Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
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
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
And that subsidence is what's causing the potential failure of the aqueducts. And lastly, subsidence threatens to reduce water carrying capacity of the state water project by 87%. So you can put that into perspective on how much Southern California depends on that water. And this proposed legislation is backed by 70 or more organizations. And with us today, I have two witnesses.
The first is Cynthia Cortez from Restore the Delta, and, Peter Thompson from Central Valley Water Authority. And that's At this point I'll yield to Cynthia, to, to make her case.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Chair Becker and committee members, my name is Cynthia Cortez. I am the policy program manager for Restarted Delta. Thank you for allowing me to provide comments on SB eight seventy two today. This bill is an important step in prioritizing investments in Delta, as well as ensuring drinking water supply for 27,000,000 Californians.
There are currently 11,000,000 1,100,000,000 miles of levees weaving throughout a mosaic of islands in the Delta. These islands and waterways are home to 4,000,000 Delta County residents. Delta agriculture, commercial fishing, recreation, and tourism industries, tribal cultural resources, and one of the most diverse ecosystems on the West Coast Of The Americas. Delta levees are foundational in protecting these communities and economies from flood risk. The Delta Levees were constructed in the late 1800s, early 1900s, and have not been upgraded in over a century.
In fact, many of the levees do not currently meet the USACE standard as climate change impacts weather patterns. Delta levees are coming under new stressors from extreme precipitation events, increasing the risk of a breach or boil, which would threaten human lives, property infrastructure, and drinking water supplies across California. Repair and maintenance of Delta levies are currently funded through a combination of state, local, and federal funding streams, but often fall on private land holders who do not have the means to invest in the upgrades and maintenance needed to bring the Delta levies into the twenty first century. The Delta Stewardship Council has already done the research on what investments are needed developing a tiered risk based approach to investment. However, and critically, this strategy lacks prioritization and funding.
Speaker 8
SB eight seventy two takes an important step to identify and allocate funding resources for this critical investment in the Delta Levees. This proactive investment of a 150,000,000 over twenty years would protect upwards of $22,000,000,000 in state assets and save the state billions more on emergency funding to support the fallout from levy failures. The bill also looks to similarly
Speaker 3
Restarted Delta believes that this bill bill embodies the coequal goals outlined in the 2009 Delta Reform Act, protecting and restoring the Delta as it plays and ensuring reliable drinking water to Southern California. I want to thank Senator McNerney for spearheading this bill and urge an aye vote for the committee today.
Speaker 4
Okay. Thank you. Alright. Good afternoon, Chair Becker, esteemed committee members. It's my pleasure to be here today and support this bill.
My name is Peter Thompson. I'm the executive director for the Central Coast Water Authority, one of the 29 member agencies of the state water project that collectively serve 27,000,000 Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland. I'm here today because the Central Coast Water Authority and the regions that it supplies water to, San Luis Obispo County and Santa Barbara County, will be the first to lose supply from the state water project due to subsidence in the Central Valley. So the impact of that would be devastating. So 40% of the water of San Luis Obispo County relies on this water supply and 47% of Santa Barbara County relies on it.
To replace that water resource, it would require nine desalination plants of a similar size to the one that is in Santa Barbara City Of Santa Barbara. So thus far, DWR has worked with ingenuity to work around the impacts of subsidence, but there's no more adaptability left in the system. This requires us to do significant repairs of subsidence or there will be substantial reductions to most state water project contractors supply, and in some cases like Central Coast Water Authority, complete loss of supply from the state water project. So, in the repair of subsidence and critical delta lever repairs is essential to a long term affordable water supply for California. But I also want to hit on one other thing.
Our actions with subsidence have an impact on energy. The State Water Project has been utilized to serve as a giant battery for California's renewable resources. As subsidence reduces the ability for water to flow through the state water project, it also reduces the capacity of that battery to absorb solar in the day and release it through hydro turbines at night. So California's water and energy future are inextricably intertwined. Investing in one is investing
Speaker 1
Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Well, I'd like to invite folks who, have a me too comment, please, just your name and organization and position on the bill. Go ahead.
Speaker 5
Mister chair and members, Don Gilbert on behalf of South Africa, the San Joaquin Area flood control agency in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. And I know the sergeant is trying to manage door and the noise, we'll we'll just try to manage through it. But if you can ask the folks outside to keep it down, that'd be great. Go ahead.
Speaker 6
Hello. Good afternoon. Kealey Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.
Speaker 7
Hello Jennifer Pierre, General Manager for State Water Contractors in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Hi, good afternoon Chair Becker, members, Glen Farrell with GF advocacy on behalf of the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, the Crescenta Valley Water District, and the Southern California Water Coalition all in strong support.
Speaker 2
Jonathan Clay on behalf of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in support.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon. Julia Hall with the Association of California Water Agencies in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon. Danny Merkley with the Guaco Group on behalf of Kern County Water Agency and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District in support.
Speaker 12
Mister chair and members of the committee, Bill Gaines on behalf of the Sassoon Resource Conservation District in support.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon. Beth Olaswa on behalf of Inland Empire Utilities Agency, and the municipal water district of Orange County in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. We have a support if amended position. Strongly support the intent of this bill. We're asking that the bill allow federal conveyance infrastructure to be eligible for this funding. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Dawn Kapke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, SEEB, in strong support.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon. Brenda Bass on behalf of Mohave Water Agency and Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon,
Speaker 6
chair and members. Molly Colton, Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Kyle Griffith on behalf of, Californians for Water Security and strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, senators. Adam Quinones, California advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, and San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District all in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Anthony Molina on behalf of Rancho Water District in support. Thank you. Good
Speaker 14
afternoon. Jack Worson on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.
Speaker 3
Good morning. Kyle Jones, on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Water Collaborative Action Program with the support Ifamand and Friends of the River San Francisco Baykeeper Planning and Conservation Lake and the California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance with the support Ifamand. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Paul Yoder on behalf of the counties of Solano and San Joaquin, support as is. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. Matt Cremins on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support.
Speaker 4
Patrick Foley on behalf of the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in support.
Speaker 3
Tiffany Fan on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District and West Basin Municipal Water District. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Becker here. Sarto. Here. Sarto here. Allen.
Blakespeare? Cobaldan? Here. Cobaldan here. Grove?
Stern? Here. Stern, here.
Speaker 1
Quorum has been established. We will now invite opposition witnesses. Do we have opposition witnesses in the room here today? Okay. Seeing none, do we have any opposition?
Anyone else wanted to weigh their opposition at the mic? Okay. We'll bring it back to the, committee then. Senator Cabalen?
Speaker 20
I I first, I wanna congratulate the author and and the coalition folks who did come come together around the bill. I the author and I represent the vast majority of the of the legal delta in California. I think between between us, over 90% of it. And maybe water is only for fighting when you have been drinking too much whiskey, because this is an example of of a of a really important breakthrough that even we're we're still gonna fight about big gigantic issues, but there's a lot of threats and opportunities in our water system that are just the fundamentals, and about making the system making gravity work properly, making gravity work properly on both levies and subsidence, and this is an important step forward. I I represent the senate on the Delta Conservancy, and I've served on the Delta Protection Commission for twenty years before coming to the senate and know very well how important the Delta levies are.
But also, the as the history that the that the author, identified that these were put to these levies are the result of of individual farmers and their neighbors, you know, fighting against nature and against all odds and never would get a permit to do this today, but creating something really important in California that just happens to have turned into the most one of the most important water infrastructure system that we have. And it just isn't possible to imagine a world in which those same farmers or their descendants today could possibly finance all of the all the levies at today's standards. That that just isn't feasible. And our commitment as a state has been to the the co equal goals that most people talk about all the time, the environment, agriculture, and water for just Southern California, but also for the the valley and even for several water users in the Bay Area, but also for the people of the Delta and the towns and the communities. And they don't have the physical capacity, to build levees to the strength and the height that are needed in order to support the state water system.
We saw this when Jones tracked when those levees collapsed and the big swoosh of water that came into that island and the pressure that that puts on the water system, on the salinity challenges, on ag, on so many things that that are far more expensive to fix than they would have been to prevent by by investing making basic investments in the levees at the at the front end. We're also not just it's been now, fifteen years since we passed the since the legislature I wasn't here. Since the legislature passed the a lot of the important Delta land use reforms because, a generation ago, one of the concerns about Delta levies was that if if the state invested in improving levies, that communities in the Delta would just build and build and build more more housing and and and put more people at flood risk and what have you. And the legislature passed a comprehensive package about all of this just over fifteen years ago with the promise that once we're going to solve this now, we're going to prevent sprawling into areas that are at increased flood risk. And now that we're doing that, then it's going to be okay to invest in the Delta Levees, which we then never did.
And so, I really appreciate the author's leadership. We need to make these investments. It is critical both for the communities of the district, the people that live there, the agriculture that depends on them, but for the entire state and for many of our in habitat and species goals as well. At the since you've taken amendments in committee at the conclusion of when the bill hopefully moves out with those amendments, I would like to be added as coauthor as well. But again, congratulations to the author and thank you for the, to the water community for coming together in such a profound way on just simple but very, very important changes that will make our water system more effective and efficient.
You.
Speaker 19
I also wanna thank senator I do not represent any of the Delta Region, but I'm already coauthoring your bill. And that's because I think you've you put forward something practical here that can actually move our state forward and find things we can agree on. So no whiskey and no fighting. Yeah, I know. We'll save that for later.
Speaker 19
I know, exactly. Depends what the fight is. Yeah, the funding aspect here will be a challenge. I know we're going to have to all work on that together, but I really appreciate the work of the coalition here and the diversity of this group, try to get some solutions moving. So thanks for thanks for making this happen.
Speaker 25
A question? Weigh in the bipartisanship here. I I too am, happy to see this bill. Maybe for a little bit different reason and that's because we know we have these problems and we've known we've had these problems for years and yet we don't prioritize fixing them or prioritize the budget that is needed to address them. By identifying what the project needs to be and how much it's going to be and how much we need to do every year, it gives us clear choice in the legislature whether we need whether we are willing to make this a priority in our state, which it absolutely should be, our water system should be a priority, and make sure one of the first thing that get put in the budget every year is that, so that we can get this fixed and and and done and move on to the next project.
