community effort. And in Northern California, depending on where those communities are in comparison to the forest landscapes, it may vary.
You know, one of the things that you said earlier that is important when we talk about disbursement of funds is, you talk about, forest resilience and we talk about fuel breaks. And you asked the question earlier, and that question was is how often do we go back in a second or third entry into a fuel break? About every three years, is what should be occurring. And as we continue to move forward with the funding available, some of our forest health and wildfire prevention grant dollars that are well oversubscribed right now are being focused on maintenance of those fuel breaks so we don't lose the benefit of the dollars we've invested in the past. One other point, around our communities, as you mentioned, we have had disproportionate shares of funding across the state sometimes following the prescriptive efforts of how those grant funds are to be applied.
But an example that we use is our county coordinator program, where we have had across the state individuals who aren't well versed in grant opportunities. And being able to put county coordinators across the state is an option, and having them across the state is an option brings that subject matter expertise to bring those dollars and that work into those local communities.
Speaker 1
Do you have a breakdown of what percentage of your prevention dollars go to Southern California versus Northern California? And can we get that
Speaker 1
Alright. Great. I I would appreciate that. How and as as I as I move over here, is it is it realistic to think that we should assess every community in California for its fire risk sort of vulnerability and identify the top 25 this year and do what it takes and then identify the next and the next. Is is is that is that a doable
Speaker 12
project? Utilizing our wildfire preparedness mitigation program, those efforts are probably partially underway already.
Speaker 13
Yeah. Thank you for that again, Frank Bigelow. Those those efforts are underway now, and we're using very sophisticated, very modern tools to identify those wildfire mitigations across the state for every community. And we're looking to save the most homes, the most lives, and the most critical infrastructure by but also providing for co benefits like watershed, considerations, like the critical infrastructure or the biodiversity that, appears in that area, keeping those at the forefront of our mind as well. But by analyzing past projects that change fire behavior such as defensible space and home hardening, and using community risk data, we can target future investments more strategically, more surgically, to have the highest impact.
And these these tools will ensure that the the money the legislature appropriates to us is being used the most cost effective way.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. In Southern California, when a fire breaks out, if we don't have a Santa Ana blowing, it almost never gets out of control. Am I correct? And so our issue is really Santa Ana's conditions, in in Southern California.
And it it it seems like there's something ripe there that we could take advantage of. You talk about the, you know, the fuel break here. I guess I'm most interested in is what is effective during Santa Ana's? Is it different than what is effective to keep that two acre fire from, you know, going to a 10 acre fire or a 20 acre fire? With if we don't have Santa Ana's, we seem to be doing doing well.
And I I don't know. But that's what I'd love to start to get a measurement on is what's effective during Santa Anas is is is different in for certainly for us in Southern California. Two other quick questions. Reforestation, you talk about the need for reforestation. How doable is it as a as as a goal?
How doable is it for us to to reforest? How how much money would that take and and where does that fit, you know, in terms of that? Anybody like Oh, we
Speaker 7
We're we are actually putting together an interagency reforestation strategy that looks back at the most recent fires. The real challenge is with these high intensity fires. It used to be most forests could regenerate, but because of the intensity of these fires, they don't regenerate on their own, so it requires more active management than ever before. So, yes, it's an immense task with a very high price tag. So once again, what we're asking our interagency team to do is to prioritize.
If if if you have limited dollars to go towards reforestation, where should CAL FIRE, the Forest Service, and other agencies put their dollars? And so we're look we're
Speaker 1
looking at that very carefully right relative to the dollars that we have, it's we're we're gonna be a long ways away from actually addressing the reforestation project. Okay. And my final, comment is that, the federal government's pullback, is going to affect us. I'm glad we're still able to have reasonable relationships with the Forest Service and and and be able to do that. But just wanna get on the record that, the same federal government that has challenged us for not doing enough is pulling back their efforts even though they control an enormous amount of the land.
Thank you very much. We're gonna go on to issue four, but this was the issue that we really wanted to devote most of the time to. And, you know, I think we'll be more specific now, with these, other issues. So if, the people for issue four would, please come up. Yes.