Because when it comes to the water system, there's multiple projects that need to be done, not just this one. And so the approach that we're taking with this is the kind that doesn't allow us to bury the problem and just talk about, well, we don't really have funding because we can't bury this problem. This problem is going to reach proportions that we can't come back from if we don't address it. And we need to address it now and for the next few years. My only question is, what is the the bigger number of of how much it's going to cost to address our levy issues?
So we're doing $300,000,000 a year if we did this. You said something about twenty years. So is that are they talking about $10,000,000,000 $15,000,000,000 of work that needs to be done to be able to accomplish what we need to accomplish?
Speaker 2
Well, it would be $300,000,000 a year for twenty years is what the current estimate is.
Speaker 25
Twenty years. Yeah. And and plus there'll be some growth in how much it costs to fix things along the way. But the bottom line is we we kind of know what it costs. We know what we can get done every year, which is my other question.
Is this the number that we need to be able to accomplish the projects that we can accomplish every year? Because it does no good to put $600,000,000 in and only be able to do a $100,000,000 of projects.
Speaker 2
Well, I mean, that's a nice question. And as the engineering progresses, I think we'll get a much better estimate. But right now, that looks like what it'll take. The levees to lift them up and protect them and then actually having to put steel girders in the middle of I mean the canals, steel girders in the levees should be done with $6,000,000,000 over twenty years. That's our current estimate.
Speaker 25
And I just hope that some of the things that we do in California that impede progress on projects don't impede this. And if it does, I hope we get to know about it from the people who are responsible for building this or or tackling the problem. So that we can reevaluate how we're what we're doing that's causing these impediments. Because I want this to work and I want it to work efficiently for for our public. But I also want it to be an example of what we can and should be doing going forward.
So thank you for bringing the bill and I appreciate it. At the appropriate time, we'll go and make a motion.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Well, I appreciate the spirit of bipartnership. I do want to ask one question that was in the analysis talked about the beneficiary pays principle and how some projects funded in this could possibly violate that. Do have a comment on that issue?
Speaker 2
I do. This is a unique circumstance. Damage that's being caused by the subsidence is not being caused by the beneficiaries. It's caused by over drafting groundwater when it was still legal for generations. And so the folks that are going to be beneficiaries of the project, say Los Angeles Basin, San Diego, they didn't cause a problem and yet this is a statewide issue since it's going to affect twenty seven million people.
It really doesn't affect a small segment of the population. So it benefits the whole state and I think those are a couple of the reasons. And in addition to that, the situation is urgent. We can't put this off any longer. I was wondering if you would want to make a comment about that?
Speaker 9
would agree that the situation is urgent. I'd also say that Sigma the state has recognized that this is an issue, has put Sigma in place in 2014, but that's a slow process. And so the state has taken some responsibility to try and rein in subsidence, in overdraft, but it's still ongoing. So to a certain extent, the users of the state water projects are at the mercy of how slow the state, what the sigma process is moving forward and the subsidence that has already occurred. So, that's, that would be my add on to that.
Speaker 2
Right. And there was a precedent last year. Spent $2,000,000 for the subsidence issue. So it there is a precedent for this. It's not the it's not the first time that's happened.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, with with that, I will be supporting today. Do you again also join in committing the coalition that's come together around this, a lot of references to whiskey and water. You serve a lot of both if we get this all the way through the process. And with that, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Well, I would like to close. Basically, we've heard often that California is the fourth largest economy in the world. And a lot of that has been built up because water has been available to the state. And that's important for us and for the future generations. This project, if it's completed successfully as as Senator Sierro has pointed out, Vice Chair Sierro has pointed out, will illustrate both that we can do things in California and do them right and that we will protect future generations by the things we're deciding today.
So I think it's absolutely important to do it. I want to thank the committee staff for their help on this and their excellent suggestions. I want to thank my two co testifiers, Cynthia Cortez and Peter Thompson. With that, I will ask for an I vote. And for the nice comments of the committee members this morning, this afternoon.
Speaker 1
Okay, excellent. Yes. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll. Oh, a motion from Senator Sarato or vice chair.
Speaker 24
Sarato? Aye. Allen? Blake Spear? Cobaldan.
Aye. Cobaldan I. Grove I. Grove Stern I. Stern
Speaker 1
Okay. That is five to zero. That bill will remain on call. Congratulations. Next up, we've senator Richardson.
You're here to present SB thirteen oh five. We're checking to see if there's any pictures of bears in this
Speaker 27
Cows. On your flag, you do. Yep. Yep. There it is.
Is this on? How do I? Am I on? Yes. Okay.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and staff as well. I want to say it's a pleasure to be here today, and I will properly introduce him at the end of my statement, but I did want to acknowledge that the Chairman is here, Octavio Escobedo, number three, the third of the Tejon Indian Tribe. I wanted to acknowledge his presence, his presence long before his family and heritage long before we were all here, and that you would keep that in mind as we present.
I had planned to give you all a water bottle to show you that even though we talk a lot about the grizzly bear and we have it on the flag and it's on bottles and you go to the airport and you see it and everything, we need to get it off, not just not off the flag and off the water bottles, but we really need to return the bear where it began. And so that's why we're here today. From the original bear flag revolt of eighteen forty six to today, the California grizzly has been synonymous with the golden state. Unfortunately, the last known living bear of California subspecies was in 1924. The bear flag revolt from June 1846 was a short lived twenty five day uprising by American settlers in Sonoma, California against Mexican authority, resulting in the declaration of the independent California Republic.
The grizzly bear was very respected by its early rancheros and was a symbol for the native sons of the Golden West as early as 1875. And was the University of California's mascot named as early as 1941. Their rapid demise was not due to habitat loss or lack of food, but the direct result of deliberate extermination efforts by a small number of settlers, miners, ranchers, and government agents who hunted, trapped, and poisoned them resentlessly. The grizzly bear symbolizes strength, defiance, independence during the revolt against Mexico. For thousands of years, California grizzlies coexisted with the ancestors of contemporary California Native American tribes forming longstanding ecological and cultural relationships.
The loss of the grizzlies also served as enduring relationships between the species and many California Native American tribes for whom the grizzly remains a vital and honored relative. Its erasure disrupted the cultural teachings, the spiritual traditions, and the reciprocal stewardship practices deeply tied to the land and its living systems. Without grizzly bears, California's ecosystem has been impacted. This species was critical to the natural processes such as seed dispersal, soil enrichment, nutrient cycling, vegetation management, and balancing the food web. These functions also are in alignment with the state's 30 by 30 goals and support biodiversity and contribute to long term ecosystem stability.
I present to you SB thirteen oh five, a study bill, to take an important step in having the state assess the feasibility of reintroducing the grizzly bear. I anticipate there are a few here today that may express concerns with the bill, largely out of fear of the reintroduction of the grizzly bear and what how that could impact land and cattle. My 35th District Staff have met with individuals to find and will continue to do so, and will find ways to address any remaining concerns. While we will continue to meet with them, amendments offered today by the committee are our initial step to address these concerns. Specifically, these amendments will, one, remove the language that asserts we are reintroducing the grizzly.
This bill is a road map to determine if the reintroduction of the grizzly is feasible. Two, this bill adds to the list of groups that the state must consult with to include and possibly determine impacts of the needs of law enforcement, landowners, managers, outdoor sports recreational groups. This collecting feedback ensures all views are included in the process. And then finally, the acceptance of the amendment which pushes back the date of completion from 2028 to 2030. Through the adoption of the aforementioned amendments, I extend my willingness to work with the committee and individuals to enhance the legislative process.
To recap, SB thirteen oh five is a study bill to determine if, how, when, and where the introduction of the grizzly bear would be successful. Importantly, we have an opportunity to do something with this grizzly study that we weren't able to do with other species that have roamed throughout California. If deemed feasible and a plan approved, the bears would be reintroduced slowly and would be closely monitored. With biological feasibility established and clear ecological, cultural and economic benefits, now is the moment for California to explore the possibility of reconnecting us truly to the grizzly bear and not just a water bottle, but by defining part of its natural heritage. We will also be able to chart a thoughtful community guided path towards the grizzly's potential return.
With that, I have with me two of our supporters, Chairman Escobedo, the third with the Tohon Indian Tribe and also Tiana Williams Clawson, Director of the Yuruk Tribe Wildlife Department. I hope that you would extend them the same courtesy to me given the fact that we are actually on their land. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. My name is Octavio Escobedo the third. I'm the chairman of the Tone Indian tribe and one of the proud cosponsors of SB 13 o five. California calls itself the bear state, yet today the grizzly exists merely as a symbol on our flag, our seal, and our institutions, but not on our landscape.
For the Tahonian tribe, the grizzly or Hunyat is not a symbol, it's a relative. Its loss was not just ecological, but cultural and spiritual. SB 13 o five does something very simple and very responsible. It asked California to do the work before making any decision in the reintroduction of the species. This bill does not authorize reintroduction.
It requires the state to evaluate whether suitable habitat exists, what impacts restoration would have, and what it would take to do it right. It also ensures that this process is grounded in science, tribal consultation, and with amendments we will be taking today in committee, meaningful engagement with law enforcement, landowners, outdoor recreational groups, and other stakeholders. That last point is critical. Restoration cannot be imposed, it must be built with the people who will live with it. The bill recognizes the realities on the ground.
Speaker 11
Human wildlife conflict is already increasing across California. Agencies like Fish and Wildlife need better tools, planning, and long term capacity. SB 13 o five creates a roadmap, not just for grizzlies, but for how California can manage coexistence moving forward. The grizzly sets the highest bar. If we can plan for that, we strengthen our ability to manage wolves, mountain lions, and other species already reshaping our landscapes.
Speaker 28
Ultimately, this bill is about readiness. A century ago, California made a decision to eliminate the grizzly. Today, we are not being asked to reverse that decision, only to examine it honestly and prepare for the future. SB thirteen oh five gives California the information it needs to answer a simple question, is it possible to bring our state animal home responsibly, collaboratively, and based on science? We respectfully ask your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for being here again. Thanks for your testimony. Go ahead.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much. Chairman Becker and members. My name is Tiana Williams Klassen, and I'm a Yurok tribe member and the director of the Yurok tribe's wildlife department. I want to first express my admiration for the leadership of the Tejon tribe, and Senator Richardson in forwarding and authoring this bill, and to my own tribal council for co sponsoring it. California is recognized as a powerful leader in conservation, overseeing and co managing roughly 52,000,000 acres of public lands, and committing to further increasing and improving conservation in collaboration with tribes, local governments, conservation organizations, and private land managers.
The loss of the grizzly, or the Neekwych in our language, is a matter of significant conservation concern. I can see the ways in which my homeland has suffered from the loss of this iconic species, and it's a loss that lingers in our heart and in the attenuation of a millennia old relationship. This resonates particularly in my work as a restoration ecologist, recognizing that management of our lands would have historically been done in partnership with keystone ecological engineers such as the grizzly. The full scope of that loss and its impact to our health and wellness, I think is yet to be fully understood. And I can speak to our story, but California is a highly complex state in terms of ecological diversity and cultural and socioeconomic diversity.
Speaker 15
And I am proud of this bill because it recognizes that complexity and does not shy away from it, explicitly requiring a multi level and comprehensive analysis of what would be needed in collaboration with the very people who need to be involved. In 2024, California established the ear of the California grizzly bear, recognizing the cultural and ecological importance of the species. This bill will lead us through the next steps on a journey to reestablishing a relationship with grizzly for all Californians. Unlike when the Grizzly was extirpated from California due to a then simplistic and short sighted decision of a relative few, we have an opportunity here to bring together all those who would be impacted or benefited by their return. As recognized as in this bill, we can grow in our understanding of the role that grizzly once played in our ecosystem and in our lives in supporting California's vast and beautiful biodiversity, in turn growing in our understanding of what California truly needs to return to full ecological health in order to make the best decision for our relative, the grizzly, and California.
Speaker 1
Great. Could we just confirm, are you taking all the amendments? Yes. Yes. Okay.
Excellent. We'll now have others in support. Please go ahead.
Speaker 23
Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee, Paul Latrit, Hunwoot Mukhat is the Pechanga name for the Grizzlies since they've had some time in memoriam, and we're in full support.
Speaker 1
Chair members, Nicholas second on behalf of social compassion in legislation and our thousands supporters in California in support.
Speaker 19
Hello Peter Alagona University of California Santa Barbara speaking on behalf of the California Grizzly Research Network which formed a decade ago Last year produced this study looking at the past and potential future of grizzlies in California and we are in support.
Speaker 30
Brendan Cummings, Center for Biological Diversity, and I've also been authorized to relay support from California Native Plant Society and National Parks Conservation Association, as well as the 25 other groups that signed our coalition letter. Thank you, support.
Speaker 20
Angelie Ronen Devay, founder of Woman for Wolves, and we are here in support of coexistence and grizzly bears. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Reina Hatchmey, also cofounder of Woman for Wolves, we are here in support of the grizzly bears, SB thirteen oh five. Thank you guys so much.
Speaker 10
Danielle Hanis here from Leaders for Ethics, Animals, and the Planet in support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Do we have opposition witnesses? Great. How should we is it okay to do it from there?
Speaker 32
Thank you Chair Becker, distinguished members of the community. My name is David Bass. I recently retired from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife where I served as a game warden for twenty five years, a wildlife law enforcement officer. The last nine years of my career, was the deputy director and chief of law enforcement for the department where I oversaw 500 officers statewide whose job it is to respond to attacks on humans by wildlife and mitigate human wildlife conflict. I appreciate the bill's recognition of the cultural, historical and symbolic importance of the grizzly bear in California, as well as the author's acknowledgment that reintroduction may ultimately prove infeasible.
However, based on the committee's own analysis and the feasibility framework contemplated by this measure, I'm concerned that advancing this proposal at this time would place unrealistic demands on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and risk compounding existing carnivore management challenges. As noted in the senate committee analysis, the proposed road map relies heavily on ecological modeling, demographic assumptions, and comparative assessments to evaluate the potential for grizzly bear reintroduction. However, the feasibility study does not demonstrate that grizzly bears could succeed ecologically in California, instead relying on extrapolated habitat models and demographic rates that the authors acknowledge cannot be validated for California conditions or resolved through further investigation by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under these circumstances, additional study is unlikely to close that central data gap identified in the analysis. The committee analysis recognizes the dominant risks associated with grizzly bear reintroduction are social and institutional.
Human wildlife conflict will increase, straining CDFW's already limited capacity to respond to such events. As the former chief for the department for nine years, I was the person who was in charge of public safety response for the agency
Speaker 32
Absolutely, in my opinion, putting Gridsleys on the landscape in California will create a public safety risk in addition to creating a significant workload that the department is not funded or staffed for at this time. As the committee analysis itself underscores proactive investment in existing conflict prevention would help. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Mister chair. Paul Yoder on behalf of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition.
Speaker 7
Stacy Heaton, rural county representatives of California representing 40 rural counties statewide. We are respectfully opposed and
Speaker 12
Sheriff Mike Fisher Sierra County sheriff coroner opposition until CDFW can manage the current apex predators we have in California, I just can't see how adding another apex predator.
Speaker 20
Rick Roberty, president of California Academy of Associate, oppose at this time.
Speaker 34
Greg Herner on behalf of the 10 chapters is for Safari Club International in California in opposition.
Speaker 18
Kirk Wilbur, staff with the California Cattlemen's Association in opposition.
Speaker 6
Bill Gaines on behalf of the California Bowman Hunter State Archery Association, California Deer Association, the California Chapter of the Wild Sheep Foundation, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and 16 other wildlife conservation groups in opposition.
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll thank all of you as well. We'll bring it back to the committee for discussion.
Speaker 25
To the author, when you were developing this with the sponsors, did you see any other studies that have been done out there on the subject matter? Because the gentleman from UCSB just held up a thing, looked like a study on this very subject.
Speaker 27
Yes, I did read the study. In fact, I spent one year at UC Santa Barbara And that was one of the items that I seriously considered in bringing forward this legislation. What I would stress, if you look at actually the cover of the report, is the feasibility study. This action today is not saying that grizzly bears are going to be brought forward into California next year or the year after. It's to say that we would study whether there is a role to introduce grizzly bears into California.
And if we were to do so, how would we do that? And I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of that report. I would also further like to state, through the chair, that all of the groups that spoke in terms of opposition, if you notice the amendments, the amendments, that I'm accepting from the committee include working with those groups to determine if feasibility, should be included, meaning law enforcement, cattle, landowners, all of that. And that was actually brought up through several discussions that we had with several members.
Speaker 25
So, the law enforcement aspect of it, a lot of times and I talked about this in our committee, sub five about law enforcement. And because there's a lot of law enforcement that aren't on high on the radar. And and when we lack the funding and and capacity to have the right amount of people in these departments like fish and game. It limits what we can do out there. And so we really need to pay attention to some of these not as high on the radar law enforcement agencies that we have severely underfunded for the last few years now because they're being tasked with doing something they can't even keep up with right now with the wolves.
And, and so, the wolf reintroduction, some people will say it's been spectacularly, successful because there's so many of them, but, others will tell you it's been a spectacular fail because of the inability to control what's happening with them and some of the livestock and some of the, you know, other animals that are predators get, you know, the wolves are predators too. So it concerns me that we already have a study, that we've done some studies. I do want to look at this particular one from UCSB And I want to see what's in that. Because I I don't feel like sometimes we don't need to do studies after studies. We have to put in the infrastructure needed, and then we can have the discussion.
And if we're not going to commit to that infrastructure, which I don't think we will, then it makes me really uncomfortable that we are increasing a workload. And it's a vital workload. When you're introducing a predator, and I understand the whole spiritual thing behind where what it means to to tribes. But at the end of the day, most Californians see it as a predator and a scary one at that. So we have to go carefully forward doing that.
I understand that this is a study, but I wanted to look a little bit more into this before, before I'm willing to to commit even to the more of a study, because that study is not gonna tell us that we're gonna hire more more fish and wildlife folks to be able to maintain control over what we've got out there. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Yeah. Thank you, Senator Ciardo, for your comments. The reason part of the reason why we I agreed to extend the period was so we could look further into some of the issues that were brought forward. As a member of the budget committee and a chair of a subcommittee, it was very interesting to me to learn through this process that there is not a view to be adequate staffing in the Fish and Wild Game section. So I'm willing to take that on as a commitment.
I have seven plus years to be here. So that gives me time to have us address the concerns that they have expressed, which is I would assume in the feasibility study it would say, if you are considering to reintroduce grizzlies, we would need additional financial support to achieve that. And so, I welcome that response, if that's what the response is. And I welcome even now, to begin to look at why they are short staffed to the degree of what they're already trying to control. I would say, though, in fairness to the grizzly, we should be careful of comparing grizzlies with wolves.
Wolves actually produce on average of four pups per year, which is why you're seeing the high increase where grizzly bears only reproduce every three to five years, and they may produce only a cub one to four. So it definitely is at a different rate, but that doesn't change the fact that they would need management and monitoring. And my own thing, you know, of course I see the TV coverage of, you know, a bear going under someone's home. That's why I felt it was so important to have the native tribes' participation, because certainly any reintroduction would not be within urban communities but would be in lands that they have the sovereign authority, full authority of, and would have the support. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Just just a brief comment, an appreciation for the author and and, mister chairman for being here and for, all of your history on this. You know, I just to lend a a little insight from my own experience, we we've dealt with the near extinction event of lions, mountain lions in Southern California, and, had to live alongside apex predators, in our backyard. We just built the the largest land bridge in the world to make sure that they stop getting killed on the freeways and killing people in the process by our own hands. But we went through a lot of this fear and consternation. I really appreciate law enforcement's presence here and what our wardens have to deal without on the front lines every day.
And in addition, madam senator, you're talking about in terms of just the land itself being a bit of a buffer potentially, in in how you sort of study this issue. I think there there is a there's a a decision that we have to make as legislators and as voters of how we want to live. And we've made a decision at least in our backyard that we we're okay with some wildness in our backyards. And that that that risk is there. That it's not it's it's it's not nonexistent, and I don't wanna be dismissive of some of the concerns raised.
Had a neighbor of mine get attacked by a mountain lion, in their backyard. And, watching, you know, a five year old kid deal with that while we're trying to build a mountain lion bridge was a very hard thing. And a lot of people said, you know, let's call it quits. And Let's just go kill them all. That's a natural protective instincts I think we have as as humans to protect our young and our people.