Speaker 5
Good morning. Julianne Rolf again for the Department of Finance. So, issue four is related to the trailer bill for the greenhouse gas reduction fund. And their current language as is, states that the funding for the 200,000,000, if the auction proceeds are high enough to reach that 200,000,000, We'll maintain the 165,000,000 for, forest health and the 35,000,000, for fuel reduction and prescribed fires just based on a percentage. And so I know, assembly member Rogers, you mentioned your concern that removing those percentages currently in statute will prevent the investment in prescribed fire, but our goal with removing the percentage is actually to maintain the the total dollars that we currently have invested for prescribed fire as long as we possibly can depending on auction proceeds.
So, we did the math, before coming up here. And so right now, there's about a 142,000,000 projected to go to Cal Fire, from this, tier three pot. And if the 17.5% is maintained, Cal Fire would only get $24,900,000. And right now, we spend about $30,000,000. So as of the language right now, we would not have the existing ability to maintain our investments in with the biggest bang for our buck.
And so this language really is to give CAL FIRE administration the flexibility to prioritize the highest needs without having to backfill or or add more so that CAL FIRE can can rely on this pot of funding for as long as GGRF auction proceeds allow.
Speaker 1
I I appreciate that it gives you more flexibility. And the question is, people put these things in here because they wanted to make sure certain things, yeah, did get done. So I will I will respect, assembly member Rogers' sort of thoughts on that. But before we go there, we'll
Speaker 5
I'll actually one more thing too. Yeah. And while we'll, you know, maintain flexibility, we still will be, you know, informing the legislature that the the breakdown of the funding and so that the legislature will have a chance to to provide their input before the final budget is approved.
Speaker 4
And LAO? Brian Metzger, LAO. Just to provide some additional context for this trailer bill language. So this is again related to the change in the cap and invest structure. You have these various tiers that are a part of that structure.
And so, you know, you have your tier one, tier two, and then under tier three, you have the wildfire and forest resilience, the s b nine zero one monies. That's what we're talking about with regards to this specific trailer bill language. The percentages that were a part of the original, kind of language, we're not raising any concerns with taking those out or potentially changing those from a technical perspective. However, we do believe that it is a legislative priority matter as to how those funds are split up, if at all. And with the adoption of this new structure, the legislature may want to reexamine this split and kind of decide how prescriptive or not it wants to be.
Alright.
Speaker 21
Yeah. No. I appreciate it, and that's why I asked the question. And will say, I think, in talking with the leadership at at Cal Fire and folks in the governor's office, I do feel comfortable that they're not trying to remove the emphasis on it, but are trying to find additional tools. So I'm I'm satisfied with the answer.
Speaker 1
You'd be even more satisfied if we were certainly we're going to get to 200,000,000. And, that's, I think, the fundamental issue. We want continue to send that message to the Department of through the Department of Finance back to the administration. That is we don't think we have the right prioritization here in terms of general fund and use of GGRF when we put this program as tier three. And I think you've heard that expressed pretty clearly here and stuff.
So alrighty. Thank you very much. Anything else? Alright. We're gonna go to issue five.
That one
Speaker 22
That's also me. So so I'll I'll provide a quick overview and then hand it off to, chief Tyler. So the climate bond allocates $1,500,000,000 for wildfire and forest resilience over the lifetime of the bond. The majority of the funding is going to CAL FIRE with, office of emergency services, department of conservation, department of parks and recreation, the California Conservation Corps, numerous state, conservancies also receiving a portion of that funding. Early action for '24, 2024 as well as the '25 budget acts appropriated about 600,000,000 across these departments for projects related to forest health, fuels reduction, defensible space, watershed improvements, and workforce development.
Speaker 5
And the governor's governor's budget proposes 314,000,000 in 2627 to continue these important forest resiliency projects. So there's two new programs I'd like to highlight. The first one is 15,000,000 for, a new program that is aiming to reduce wildfire risk related to electricity transmission. And then the second one is 2,500,000.0, which is proposed for a second year in a row for a total of $5,000,000 for the prescribed fire learning hub, which chief Tyler will talk to talk more about, which is a new training platform administered by Cal Fire. And I'm joined with representatives, from the departments with allocations in this chapter, so we're here to answer any of your questions.
Thank you.
Speaker 12
Okay. Chief? Right. Good. I have to change I have to change my note to good afternoon.