But what we started to realize was that we weren't we were encroaching in a way that provoked those confrontations, and that we weren't helping build resources for our ranchers to be able to handle this. They were having unpinned llamas, be basically bait for them or, they were having their pets out at night even though they're right on the periphery of the mountains. There are tools and there are methods that we can use to live alongside wildness, but it's a decision we have to make, that we wanna have that kind of life. And I think the calculation we all made is that, you know, we we wanna live in a California where where where that that risk, there's some beauty in it. And and to have, to have that element in our lives as opposed to just sterilizing our landscapes and our nature so that nothing else that could ever be a risk, whether it's a great white shark in the ocean or a mountain lion in in the Santa Monica Mountains.
It'd be safer for us to have no great white sharks or safer for us to have no mountain lions. But a, it would destroy our ecosystem and b, not the kind of people we want to be. I think it makes us more human and have wildness in our lives. I'd love to be added as a co author to this measure and move the measure at the appropriate time.
Speaker 20
Alright. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. You mentioned the Bear Flag Revolt in Sonoma in my district. And the grizzly was a common feature in the coast ranges of my district, actually also the delta in California. So the range has been extraordinary.
I'm inclined to be supportive, but I do want to dig into some of the details here because I it's kind of the same question that senator senator DeSciardo did about the relationship to this to the Santa Barbara study, in part because the way the bill's framed up now with the with the amendments, and the amendments are comprehensive and excellent and will very much well thought through. But they do there are a couple of aspects I might like to probe with you. So one is that they seem to focus the study first and foremost, maybe not exclusively, but pretty close on biological viability and and related questions. And the issues around conflict risk, public safety, economic competition and other things are not mentioned at all, but but even conflict risk and public safety in particular only really emerged, at least from my reading of the amendments, when we're talking about where it should be. Not the question of if it should be, but where it should be.
So, the conflict risk and several other factors are part of the evaluation of possible different locations. But they're not part of the, they're not at the threshold question of should we be doing this at all. And so I think part to the public safety concerns, to the ag concerns, I share, to have those be legitimately sub in in part of part of this process which as you said is intended to go beyond the Santa Barbara study which does an excellent job of already examining a lot of the biological viability questions. We need to have that the conversation that you know we do we may not want to have in this room about you know about all the direct conflicts that has to happen somewhere. I you know I I so part of my question for you is is that one is can we move some of the not today and recognizing these these are the amendments that they are But as if if it does move forward, just to put front and center the the questions around, conflict risk that is, you know, attacks, but also public safety issues, economic viability because sometimes what we forget is, you know, the ecosystems themselves are not what they were before, and the extent to which there are not adequate food sources, species that we introduce move other places.
They don't respect the map, the range maps from a 100 years ago. They will move. And in fact, even even in my own, in the urban part of my of my district, in my own city in West Sacramento, we experienced lots and lots of mountain lions, also whales, mountain but mountain lions because they keep moving further and further from where we thought they would be. Nowhere in their range, are not serving as a useful apex predator in the ecosystem, they're just hungry. And so we do need to examine that notion.
So just want to probe with you whether or not you're open to working to move some of those, the most contentious of the issues, to the threshold question of should this happen or not, as opposed only to if it's going to once we decide it's going to happen, where it be? And I guess the only small related question in the bill is it it it provides for or with the amendments, it provides that the the tribe should be given priority tribes whose ancestral territories are proposed reintroduction areas. But the but as far as I can tell, the bill doesn't doesn't identify reintroduction areas. That would presumably emerge from the study itself. So you have a bit of a timing issue, a chicken and egg problem.
So who's invited to the table? And so I think it would also help, at least in my part of California, to know I I think the network in the Santa Barbara study sort of has already identified there are four or five areas of the state that are likely to be the most suitable. If we know that already, kind of starting from that baseline, not as the final word, but in terms of so we know that tribes in those areas should be front of the line, but also you don't need to worry in San Pedro, in Downtown Sacramento, Encinitas that there's going be grizzly bears in two years. Now, it can maybe, like, narrow the concern about some of these issues by at least naming those areas, and it will also help determine which tribes are invited to the table in terms of the studies.
Speaker 27
So permission through the chair. So Senator Cabaldon, thank you for those very important questions that I think can help us build an even better bill. I heard two questions. One, would we be willing to consider the risk in the initial feasibility and examination prior to the determining of where? Yes, the answer is yes.
And I'll be more than happy to include that in amendments at the next appropriate time. I think you're absolutely right. It's a very important question that should be addressed on the front end. The second question of including specific areas, the reason why we didn't do that was in my days of being in local government, it's like if you include names, people complain and say, well, we wanted to be a part of determining where. And then if you don't, it's like, well, you know, we'd kind of like to know where.
So if it seems to be the will of the committee that that would helpful, we're more than happy to do so. Maybe word something like starting areas to consider could be but not restricted to. You know, we can expand upon some language that would list them but also give the entities that's doing the feasibility evaluation to still have the will to say, no, it shouldn't be in two of these three, it should be in one. But that was the reason not to specifically list. But just to reinforce the final part about the whole risk, that's the reason why the role of the native tribes are here present.
Because realistically, this is where that would happen. It wouldn't happen in Tahoe or someplace else. It would be in an area where there's open land. And then I also wanted to state that it is the thought that if a reintroduction were to occur, that monitoring would be a part of it. So that it's not like just we currently have mountain lions that are out there and there's, you know, how are we going to tag them?
We tag them as we see them. This would be literally as they're introduced, the existing starting would be monitored and then subsequent, babies that would come forward, would be monitored as well. But I am more than willing to work with the committee as we continue the process to add amendments as discussed.
Speaker 20
Just to to to thank the author and just to note for like I I I understand the the challenge of also putting in the bill here are the four areas of the five areas. Although, it's in the analysis, it's in the Senate Department report as well. So I'm not insisting that that be the solution, but there has to be some way to identify, and just tech in a technical sense there, which when we say the tribes that are the most that are the suitable reintroductions, but we don't know what those are yet. So if somebody has to make that if we don't put that in if you don't put that in the bill, then somebody else has to make that determination. And maybe that's the secretary or the director or somebody else.
We you didn't right now, we've we've got that problem this who would be invited since it could be anywhere in California.
Speaker 27
It's a fair point, and it would also help condense, I think, the evaluation. So, good point. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Yes. Thank you. I'm substituting in today, so I appreciate you welcoming me to your And I I I appreciate this bill. I'm a co author on this bill. And I just wanted to add a little bit of context that I think is important to recognize, which is in grizz both grizzlies and wolves were wiped out in the nineteen twenties, by the nineteen twenties.
And they were, reintroduced in Yellowstone, both of them, but the wolves have migrated into California. So we actually didn't reintroduce wolves in California. The first one came down from Oregon, but I but in Idaho and Wyoming, the population just spread out. But with the grizzlies, that hasn't happened. And one of the really important things to recognize is that they need a massive amount of territory.
So they're never gonna be setting up in Encinitas or in or in West Sacramento. Just because the habitat that they need is so really substantially different.
Speaker 35
I think I mean, it's also important to note though that that grizzlies, I think they do pose different types of safety concerns. Because because like you said, they're just a different animal. They they're much more solitary. They're not impacts. They're they are more of a threat to humans than wolves.
There are almost no attacks of of wolves on humans. But but, you know, grizzlies, they're they're very smart, and they learn. They adapt to where food can be found, and they also come back. If they kill livestock, they might come back again the next day or the next week, to feed on that. And so, you know, it it there are a lot of complexities that we that we will face moving forward.
But but, I think it's an important thing to look at and to senator Stern's point about how do we want to live as humans? Do we want to have apex predators? Do we want to have healthy ecosystems? Do we want to be integrated in with our wildlife, our wild lands, and our wildlife? And that having these types of top predators is a really important part of that healthy ecosystem.
And it also of course has the historic importance for some of our tribes. And of course, you know, it's it's on your water bottle right in front of you. It's on our our flag. So, there are a lot there's a lot of, important iconography around the grizzly bear. So, I I I support this bill and I appreciate you taking it on.
And, I don't think they'll probably live in your district either, but it's still important that we consider for the great state of California. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate the discussion- and- I appreciate the fact that you recognize that they're not gonna be in your district they're gonna be in my district. And just to give you a little history with the deepest respect.
To Chairman Octavio Escobedo, he is not only extraordinary in what he does at the Tejon tribe, but he's also my constituent, so very well played. Very well played. And so, and a deeply respected constituent in my district. But I do have to tell you that with the epic with the wolf situation that we have in the northern state. Where they're not in Sacramento and the- the mountain lion issue.
We have some serious issues that will not be addressed by this committee or the things that are taking place in my district. In my district, kids can't play outside after dark around dusk because we have videotape from ring cameras of mountain lions and wolves coming through their play area. In the northern part of the state, Sheriff Leekoff is here, wanted to tree and free mountain lions. And I'm trying to stay on the subject matter, but they're apex predators. He didn't want to kill them, didn't want to shoot them, didn't want to do anything.
He wanted to tree him and move him to a higher elevation so they would not be roaming around in the elementary schools, and they wouldn't be attacking individuals like the teenager who was attacked, killed by a mountain lion, took him to the woods, buried, and he came back to eat him later. So, those are the things that we deal with in my district. California is a very diverse population and a very diverse state. And I realize I'm not going to set up in Sacramento. As a matter of fact, if you look at the history of the grizzly bear, they originally were part of Sacramento and over in the beach area because they thrived on the seals because they wanted the protein.
They were in Los Angeles and they were in Santa Barbara. So I'm all for if you guys want to do that in your area, but I'm not for, with the deepest respect to the chairman, bringing apex predators back into a situation where we still have hundreds of baby calves being dropped on the ground, and wolves attacking and killing them. Because it's easier to get a baby calf that's been dropped on the ground, instead of chasing a deer that would probably be difficult to catch. And there's probably not a lot of deer up there either, because of the situation. A study tends to always go into a piece of legislation.
I realize the cultural and deep cultural and spiritual significance from the tribal communities. I've deeply respected tribe communities and where they are in that deep cultural heritage that they have. I've helped every way I can to support the tribes on this. This is something I cannot do because, number one, the humans that I represent are being affected by it, and especially in our North State. If any one of us had a constituent who was killed by a mountain lion or apex predator, or some of your constituents were losing hundreds of product every single day in the most cruel, vicious ways where they rip them apart, I mean, they just hit the ground.
They still have after birth on them. And the bulls attack them and rip these baby calves apart. It's very cruel. They chase them until they can't run anymore. I think you'd have a different perspective of how we monitor this.
And so I deeply respect the author. She's incredible and well played again on the respected witness that you have here from my district. I have a couple of questions, if I could ask through the chair, of Mr. Bess, the retired Chief Law Enforcement Officer for this Fish and Wildlife. Could I ask you a question, please?
So in your extended time within the Department of Fish and Wildlife, do you believe that grizzly bears can be safely reintroduced into California if that's what the study bill recommends?
Speaker 12
Based on my experience, it would create significant public safety risk. One of the reasons I come to that conclusion is if you looked at the population of California at 40,000,000 and the landscape, I just do a comparison to Montana who has that has about 1,100,000, about a third of what Sacramento region is. Through January 1 through July 2025, they had approximately 70 grizzly conflicts, 18 of them involving humans in a six month time period. They have a really large landscape for those bears to be spread out on through the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. So I think trying to bring those into California and thinking that they're going to stay in a specific area, they're not.
Speaker 32
They're gonna move. They're gonna go for resources. They need to have resources to survive.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. My second question that I have for you, sir, is during the tenure of your deputy as deputy director, do you have enough resources? Do you think this Fish and Wildlife Department of Fish and Wildlife has enough resources to address this issue if this bill moves forward and creates a study and does release grizzly bears into the wild?
Speaker 32
Well that's an easy one for me, no. When I was the deputy, we went through a service based budgeting drill that was mandated by the legislature and it was determined through that work by an independent contractor that the department sits about 30 to 35% of what we need resources to do, what's already statutorily mandated.
Speaker 9
Thank you, sir. Just looking at some information that I was able to pull up, again, with all due respect, there's in Wyoming, there's been about 6,089 human bear attacks and conflicts with humans in Wyoming. Wyoming has a more vast forest and wide open spaces land than we do here in California that has less interaction with humans, I guess you would say. And I think that's significant to bring up. I also wanted to share just briefly that I didn't see anything in the study, and I number one, I should have started with this, Senator Richardson.
I appreciate you meeting with the sheriffs, meeting with Assembly Member Hadwick, meeting with the opposition that would be opposed to this. And I think our law enforcement sheriffs, the highest elected representative in a county, are here voicing from mostly the North State their opposition because they are elected to keep their communities safe, public safety. And they can't get degradation permits for these predatory wolves. They can't get degradation kits for these mountain lions that haunt and terrorize the humans that they are elected by. So I think there's a heightened awareness of apex predators because of what's going on with the wolf situation and the mountain lion situation.
I don't know what solutions would be. I think the bill is moving forward specifically with the amendments. I think there has to be a funding issue. I can't support the bill. But I think that if there was some type of solution where, I mean, if we did have an issue with the grizzly bear that became, you know, very volatile and had human contact and the sheriff deemed it a, you know, a public safety risk, you would want your sheriff to be able to protect the citizens that it serves.
So, I mean, I think there, you know, I don't know, but there could be solutions moving forward if there was local control, and you couldn't release them where local control or local jurisdiction said no. I mean, we just can't have Los Angeles making decisions over, you know, Calabasas, right, which is part of it. But you know what I mean? We can't have Los Angeles making decisions over Kern County, which you all do. And you can't have, you know, where our largest representative population is making decisions over our North State, which is our largest mountain ranges.
So I just think that, you know, local authority and local approval would be a good start, especially if we were moving I feel like the bill is moving forward, and I'm just trying to offer things that would help ease some of the situational problems that we have, representative by the law enforcement officers here and the other individuals that are here. I have a text thread with the governor, and he said, Stop sending me pictures of dead baby calves. I'm like, Stop feeding baby calves to wolves. So I think that need to really look at both sides of this issue. Do tribal communities deserve the right to have their ancestorial, you know, the cultural significance of what their beliefs and systems and the things that represent them and who they are as heritage?
Absolutely. But we all operate on predominantly the same land in California. So, respectfully, I can't support your bill. I thank the chairman for being here. Hopefully, he won't beat me up for anything later.
I know. Anyways, thank you, Mr. Chair, the comments.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you. I'll have some comments after, but let's give you the opportunity to close.
Speaker 27
I was going to say permission to respond, but I decided to use it in the close out of respect for all of your time. Let me say a couple of things. First of all, I do think it's really important not to pull the potential feasibility discussion of a grizzly bear into the discussion of what apparently maybe improvements could be made with mountain lions and wolves. So what I hope that I have earned in my one year and a few months here is I've worked really hard to establish a reputation of being a smart member, you know, a person who pays attention, listens to others, works with others. So, my commitment is and as I said, I was not aware of the Wools situation until I began to work on this bill.
My commitment is, should this bill go forward, which I'll be doing everything in my human power to make sure happens, I plan on using this period of time to work with interested members who have concerns of risk, law enforcement concerns to establish adequate funding so we can deal with the current problems that we have. And certainly, what we've learned from those situations should be considered in risk as we do an evaluation of feasibility. So you have my word on that and I hope one thing I have gained in this year and a half is a person of my word. To conclude, what I would say is there's two things that I've heard. One, Senator Cobaldin speaking about the risk, safety, and economic that should be considered when we're even determining if feasible, which I'm prepared to work on amendments to adopt going forward.
And also identifying the areas, I've made a commitment to do that. And with Senator Grove, there's two things that you've talked about. The issue of funding, I'm prepared. I've just given you my word to look at fish and game wildlife, the funding and what's happening there and the problems with the wolves. And then I thought you brought up a very important point of us looking at amendments that we could put that gives local jurisdictions authority, gives them more ability to deal with if a problem does in fact occur.
So I'm prepared to work on all those areas. I respectfully ask for your I vote. And again, in I vote is to study if, when, how, and where it was determined possible to bring grizzlies that we would be able to get an adequate state report and recommendation. So I ask for your I vote to be able to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Well, want to thank the author. Thanks for your passion on this and your diligence in speaking to all parties. Want to thank the chairman For being here thank our the sheriffs and our law enforcement. Thank my colleagues for sharing their direct experiences particularly with. Mountain lions and wolves and some of the issues clearly that we do have to address.
Speaker 7
You know here as a state. Honestly, from my part, I do recognize the importance of developing the roadmap for grizzly bear reinduction, particularly the culture and the spiritual significance of the grizzly bear to the Yurok and the Tehon Indian tribes. And at the same time, I do appreciate the concerns raised by the opposition and, you know, again, recognizing some of the current conflicts right now, but also the issues with response to funding for the Department of Fish and Wildlife to oversee any future reintroduction. So I do want to thank you, the author, for making an attempt to address some of the opposition's concerns. And once amended, the amendments you're taking here, the bill be explicit that the outcome of the road map may be the reintroduction of the grizzly bear may not be feasible in California.
Speaker 1
So there is no predetermined outcome for the road map and I just wanna make that really clear. With that, I will be supporting the bill here today. Thank you and we'll call the roll. We need a motion. We have a motion from Senator Stern.
The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.
Speaker 24
Becker, aye. Sciarto? Allen? Blakespeare? Aye.
Blakespeare, aye. Cobaldan? Aye. Cobaldan, aye. Grove?
No. Grove, no. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye.
Speaker 1
Okay, that is four to one. That bill will stay on call. I'm going to go present another committee. I think Senator Stern will probably be up next. How many votes do we need?
Four.
Speaker 9
Sorry. Okay. So, thank you. I apologize for the delay, but we are now gonna hear, from senator Stern on SB ten seventy nine. Go ahead, sir.
Whenever
Speaker 19
Thank you, madam chair. Member, SB ten seventy nine creates a fire innovation unit under CAL FIRE giving California a formal mechanism to identify firefighter needs to source new technologies, prototype solutions, and move successful tech from pilot to scale. I've been through too many fires on my own, in my own district. I've lost too much and I've seen too many great tools left on the table. We're we're in the middle of a fire tech revolution that's going on largely here in the state of California, but all over the world.
And yet, our current methods and our organizational structures aren't doing enough to get these these tools to market. Whether it's a it's a autonomous bot that can ride alongside with a firefighter, alongside of a roadside to ensure that brush doesn't become an ignition source or new mobility solutions and detection technologies that can detect fires by sight or even by sound. There's all kinds of new cutting edge technology that we think emergency personnel should be equipped with to provide solutions to destruction that are tearing down our lives, our communities, and driving up insurance rates in the process, as well as our utility bills. So too often these innovative tools stall between, somewhere between demonstration and adoption. So not because they lack value, because but there's no formal system to evaluate, integrate, and deploy them across wildfire agencies.
Right now we've got an office of wildfire technology research and development within CAL FIRE and this bill builds on that existing operation, but creates programs that'll connect those technologies with frontline personnel, coordinate field demonstrations, and excel accelerate statewide deployment through more flexible contracting. Collectively, these initiatives will create a robust permanent structure to evaluate, test, and deploy new firefighting tech that will strengthen California's ability to protect our communities from our future mega fires that we hope never happen. And with that, I'll turn to our lead witnesses here. And so we have Eric Horn, the California director for Mega Fire Action, as well as Jake Hess, a liaison officer with fireworks who's also got a long history in the fire service himself.
Speaker 36
Thank you. Your first witness can continue. You have two minutes each. Thank
Speaker 33
you, senator Stern. Thank you, madam chair. My name is Eric Korn, California director of Mega Fire Action, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing policy solutions to end the mega fire crisis. We're proud to sponsor and speak in support of senator Stern's SB ten seventy nine. California has built a strong culture of wildfire innovation.
Cal Fire is widely recognized as one of the most innovative fire agencies in the world. But despite that strong foundation, the pipeline for getting new technologies into the hands of firefighters remains slow and fact fragment fragmented. Today, there is no dedicated system to consistently identify operational needs from firefighters, connect those needs with the technology community, rigorously evaluate new tools through pilots and demonstrations, and then scale successful solutions across the department. SB ten seventy nine addresses this gap. The bill establishes a fire innovation unit within Cal Fire, which builds upon the department's existing office of wildfire technology research and development, and adds two new programs, the innovation outreach and coordination program, which works with firefighters and innovators to identify problems and test solutions, and the rapid acquisition and deployment program, which helps move validated technologies quickly from pilot projects to scaled demonstrations.
Together, these programs create a clear pipeline from idea to pilot to validation to statewide deployment. This bill is fundamentally about return on investment. Every improvement in detection speed, suppression effectiveness, mitigation efficiency, or decision support multiplies the impact of the billions of dollars that California spends every year on wildfire. It also ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent on technologies that have been rigorously tested and validated by operators and are proven to work in real world conditions so the department knows what's buying. The fire innovation unit will be a force multiplier that helps firefighters do their jobs more safely and effectively.