So good afternoon, chair Bennett again and members of the committee. Again, this is Joe Tyler, the director and fire chief at Cal Fire, providing more information on the learning hub specifically. The $5,000,000 allocation for the prescribed fire learning hub is to fund the creation of a virtual collaborative web based digital learning environment and networking resource for access by the broadest and most diverse group of individuals, including current and prospective beneficial fire practitioners. As envisioned, Native American tribes and cultural fire practitioners, burn associations, non governmental organizations, private landowners, partner fire agencies, resource conservation districts, state and federal agencies, and academic institutions will all have web access to the shared training and continue continuing education resources to help build and sustain a greater population of beneficial fire practitioners. Through the shared access to the prescribed fire learning hub, current and prospective beneficial fire practitioners can network and collaborate with one another to share fire behavior modeling and planning tools, plan for training burns, educational workshops, and community outreach opportunities.
We anticipate the prescribed fire learning hub will also serve as a clearinghouse for research and demonstration publications relevant to beneficial fire practitioners. This was identified by the beneficial fire working group at the governor's wildfire and force resilience task force that the prescribed fire learning hub is an important next step to increase capacity of beneficial fire practitioners, in that community and a next step necessary to continue the creation and maintenance of resilient landscapes across California. With that, happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 4
Brian Metzger, LAO. As we mentioned in our analysis of the prop four spending plan, for those new programs that were just mentioned, including, the prescribed fire learning hub. Also, there is a $20,000,000 that will be talked about in financial and technical assistance for defensible space mitigations as well as the wildfire risk related to electricity, transmission, risk reduction. For all of those programs, those are new programs, and so now is the time if the legislature has spending guidance that it would like to put towards those programs. Now would be the time to consider that.
From from our perspective, especially on the wildfire risk related to electricity transmission, we received fairly little information about that program, and that program information was supposed to be provided sometime this spring. So to the extent the legislature would like to request more information about it, that would be warranted given the timing.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I have a few few questions and comments to make, and I'll turn to my, my colleagues. First of all, I just wanna recognize, and I know particularly assembly member Conley and I have had some conversations about the, pilot home hardening program, that is out there. We're going to go into a deeper dive into the whole harm hardening thing on May 6. And so I'm not going to belabor this with with all of that.
But I do wanna let you folks know in advance of that, I really it will be a deeper dive. I'm to the point where I will be asking for in advance asking for what particular properties have been hardened, you know, what are the characteristics of them, who's getting these who who's actually getting the, you know, the the the state dollars and stuff. So I wanna make sure that you you know that, you know, to what extent you know, I know you've given us some data already about the low income people receiving this. I'm also recognize that at that hearing, we'll be talking more about this whole concept of trying to increase our efforts for home hardening across the board. So I wanted to get that said.
That being said, the local fire prevention grants, that's the total bond total of 185,000,000, 81,000,000, and 58,000,000 local fire prevention grants. How much flexibility is is is there for those grants? Are those grants limited to a certain kind of what do we mean when we say local fire prevention? Is that everything from assistance from home hardening to fuel breaks around the community? What what what do you what do you intend there?
Yeah.
Speaker 12
So I would imagine behind me is deputy director Frank Bigelow who administers those grants.
Speaker 13
you, V. So, yes, the there are very few specific limitations on the money. So we plan to provide that money in the same manner that we provide the greenhouse gas reduction fund grants for for fuels reduction, for education, and for assistance in developing documents like community welfare protection plans and local hazard mitigation plans. The other limitations were just ensuring that we had 40 social vulnerability and financially disadvantaged, but very other few limitations. So continuation of what we currently do.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. We will be looking as as a legislature for, in the long run, sort of how do we come up with funding for incentivizing people to harden their homes. And right now, do you see places in your budget where that could happen with a re redesignation of some things?
Speaker 13
I believe there would have to be a change to a public resource code forty one twenty four to make those, more those eligible activities for the fire prevention grants. However, at least in the short term, prop four did identify a specific bucket of a $135,000,000 for home hardening efforts, which CAL FIRE in coordination or the the governor's office of emergency services and CAL FIRE in coordination with one another are developing a program adds on to the community wildfire mitigation program or the CWMP that we currently have in pilot phase that we'll be using those resources for as well.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. The fire ignition technology program, we we funded that. Can you give us an update in terms of what's going on?
Speaker 12
Yeah. So fire ignition technology program, we continue to expand, mountaintop cameras across Alert California, as the supplier to that. This, where we subscribe to their service also through UC San Diego. They use a company to really utilize artificial intelligence for early detection. We continue to work with that.
We continue to work with Earth Fire Alliance and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation in the advancement of low Earth orbiting satellites for early detection, which will be the next phase of technology for for detecting and alerting on wildfires. And likewise, through much of the legislation, that has been put forward with support of the administration, the Office of Wildland Fire Technology Research and Development is built out across, across appointees, academia, and private partners and innovators who are really advancing and looking at technology. Now the funding that is being, requested there in fire ignition technology, is in part also looking at the use of autonomous aircraft as you talked about in issue eight, to be able to really meet the needs and make it more efficient. Whether that is utilizing the autonomy of helicopters, the autonomy of unmanned aerial systems, or payloads to help logistically, we continue to advance that. We can get you a greater detail from that from that office of wildfire research technology research and development for your review.
Speaker 1
Well, you know, typically, we Americans are always looking for technology to solve our problem. And I brought up the issue about Santa Ana's. That's when we really are at risk in Southern California. When we don't have Santa Ana's, we don't feel very much at risk. Is is there a possibility of of doubling down, tripling down on, you know, the technology during Santa Ana periods so that we could potentially catch things quicker even than we would normally.
So there may not be the funding to be able to have satellite I'm I'm I'm I'm making it up here, but, you know, have satellites three sixty five, but we could have satellites, you know, ready for fourteen days a year, the one we have Santa Ana conditions in Southern California. So I would hope that we could keep looking at that stuff because I think this fire technology, both in terms of early detection, but also early unmanned safe things that you could fly potentially in because that's the other problem that we have with Santa Ana's is you can't fly. But we we might fly unmanned vehicles because there's less of a risk, you know, involved and stuff. So love to continue to have the conversation about that.
Speaker 12
Yeah. Certainly, those can those discussions continue. And it's important that when we put that into perspective that it is not necessarily always the limitation of the aircraft to fly in those conditions, but rather the payload that they're releasing from the aircraft to effectively hit their target on the ground. Mhmm. And while we talk about Santa Ana winds and we recognize that those wind conditions caused devastation across the south half of the state, we don't have to go any further back than two thousand seventeen Tubbs fire to recognize that those winds, those offshore winds really create that some level of devastation across the state.
So we continue to evaluate all that technology. There's new advancing technology every day, that allows us to really try to consider, how we're going to combat that. Lastly, I will tell you that it was interesting in the Santa Ana wind conditions that we just saw here in the last, week, that I think that many of the departments across the state, including us and local government, proactively began to up staff again. I saw articles where Los Angeles City Fire Department, held people on duty and up staff their resources. And I think the January 2025 fires was a stark reality and reminder of the conditions we're in.
Speaker 1
Thanks. And then just a a quick question. There's there was no references out again, in preparation for our bigger conversation on May 6 about hardening. The pilot program is restricted to five counties. There wasn't any reference to the five counties.
So it's you you still the pilot program is still focused on those five counties.
Speaker 13
Correct? That's correct. For federally matched dollars, there's actually a sixth pilot, as a part of that that uses state only funding. So it's six total.
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. Also looking forward to May 6, taking a deeper dive on Helm Hardening. You probably didn't pick up today, but that's a priority. But I really wanted to just express my support here for the proposal from both Cal OES and Cal Fire to expand the wildfire mitigation grant program. It sounds like the goal would be to broaden it beyond the initial pilot communities as well.
So I think that's a great step toward getting more funding out the door for hardening projects. Again, we'll be talking about specifics more on May 6, but really wanted to just plant that flag right now as well. Thanks.
Speaker 21
Yeah. Thank you. Just really briefly, can we get a little bit of an update on the mass timber accelerator program intended recipients?
Speaker 23
I'm Martija Kumar, department of department of finance. I would like to call my counterparts from the department of conservation, chief deputy director Gabe Tiffany, to provide those responses.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon. Gabe Tiffany. I'm the chief deputy director for the Department of Conservation. Thank you for the question on the mass timber program. So, the intent of that program is to increase adoption of mass timber and residential, construction by overcoming, regulatory permitting and design barriers.
Speaker 25
So funding would be offered, via a statewide block grant, initially, and the recipient could be an established statewide or regional entity with experience in economic development programs and also working across jurisdictions to get to get results, in achieving program goals. So, then subgrants would be issued to local, regional, or tribal agencies. These would be modeled after existing programs such as the Santa Monica mass timber accelerator program. Funding to subgrantees would go to technical support for a host of kind of coordination, especially including, like, local permitting to get these projects off the ground. Funding would also, could also be provided to developers for all kinds of, logistical, architectural design, project needs, anything anything to get these projects off the ground.