Thank you. And we respectfully ask for the committee support on SB ten seventy nine.
Speaker 34
Okay. Thank you. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of s b ten seventy nine. My name is Jake Hess, and I'm here representing Fireworks, which is a nonprofit which accelerates wildfire innovation. I'm also here as a former Cal Fire chief officer, with firsthand experience of managing large scale disasters, in the mega fire era over the last ten plus years.
We strongly support SB ten seventy nine because it addresses a critical gap. California, as you all know, does not lack innovation. We're lacking pathways and we're lacking a system to actually get the innovation in test, validate, test, deploy that innovation to scale. Right now promising ideas, we're seeing them year in and year out. They're actually stalling out on the shelf, and we're looking to get those into the fire management system, and this bill changes that.
By establishing the cal firefighter innovation unit. S. B. Ten seventy nine ensures that innovation is driven by the firefighters themselves. Innovators are coming rightfully so looking at a major problem in California and ideas are coming in like a fire hose.
This addresses that where Cal Fire and the firefighters themselves actually identify what that challenge is. It creates a clear bridge between concept and deployment. And it identifies real world challenges and delivers trusted vetted solutions. We're looking at pre, during, and post. I'll go back to pre.
Speaker 19
A lot of this innovation is going to be centered around the pre fire. Yes, you will have it pre, during, and post, but we're looking at the pre fire being probably the most receptive to innovation that has not had that opportunity. Just as importantly, this bill strengthens and formalizes collaboration. It ensures CAL FIRE can fully leverage existing partnerships that exist today, which is similar to the work that we're doing at fireworks with the Stanford Sustainability Accelerator. We have innovation that is starting in in all the amazing folks there are highly motivated as a partnership to actually accelerate innovation through there.
Speaker 34
California wildfire environment, I'll just say, California fire environment or mother nature stopped playing by the rules ten to fifteen years ago.
Speaker 34
Yes. Thank you so much. SP ten seventy nine clearly this removes internal hurdles that CAL FIRE has. We strongly urge your support of this. Thank you very much.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much for your testimony. Now we'll take witnesses in in support. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Speaker 22
Madam Chair, members, Kobe Pazade, representing California Association of Realtors. We have a support, if amended, position to allow nonprofits who administer grants directly to homeowners to access this program. We'd like to thank the author, for the productive conversations, and we look forward to supporting, the bill should our concerns be resolved.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, madam chair. Brandon Knapp, here on behalf of Aurora Tech in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon. Jeff Neal representing the Orange County Fire Authority. Got our letter in a little late, but in support.
Speaker 4
Thank you, mister Neal. Any other witnesses in support? Lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, anyone wanna testify just as a me too in opposition? No?
Speaker 36
Bring it back to the diocese. Since I'm the only one here, I'll move the bill.
Speaker 24
Senators Becker? Aye. Sarto? Allen? Blakespeare?
Aye. Cabaldin? Grove? Aye. Grove, aye.
Stern?
Speaker 9
Aye. Stern, aye. That has two votes, sir. We will put it on call until the rest of the members come back. What are we doing next?
Next.
Speaker 9
Caballero and Allen? Okay. So if senators Allen and senators Caballero or senator Caballero are listening to this, please make your way over to the, Capitol Building, and, we're ready for you to present your bills.
Speaker 25
Alright, everybody. Thank you for your patience this afternoon. We have several committees going in as you can see. We are bouncing back and forth. But now we're here, and we're going to listen to SB nine ninety seven by Senator Caballero, if you'd like to present your bill.
Speaker 37
Thank you very much, mister vice chair. It's deja vu. I just saw you all in the last committee. So I show up and you're here. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB nine ninety seven which would address a narrow but important enforcement gap for Northfolk King's Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
This is a district bill. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or SGMA established a framework for long term groundwater sustainability and authorized the GSAs to be formed either through joint powers agreement, JPAs, or special legislation. All GSAs have minimal minimum enforcement authority under SGMA, which includes the ability to impose penalties that are only enforceable through a civil action. GSAs formed through JPAs have additional enforcement authority, such as the authority to impose liens to collect money owed, which is derived from the GSAs member agencies like an irrigation district. North Fork Kings was created via special legislation rather than a JPA.
This has restricted their ability to because they have limited enforcement authority which lacks ability to impose liens and leave civil litigation as primary enforcement tools. North Forkings GSA has developed a groundwater sustainability plan for twenty seven-twenty eight that water year that includes limits on groundwater pumping and fees for noncompliance. To implement the GSA's sustainability plan efficiently and to avoid being tied up in lengthy litigation, North Fork Kings needs the ability to impose and collect fines to ensure compliance with their sustainability plan. SB nine ninety seven simply grants lean authority to North Fork Kings which assures the GSA can efficiently implement its groundwater sustainability plan without having to bring a civil cause of action to ensure its water users are in compliance. With me to testify in support is Justin Mendez, the general manager for North Fork Kings GSA.
Try saying that really fast, like over and over.
Speaker 25
No, please. Thank you for being here today, and I do share the Chair's enthusiasm for the two minute time limit, if you could make it in two minutes, that'd be great. Thanks.
Speaker 26
Thank you, sir. My name is Justin Mendez, the general manager of North Fort Kings GSA. Our GSA was established by, legislation SB five ninety four was an old Canela bill in 2016. We're located in the Kings Sub Basin which is predominantly Fresno County with some acreage in Kings and Tulare County. We are currently an approved we have currently have approved status of our GSP and as we continue to be sustainable by reducing our overdraft and subsidence it has come clear that we will most likely be the first GSA in the approved King Subbasin with an allocation.
So as a special legislation district and not a JPA we don't have the ability to enforce those fees that would come to an allocation like most GSAs that are set up as JPAs currently have. This bill will help us meet our sustainability goals and we appreciate the straightforward analysis of this bill and the support from state and local water and ag groups who have recognized the importance of this. And I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have and hope that you will support this important piece of legislation. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much and thank you for adhering to the limit. Okay at this time I am invite people who would like to Speak in Support of the bill to come on up to the microphone. State your name, your organization you represent and that's all.
Speaker 31
Mister chair members, Dominic DeMar here on behalf of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority in support of the bill with a letter to follow. The position was just taken. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Thank you. Good afternoon, Eric Will on behalf of rural county representative of California in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair and members. Deanie Merkley with the Guacu Group on behalf of Kings River interest in support.
Speaker 25
Okay. It looks like we have no other people scrambling to the mic. So, this time we'll take any anybody wants to be a lead opposition witness? That means you get two minutes to talk about opposition is there anybody here that's going to be an opposition witness. Good job miss Caballero.
All right- so and I take it is there anybody wants to come up to the mic and just say I oppose the bill. No good we'll bring it back to the diets for any comments questions mission. Senator growth.
Speaker 9
Thank you I appreciate I know it's a district bill it's just north of where- my district is. At there is opposition a valley ag water coalition is opposing unless amended are you working with them on amendments? We've had conversations.
Speaker 9
It's support if amended. So I was wondering if you were working with them on amendments.
Speaker 37
We are we are working with everyone. I'm not aware of exactly what their amendments are, but we'll go back to them and have that conversation.
Speaker 5
The the GSA is a member of Valley Ag Water Coalition, and I know there are other GSAs that are they would like this to apply to more GSAs and so we will kind of be looking at that with their request but also there's a with the status of Sigma right now, there's a hesitancy to reopen, the Sigma legislation.
Speaker 9
I fully understand it's it's, in my opinion failing our Central Valley farmers. Sigma is. We can't have access to our own water, but
Speaker 20
Hi. Thanks. I actually had exactly the same question, not about the words, but the same question was raised in the analysis. So I just want you know, also ask that as you continue to explore, obviously, the author has a statewide lens, you know, look, just to assure that we don't have to come back here one GSA at a time if we don't have to, that we should be that should be the goal if we can if it's feasible given all the implementation political issues. But our goal should be to try to extend this the same condition to the same authority to all of the statutory GSAs if it's possible.
Speaker 25
Okay. With that, I don't have any comments, so if you would like to close.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much. We started small to see what the response was going to be. There are some GSAs that are interested in being included and not opposed to doing that. I think it makes the most sense. You've got to give them the ability to be able to collect bills, otherwise you end up in court, and a lien is practical way.
Speaker 25
We'll then tell Shannon to come back. All right. We're at a standstill for just a moment until Ms. Grove comes back in and then we'll take roll.
Speaker 25
All right. I stand corrected. We have a motion to move the bill twice. Okay. And this bill, this motion is the due passed to judiciary, is our nemesis today.
So, with that, go ahead and call roll.
Speaker 24
Thank you. Senators Becker? Sarto, Sarto I, Allen, Blakespeare, Cabaldon, Cabaldon I, Grove Stern. All
Speaker 25
right, it's two to zero and we anticipate more runs to come. But like I said, we're having a struggle with judiciary right now. Both of our next authors are there. So we're going to catch up roll really quick for those that are here, me and Senator Cabaldon. And then and then we'll take a short recess until we can get the other authors in.
So let's go through the
Speaker 16
Yeah. File item five, SB thirteen ninety or I'm sorry, file item four, SB thirteen oh five, Richardson. The current vote is four to one with the chair voting aye. And senators Sarto?
Speaker 25
Alright. That bill will remain on call. And then we have next up, item number six. SB ten seventy nine.
Speaker 24
The motion is due passed to emergency management. No one else has voted yet and senators Becker. Sarto I. Sarto I. Allen Blakespeare.
Cabaldon aye. Cabaldon aye. And
Speaker 25
that is on forty two or remain on call. So that catches us up for as much as we can do. So we're going go ahead and go into recess. Can do Oh, we're going to do consent. The consent calendar.
Would you like to motion move the consent calendar? Consent calendar has been moved by Senator Calvadon. Go ahead and call roll.
Speaker 24
Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Senators Becker, Sarto. Aye. Sarto, aye. Allen, Blake Spear, Cabaldon.
Aye. Cabaldon, aye. Grove, Stern. Two to zero.
Speaker 25
Okay. That is two to zero and will remain on call. Now we are going to go to recess until we get our other two authors in. So if you guys all want to hang tight, Senator Kibaldin will entertain you. Whatever he can think of, an improv type issue.
All right, thank you.