Speaker 25
We're looking at establishing the program in the the twenty sixth, twenty seventh fiscal year. So I don't have a a a really good idea of when those grants would go out, but program development in in the next fiscal year.
Speaker 1
Thank you. With that, we are ready to move to non presentation items. And do any members have non presentation items they want to call?
Speaker 1
That's right. There you go. Right. And so we're we're gonna move to public comments. We really appreciate everybody's time and the cooperation today, right, as we move forward.
If the sergeants could give me an idea, are there and number one, if you're if you're outside and you're going to participate in comments, would you please at least, come in? I'm just trying to get an idea of make sure that we can afford to have them.
Speaker 1
Alright. Great. One minute for everybody. Yeah. We look forward to your comments.
Speaker 13
All right. Take two. Good afternoon, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Funds. We're here to continue to support proposed investments, particularly in the wildlife productivity projects, as well as the reestablishment of the wildlife coexistence program.
Speaker 26
We would urge that the legislature work to preserve the connectivity funding and that the final budget include 18,000,000 general fund in fiscal year twenty six, twenty seven, as well as 15,000,000 in ongoing funding to support the permanent positions and associated operating costs for restoring the wildlife coexistence program. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, chair Bennett, members. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. Three quick points. One, I really appreciate all the conversation about having to do kind of everything everywhere with regards to wildfire. I will note that a lot of what was talked about, I think, are homeowner responsibilities and local responsibility area actions, and it's called state responsibility area for a reason.
That's where our statutory responsibilities are. So I think that's where a lot of our resources need to be concentrated. With regards to GGRF, my overarching, observation there is we really need to fix the allocation of the wildfire from tier three back up to tier one where it was for the last six years. We're gonna be out of bond funding by 2029. And if you look at ARB's projections for GGRF, that will be functionally gone for tier three activities by the early twenty thirties.
Speaker 6
That's gonna be our only source of funding. And lastly, with regards to the trailer bill language proposal, while I appreciate the desire for more flexibility, I think it is important to maintain some call out there for supporting beneficial fire projects, specifically not just fuels crews and something there's some flexibility there, but something like what Assemblyman Connolly has been proposing makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon, mister chair. Jennifer Fearing for the National Wildlife Federation. We're here to urge the legislature or the administration to reestablish and augment the wildlife coexistence and the wolf coexistence and compensation program at CDFW. You know, as people and wildlife increasingly share landscapes, proactive coexistence strategies aren't just a nice to have. They are a need to have.
Incidents reports with wildlife to the department have increased, close to a third over the last five years, during which time calls, emails, and field contacts have increased by 58%. We have workable coexistence strategies. We are not investing in them. We had a successful three year program that ran out of term limited funds in 2024, and the absence of that program is being felt acutely by suburban, urban, and rural communities across California. So there are a diverse set of legislators and organizations that strongly support ongoing funds and one time funds to, improve coexistence with wildlife across the state.
We urge your support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon, chair and members. Julianna Tetlow with San Diego Humane Society. I'd like to echo all of the comments made by my colleague, and also just provide a real world example of a, a situation that could potentially have been prevented by the coexistence program. San Diego Humane Society's Project Wildlife in Ramona is one of the few, rehabilitation organizations that has a focus on apex predators. We are currently in possession of two bear cubs that are about three months old.
We received them after their mother, Blondie, was killed in Monrovia, and it was largely preventable. I think education would have made a huge difference in how that community interacted with Blondie the Bear. It takes extraordinary resources from nonprofits to rehabilitate these bears. They will be returned back into that community, and, we are really hoping that this program can be funded and, get back into action before these bears these baby bears are back in that same community. Thank you so much.
Speaker 6
Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Anjali Ronndive. I am the founder of Woman for Wolves. Thank you so much for hearing our public comment.
We are a nonprofit and conservation organization as well as a wolf dog sanctuary, and I'd also like to second everything that my colleagues said. We've lost over 70% of our wildlife in the past fifty years, so it's more important now than ever to prioritize wildlife coexistence. And a lot of the issues we heard here today, whether it was wildfires or invasive species, a lot of that could help be mitigated, you know, with protecting our wildlife and our wild spaces. So we are here in favor of funding the wildlife coexistence program and making sure that Fish and Wildlife has everything that they need to continue to do what they do and and more. So thank you so much.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon. My name is Marina Hatchby. I'm the cofounder of Women for Wolves. Our sanctuary is based in rural El Dorado County where we coexist with mountain lions, coyotes, and other wildlife. We live in nature, predators are part of a healthy functioning landscape.