Speaker 9
So we're gonna take up s b 10 or excuse me we're gonna take up s b eight ninety four the wildfire recent resiliency financial assistance program by senator Allen.
Speaker 18
Thank you madam chair thank you members. Ready. Thank you. Let me start by thanking the wonderful committee staff for its hard work, and I just want to say that I will be accepting the committee's amendments. We know that we're facing increasingly challenging risks associated with wildfire.
Wildfires are becoming deadlier, larger, more destructive than ever before. And we now also have now seen fire spread from forests and wildlands into urban conflagrations, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, development, the way we build, etcetera. Now, we have an additional challenge where homeowners are really struggling to find affordable insurance options as insurance companies are raising premiums to cover at increased risk. Some are leaving the state altogether. We know that implementing real, meaningful wildfire hardening measures such as upgrading roofing, windows, replacing siding, screens on the vents, managing nearby vegetation can reduce a structure's fire risk by more than 35, which can is obviously very significant.
But we also know that sometimes these hardening efforts can be prohibitively expensive. It costs tens of thousands of dollars for homeowners and affordable housing. And we know that the financing is simply not easily accessible for people. There's not a really good loan program system out there for people to do this kind of work. Now, we've seen other areas where necessary financing has necessary needs have been financed through other government programs.
We see this with Go Green, is which the program that's operated by the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. They, of course, provide state backed funds to support energy efficiencies to upgrade homes. And that offers a credit enhancement to mitigate the risk of default, enables participating lenders to offer lower rates, longer payback terms, higher loan amounts to a broader base of borrowers for energy upgrade loans. And so for every $1 in credit enhancements that are allocated, $8.5 in private capital is then leveraged under the program. And remember, this is done by a private lender that's lending to an individual.
The state is simply offering a backstop to help to encourage this capital flowing through the system and help to encourage people to do this hardening work. So this bill seeks to establish a California wildfire resilience loan program, which is modeled after Go Green for wildfire mitigation projects. And it's ultimately all about trying to leverage the public dollars, or at least the backstop of public dollars, to unlock private capital, lower interest rates, and finance home hardening and defensible space improvements for more Californians to protect their homes. Here, to testify in support is a friend and constituent who's really thrown himself into this very important issue, Eric Horn, California director of Mega Fire Action, which is working all around the country in a bipartisan manner trying to get legislators and members of congress more serious about our wildfire risk as a society and nation.
Speaker 33
Thank you, senator. Thank you, madam chair, members. Name's Eric Horn, California director of mega fire action, and proud to speak in support of the bill that we're sponsoring, SB eight nine four. We know what works to protect our homes from wildfire. Proven measures, as the senator said, like vegetation clearance around structures, ember resistant vents, eaves, gutters, windows, roofs can more than double the odds that a home survives a wildfire, but adoption remains far too low.
Speaker 13
Unlike prescribed fire or fuel break projects, which are large investments that are planned for, contracted by, and executed by the state and partners, home hardening is really an individual product, if you will. It's something that individual homeowners need to make a purchasing decision about. And if the state wants to drive adoption at the necessary scale to stabilize our insurance markets and bend the risk curve down, it must make these investments easy and affordable for middle income Californians, which is a really big challenge. It's a big investment. More than 2,000,000 homes sit in California's highest wildfire hazard areas, and most were built before fireproof modern building standards were adopted in 2009.
Speaker 33
Grant programs are always gonna have a really important role to play in this issue, but they simply cannot reach the scale and the number of homes that need retrofits right now. SB eight nine four tackles this challenge directly. As the senator said, the bill establishes a wildfire resilience loan program modeled after the treasurer's successful Go Green Energy financing platform. And using a loan loss reserve that derisks private lending, the program can offer below market interest rates without requiring a lien on the property. And it leverages more than $8 of mitigation investment for every $1 that's in the fund.
And so instead of requiring large upfront payments from homeowners to do this important work, they can spread this cost out over time, turning resilience in into an affordable monthly payment. If we wanna bend the risk curve downward, stabilize the insurance markets, we must make mitigation financially feasible for all Californians. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your support for senate bill eight nine four. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Please go to microphone, state
Speaker 6
Good afternoon. Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon. Stacy Heaton with the rural county representatives of California representing 40 rural counties statewide. Pleased to support today.
Speaker 35
Good afternoon. Eileen Ricker with California's Credit Unions. We're happy to support the bill. We turned in a letter but it was late.
Speaker 36
Anyone else in support? Seeing none in support. Any, lead witnesses in opposition?
Speaker 17
Won't take me that long. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Kobe Pazade with California Association of Realtors. We have an oppose unless amended position. The amendments that we're looking for is to reflect that homeowners are specifically eligible for the program and no liens will result on the properties.
Speaker 22
As a result of the program and we would like to thank the author and the sponsors for working with us, and we thank you for the amendments. We appreciate it. We're looking them over right now. Thanks.
Speaker 36
Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais.
Speaker 20
you, madam chair. So thank you. Really appreciate the both the the attention to the issue, but also as is usually the case with this author, innovative finance mechanisms with attention to its implications for insurance. Obviously, it's a major problem in my district in Napa and Sonoma Counties in particular, and we're looking for solutions just like this. As the committee analysis notes that we need to keep putting more meat on the bones about eligibility and ranking and that sort of thing, Just want to encourage us, like the your comments, Eric, about the values of home hardening and also the wildlife, corridor issues that are here as well.
All of almost all of those values accrue when there's either universality or critical mass of adoption, right? And so when we have limited resources for either one of those two things, we're almost always in a better space to reward collective action as opposed to only individual. So your testimony really focused on this. This is a purely individual endeavor, which it is, but it matters much, much more what is your neighbors are doing too, whether it's for keeping fires from jumping from home to home or from wildlife making use of the of the corridors and stuff that we're that we're creating for them. So, it's not a it's not a problem with the bill, as you as you continue to build it out, just encourage you to think about that critical mass issue in order to maximize the value of this in terms of really providing not just the research but but delivering the outcomes on both fire safety and on on wildlife.
Appreciate the bill and plan to support it.
Speaker 36
Thank you, mister or senator Kurwalden. Anybody else? No? So I do appreciate you looking at the amendments that the, realtors have brought forth. I know that the I think it's reference to
Speaker 9
sell their house, most elderly people had that lien on their property with the And PACE it really caused conflict, and it was a well intended bill. And I think the realtors have that same position because this is a well intended bill. And they want to make sure that people have the availability to have these dollars. But they want to make sure that there's not a lien attached to their house if they decide to sell it. So are you going to work on that with the realtors?
Speaker 18
Are in process right now. We know the concern. Obviously, I think we're very close to
Speaker 18
Keep going. Yeah. I will say that the gold green that this is based on doesn't have the lien provision that's in pay. Oh, good. Okay.
I think they're I mean, they're doing their job, is to be extra vigilant. And they want it to be explicitly that. We don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 36
Okay. Thank you for addressing that. I'll bring it back. Would you like to close?
Speaker 18
Just appreciate the attention to this massively important issue. The senator's right. This is, of course, an important step, but we recognize that it's going to take this kind of work happening on scale for us to really address the massive costs and liabilities associated with our wildfire risk that continues to grow. And so, with that, I respect your asking, I vote.
Speaker 36
you. So Senator Cabaldo moved the bill. Is is due passed. Oh no. It is due passed
Speaker 24
Senators Becker? Yeah. Serato? Aye. Serato, aye.
Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Blake Spear?
Speaker 24
Blake Spear, aye. Cauldin? Aye. Cauldin, aye. Grove?
Aye. Grove, aye. Stern? 5 To 0 on call.
Speaker 18
It's Genevieve's fault that I'm still here. Alright. Well, let me start by by accepting the the committee's fine amendments, clarify and strengthen the specific coastal protections that would apply during post disaster reconstruction by new property owners. The terrible Palisades fire that happened in my district destroyed around 10,000 homes and businesses near the coast and in my home community. And in the wake of this disaster, residents were left to make difficult choices about how to rebuild their homes or whether they could rebuild at all.
Speaker 10
Now, under normal circumstances, the COSTAL Act establishes developments on the coast that the developments on the coast may be regulated through the permitting by the Coastal Commission directly to ensure the protection of coastal environments and maintenance of public access to coastal resources. The act currently also allows homes destroyed by disaster to be rebuilt without a new coastal development permit if the new structure is similar to the original. This exemption was intended to help homeowners quickly restore their residents after catastrophic events by accelerating the rebuilding process. Now, what we've seen is with all of these insurance lack of insurance, insurance delays, skyrocketing material costs, under insurance, the reality is that many residents couldn't afford to rebuild and they're now having to make the painful decision to sell their homes. We're seeing this happen in both of the fire zones, but it's particularly relevant here because we're dealing with the COSAL Act.
Speaker 18
Some reports have found that approximately 40% of the lots sold in both Palisades and Eaton communities were sold to investors rather than single families, raising a whole slew of new community concerns. Not only do investor rebuilds often have significant implications for the character of a community, they also impact the environment and public access to the coast potentially, especially in places like Malibu where homes are burned on the seaward side of the PCH because the fire jumped over the highway. So the concern here is that this coastal rebuild exemption that we have put in place to help owner occupied homeowners to quickly rebuild, there's a concern that it may be exploited in a way by investors and developers that are maybe interested in buying up properties after disaster with plans to redevelop them in ways that may limit public coastal access, all without review. So this bill is very incisive. It specifically says that for future disasters, implementing
Speaker 18
these lessons learned from our recent experience, that speculative purchasers rebuilding after a disaster cannot bypass a couple of the coastal act's core resource protection and public access policies. So it says that new property owners would not be exempt from a coastal development permit if the replacement structure impedes public access to the coast in a way that didn't exist before the disaster. They would still be allowed to build just through the normal review and permitting process. It also maintains protection for environmentally sensitive habitat areas, bluff setbacks, and state of tidelines. And that's it.
It's about ensuring it does not say that you can't sell to another person or a developer. It doesn't say that developer can't develop on the land. It doesn't even say that that developer can't get the expedited permitting process. But they just have to not through building 10% more than the existing building, which is what they're currently allowed to do, they can't block access to the coast, and they can't build on specifically designated environmentally areas, the ashes. So, with me to speak in support of the bill, have Jennifer Fearing, who's here on behalf of Surfrider.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing, here today in support of SB twelve twenty nine for Surfrider. Surfrider Foundation is a national nonprofit dedicated to protecting the ocean waves and beaches for all people with thousands of supporters in California alone. Among the thousands of coastal families devastated by the twenty twenty five Palisades fire were members of Surfrider's own Los Angeles chapter who lost their homes and have faced an agonizing road to recovery, dealing with insurance delays, soaring construction costs, and under insurance.
Speaker 14
And many have had no choice but to sell. And as the senator said, the Coastalax disaster replacement exemption was designed to help homeowners, real people trying to restore their primary residences, help them get back on their feet more quickly. It was not designed to hand outside investors a backdoor around our coastal protections. But that's exactly what can happen today. Developers can buy up fire damaged coastal properties and rebuild without a coastal development permit, and therefore bypass, bluff setbacks, public access easements, and sensitive habitat protections.
Speaker 10
SB1229 sends a clear message that the Coastal Act streamlined permanent path permit pathway is intended to help disaster victims. So, Surfrider Foundation urges a yes vote on SB1229.
Speaker 6
Molly Colton with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you. Natalie Brown voicing support on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, Azul and the Sonoma Land Trust. You.
Speaker 1
Anyone, do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Anyone else in opposition wants to comment? Okay. Let's take it back to the committee. Center, please, for you had a question.
Speaker 24
Yes, thank you. I was listening to the author's testimony and maybe things have changed since the committee met the committee consultant report was written. But, because I didn't hear you mention the part that I thought was the most important, which is that a coastal development permit could basically could not, there could not be a coastal development permit that would allow the rebuild if the property owner is not the property owner of record prior to the disaster. So, what I heard you say, Senator Allen, was that only if it blocks coastal access or it's percent larger, but the point was the speculative purchase. So maybe I missed you saying that part.
Speaker 18
speculative purchase, the speculative purchaser then has to, can rebuild, but they they have to comply with they they can't block coastal they they basically, in the process of rebuilding the home, and as you as you may you can build up to 10% larger than the current footprint. And we wanna make sure that that that new rebuild is not blocking previously available coastal access and ASHA.
Speaker 35
Okay. But, there are a lot of other things that the exemption, like for example, if it's larger than it should have been, or it's closer to the ocean than it should have been, or I mean a lot of things that would it's essentially a grandfathering, I think, that the coastal development permit exemption would allow the grandfathering to be rebuilt. And so my understanding of this bill was that it wouldn't allow those exemptions if it's a new owner. So I just want I just wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 18
It wouldn't allow those exemptions if it's a new owner for a narrow set of coast lock protections.
Speaker 18
Access, ESHA, bluff setbacks, and state tiebacks. Okay. So we've there was an earlier talk about a more broad based set of exempt of basically providing none of these exemptions but now we're
Speaker 25
So if you're the homeowner and your house burns down on the beach and I know which properties these are
Speaker 25
You can go ahead and rebuild and you don't have the constraints with the bus setbacks?
Speaker 18
Right. If you're the homeowner, you're the homeowner rebuilding, you've basically been given a permanent exemption.
Speaker 18
As long as you're building no more than 10% larger than your ex than your previous footprint.
Speaker 25
Right. So here here's the problem I kinda I kinda get into with this is so if you're the homeowner and you have no choice but to just sell it because you're just done with this, then the the new buyer has to go buy some of these new setbacks that may prove the property to be worthless to the new buyer. Maybe they can't build it all. Maybe that's what comes back from the Coastal Commission. And if that's the case, then you've just devalued this person this person's property because they can't whoever's buying it can't even do what that person was going to do on their property.
So what it would do is set up a situation where, people would wind up borrowing the money from the seller or the buyer, building exactly what they had before, and then the buyer buys it from the the the original owner again. So people can probably get around it. Yeah. And that's all it's gonna do is make people go around it, or it's going to devalue the property if nobody wants to buy that property because of all the constraints put on by
Speaker 18
We're being really I get it. Yeah. There are many, many things that the new purchaser would still be allowed to do, that they would not normally be allowed to do under normal circumstances under the Coastal Act, but for the disaster.
Speaker 25
Right. But the new person would have to. Sorry? The new person that buys it would have to.
Speaker 18
No. What saying is even if this bill passes, there will still be a ton of things that the new person can still do that they would not normally be allowed to do if they weren't purchasing this home in the wake of a disaster. We're just trying to make sure that if people are going to be selling off these properties, that a limited number of core Coastal Act protections are still going be preserved in the wake of the rebuild by a second purchaser. I hear you. We're just trying to come up with a
Speaker 25
Right. Just knowing those properties, when you talk about buff setbacks and stuff, it winds up making them not viable? Pretty much.
Speaker 18
Well, most of these properties that were burned, at least in this case, were actually not on bluffs.
Speaker 18
Yeah, but these particular properties wouldn't be impacted by bluff setbacks. Interesting. Because they're on the other side of the road. Now, I'm happy to if there's a way that we can refine that bluff setback language in a way that would be meaningful, I'd be very happy to work with you. Yeah.
Speaker 20
I really appreciate this kind of multi part test that answered a lot of the questions I had about the issue. Also the understanding that because I think to Senator Serrano's point, I mean, you could get around it through a series of those kinds of transactions and build in advance. But that's not what a private equity company trying to acquire hundreds of homes in Altadena and Palisades is going to do at the front end. They have no interest in looking at this parcel by parcel and maybe, you know, reaching a purchase and sale agreement where you make all the changes first and because they're that's not they don't build housing in the first place. They're just trying to acquire these properties and hopefully get a free coastal act exemption while they're at it.
So I think for the for the for the case that you're trying to deal with there to bring the two the two comments my colleagues together for the folks that are that are that are threatening the the the communities and the the composition of them. And potentially in the future the coastal zone itself this is a very smart way to do that in terms of requiring both of those pieces I didn't realize that you could impede the coastal act or violate the public trust even with the exemption but apparently you can. So this seems like an appropriate level of question. Appreciate your both the cleverness and the precision with which the solution is trying to match our ability to tackle the problem, I'm proud to support
Speaker 18
I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate you recognizing what we're trying to do. Again, it's conciseive. And with that, respect for S-ray vote. And thank you for the work of the committee.
Speaker 1
Good. I will be supporting the bill today. We have a motion, which is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 24
Becker aye. Serato? No. Allen? Aye.
Allen, I. Blakespeare? It's your eye called in a ball and I Grove.
Speaker 1
41 that bills on call. I'm gonna be presenting a bill now on behalf of our pro tem. I wanna thank senator Grove for filling in in my absence earlier. I'll give the gavel over to our vice chair.
Speaker 25
Alright. Next bill we have SB thirteen ninety four by senator Limon being presented by Chair Becker. I'm trying. I'm looking at two things at once. I'm sorry.
And it is a oh, supports Board Bill. Go ahead with the presentation,
Speaker 1
Short version. Well thank you and honor present this bill on behalf of our pro tem thirteen ninety four so in 2020 we established the 30 by 30 gold gone to the end included the goal of conserving 30% of our land. And coastal waters by 2030. This bill makes minor changes the reporting requirements ensure the reporting is standardized and widely available. Requires reporting to include which lands are newly conserved.
And for the information we published online respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 25
Very good. Is there any, witnesses? No. Okay. Anybody in the audience wants to come up?
And you're going have the opportunity to either, express your, support or your opposition right now with that mic. Nobody? Okay. Back to you. Anybody on the dais?
Speaker 25
bill. We have a motion to move the bill by chair I mean by, Senator Grove. Mr. Gabaldon, you had a comment?
Speaker 20
Well, I had a series of of of questions, but they were all covered in the excellent presentation.
Speaker 1
Yes. So I think we can all, Republicans and Democrats agree that we want better data, better reporting, respectfully ask for an I vote on behalf of our pro tem
Speaker 24
Senators Becker I. Serato I. Allen Allen I. Lakespeare. I.
Lakespeare I. Cobalt I. Cobalt I. I.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, again, thanks for everyone for hanging on in a busy day in the Senate. We'll go through the bill starting from the top, and call the roll on a file item one, SB eight seventy two by senator McNerney. The motion was due passed as amended to appropriations. We call the absent members.
Speaker 24
Senators Allen. Aye. Allen I. Blakespeare. Aye.
Blakespeare I. Seven zero.
Speaker 1
Okay that is seven zero that bills out. File item two by senator Caballero to pass the judiciary.
Speaker 1
Okay. 60, that is still on call. We'll cover the consent calendar at the end. Let's go to file item four, SB 13 o five by Richardson. Do pass as amended to appropriations.
Speaker 1
Five to two, that bill's out. Yes. Okay. Moving on to file item five. Actually, just covered that.
We got everyone, I think, on this bill. And next, go to file number six, SB ten seventy nine by Stern Dupas to Emergency Management.
Speaker 24
Senators Becker? Aye. Becker, aye. Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Seven to zero.
Speaker 1
Seven to zero. That bill's out. We'll go to file item seven SB eight ninety four by Allen, do pass as amended to emergency management?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Folks eagerly waiting to go to your next committee. Alright, we'll go to the consent calendar by unanimous acclaim. We've won bill on consent to pass amendments to appropriations. Please call me.
Speaker 24
Becker, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Blake's beer?
Aye. Blake's beer, aye. Grove? Aye. Grove, aye.
50, or 60.
Speaker 1
60. That bill's on call. Okay. Now, go back to file seven SB eight ninety four by Allen. Do you pass as amended to emergency management?
File item seven, please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
6 to 0. The bill is on call. And then finally, file item eight, SB twelve twenty nine by Allen. Do you pass as amended to appropriations?
Speaker 1
Okay. That bill is 42. We'll stay open for the moment. Okay. Thanks again, Senator Grove for filling in.
Brief recess. Okay, we are going to open up the roll on a couple of items starting with file item two. Senator Caballero, motion is due pass to judiciary. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
seven to zero. That bill is out. We will now go to the consent calendar with one item SB eleven sixty two. Do pass under appropriations please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
this is file item five by Senator P. T. Limon, thirteen ninety four. To pass the appropriations, please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
Okay, seven to zero. Now we'll go to file item seven by Senator Allen to pass his amendment to emergency management. You'll see this again. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
Seven to zero. That bill is out. And we'll go to our last bill, SB twelve twenty nine by Allen. Do pass to amend its appropriations?
Speaker 1
Five to two. That bill is out. Alright. Well, thank you everyone for a busy day, and this meeting of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.