Speaker 27
And as Angelie said, severe wildfires take over California each year, and coexistence is not only possible. It is vital, and funding co wildlife coexistence is essential for the future of California, and that is why we are all here today. So we do hope that you guys help fund the wildlife coexistence program.
Speaker 18
Good afternoon. Alex Loomer on behalf of the Karuk tribe. Wanted to echo the comments by Pacific Forest Trust earlier about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and ensuring that we're keeping wildfire funding in tier one. Also wanted to just appreciate the discussion on beneficial fires. This is a huge priority for the Karuk tribe.
Speaker 28
We were really pleased by the governor's executive order last fall trying to get more beneficial fire on the ground. But if we're gonna do that, we really need to be sure we're investing in capacity. And so it's really critical that, we're putting the money forward so Karuk could are supporting Assemblyman O'Connor's bill, eighteen ninety one, or as I like to call it, the Beneficial Fire Capacity Act, that will dedicate 10% of the funding that's going to Cal Fire to make sure it's going to beneficial fire capacity. That's gonna be our top priority. Thank you so much.
And then on wildlife coexistence, I'm just doing a number of me too's. Mountain Lion Foundation, the Wild Futures, Endangered Habitat League, Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, In Defense of Animals, California Wolf Foundation, Center for Environmental Health, Resource Renewal Institute, Environmental Protection Information Center, Pacific Forest Trust. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon. I'm Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon Society, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, Desert Land Trust, and the Power and Nature Coalition. On item seven, we strongly support the administration's prop four proposal. For the Audubon Society, in particular, the salton sea funding is really critical. We also ask that, either as a b 35 or in trailer bill, we deal with the APA exemption issue to get the funding out quickly.
Speaker 29
On item eight, which was a non presentation item, we strongly support the, funding for the BCP to implement a b thirteen nineteen. We are already seeing the federal government come after endangered species. They just convened the god squad for the fourth time in history to exempt all oil and drilling oil and gas drilling in the Gulf Of Mexico, and we expect we'll be seeing something like that here. And finally, I would like to echo the the issues already raised by my numerous colleagues regarding the funding of the wildlife coexistence and also mentioning that we also need funding for wolf management. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Good afternoon. Brooke Rose from the Wildfire Solutions Coalition, commenting on behalf of coalition members, the Air Business Council, Association of California Water Agencies, California Farm Bureau, rural county representatives of California, State of the Redwoods League, Climate and Wildfire Institute, Mountain County's Water Resources Association, Regenerative Forest Solutions, and Tahoe City Public Utility District. On issue number four, we urge the legislature to restore the 200,000,000 from GGRF that was established in SB 901, and we strongly support the chair's and others' comments that the general fund is a more appropriate source for funding essential public services such as Cal Fire operations. On issue number five, we request increasing this year's prop four wildfire funding to 500,000,000 to meet the urgent need for greater investment in wildfire resilience. March said record high temperatures, and the April 1 snowpack was the second lowest ever recorded.
Speaker 18
Good afternoon, chair. Michael Jarrett with The Nature Conservancy and the Wildfire Solutions Coalition. First, I would like to thank staff for the excellent agenda document and the committee for this excellent discussion today. Really appreciate the time spent on wildfire resilience. Wildfire risk continues to grow across California, threatening lives, homes, infrastructure, critical natural resources in the state's economy.
Proactive investments in wildfire risk reduction are among some of the most effective tools available to protect our state and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Every dollar invested in reducing the risk of catastrophic events, like wildfires, saves more than $6 in damages and cleanup costs and $22 in future economic losses. The majority of Californians strongly support increased state spending for wildfire resilience. The January budget would be one of the lowest investments in wildfire resilience in this decade. We align our ass with the wildfire solutions coalitions to fix that, and thank you for the time.
Speaker 30
Good afternoon, mister chair and member. Karen Ling, on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, our assemblywoman really nailed it with the concerns that she raised to you today about the Golden Muscle. I know you've seen the pictures. The the county is at the heart of the Delta, And even though it's, most prevalent there, though our water goes through there south, and so it does have a state impact. And there are, certain folks at CDFW that have been wonderful to meet with and talk about solutions, but there's a patchwork of different local agencies that are responsible for managing all these different water bodies, and we need money for projects.
Speaker 31
Certainly, there's not a way to eradicate them yet, but there are a lot of projects that are gonna be very expensive. And, what is invested by the state there is gonna help everybody. So we'd encourage you to make sure there's money out the door for real projects. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Chair and members, Alex Torres with Golden Bear Strategies here on two clients focused on wildfire mitigation and recovery. First, a non agenda item, for the Thermalito Water and Sewer district would re up, the conversation around our request for the Concow Reservoir. Following the Camp Fire, sediment buildup has significantly reduced drinking water and storage capacity, for a, recognized disadvantaged community. So we're seeking an allocation of prop four funds, exploring federal support, really any sort of funding we can find for this really critical project, but reiterate the need for a state partnership to restore reliable, safe drinking water access. So thank you to Assemblyman Gallagher, senator Dudali for both leading that charge.
Speaker 32
Second, on behalf of Perimeter Solutions, Perimeter is proud to partner with Cal Fire on the fire retardant for aerial operations. The same US Forest Service qualified product can also be used for ground applied mitigation along, high ignition areas. This presents a prop for spending presents a strong opportunity to scale this prevention and mitigation work statewide. We look forward to working and partnering with the legislature, CAL FIRE, local governments to get this out. So thank you so much.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon. My name is Abby Carlson, and I'm here on behalf of California Farm Bureau representing farmers and ranchers across the state. We're here to strongly support the $48,000,000 budget request for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, more specifically for the wolf livestock compensation program. As wolf populations continue to expand, our members and ranchers are experiencing more frequent depredations, and this has become a big burden on the department and their staff. And so we're asking the department to do a lot, whether that's come and approve the depredations, administer compensation, or just support the ranchers that are dealing with these direct impacts with the wolf activity.
Speaker 33
So we strongly encourage the the the committee to support the request of the the fish and game and or fish and wildlife, excuse me, so that they can continue to fulfill these responsibilities and keep trust in that program. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Thank you, mister chair. Mark Fenstermaker on a couple of different items. First, item one for Sonoma County Water Agency and the California Tahoe Alliance. Just wanna say that we desperately need more decontamination stations throughout the state. It's really different, conditions for the two clients I just mentioned in Tahoe.
Speaker 34
We have very robust, some might say, the gold standard of decontamination process, and we really were overrun this past year with so many boats coming up to Tahoe to go through decontamination. And then in Sonoma, it's the opposite. We have no decontamination stations. The nearest is at Lake Berryessa. So if somebody shows up wanting to recreate, we can't let them launch.
They've gotta drive two, three hours away, and we don't even know what happens if they even go through decontamination. Next, on item five for the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, wanna recognize a number of your comments, mister chair, as well as from, Patrick Wright about the the challenges and the different conditions in Southern California as it relates to wildfire resilience. And we just call that a lot of the funding in prop four for wildfire resilience is aimed at forest health fuels reductions.
Speaker 20
Mister chair, Andrew Antwych with Shahriar Antwych Melzner and Lang here today on behalf on behalf of the office of Cat Taylor and, before and for Tomcat Ranch. The increasing number of human wildlife contacts presents significant on the ground challenges, including impacts on producers' resilience, ecosystem balance, and overall habitat health. We do realize this is a challenging budget year, but we do respectfully encourage meaningful funding to be directed to CDFW to address this issue. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, chair. Christella Thomas. On behalf of the East Bay Regional Parks District, we ask that the legislature maintains the $80,000,000 Cal Fire local fire prevention from GGRF that we saw this past year. They have been crucial in helping us protect the East Bay from fires originating in the grasslands and other open spaces we steward. And on a separate note, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, we wish to express our support for Prop Forest demonstrated job projects appropriation for California conservation course this year.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of Humane World for Animals, echoing a lot of the comments that were made before me in support of funding for CDFW's wildlife coexistence program. It's really important that we get strategies in place before conflicts occur. Thank you so much.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon, mister chair. I appreciate the committee tackling these issues. I'm here on behalf of Jason Bright, on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association, in support of CFW's efforts to help ranchers address livestock interactions, and specifically supporting $18,000,000 in one time and $15,000,000 ongoing for the Human Wildlife Coexistence Program, as well as here to support the Wolf Program at $30,000,000 per senator Blake Spears budget request, which enjoys bicameral support. Thanks very much for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And seeing no other comments, we will adjourn this meeting and be back again next week. Thank you very much. Well done. Yeah.
It's a very good report.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.