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 3
Thank you, mister chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of National Wildlife Federation, proud to cosponsor SB eleven thirty five. As the senator said, people and wildlife are increasingly sharing landscapes, and we're under growing pressures and cumulative threats like extreme heat, frequent drought, and intense wildfires that animals respond to by moving in search of resources to survive. These movements are further frustrated by barriers like roads, fences, human development, and other habitat connectivity challenges. Over the last five years, wildlife incident reports logged by the Department of Fish and Wildlife increased by 31%, and calls, emails, and field contacts rose by 58%.
Science, fortunately, has produced a consensus that coexistence programs work to reduce conflicts, to keep people and animals safe, to protect property, and to promote biodiversity. Such programs educate and support community and property owner efforts to reduce and remove attractants like trash and food, shore up access to property and pets, keep a safe distance, implement methods proven to actively deter conflicts, and promote wild animals' instincts to stay wild. But despite the need and demonstrated effectiveness, successful three year program with trained regional staff around the state was not re upped when term limited funds dried up in 2024. As discussed at length in an assembly informational hearing in January and acknowledged by agency and department leaders, that absence of this effort is being felt acutely across urban, suburban, and rural California. A recent example is illustrative.
A statewide wildlife coexistence program like established by SB eleven thirty five could have saved Blondie's life. This black bear's death was preventable by deploying clear and repeated messaging to educate the community. When people came too close to Blondie and her two baby cubs, she instinctively swiped to protect them and was then proclaimed a public safety bear. CDFW decided the only way to keep the community safe was to kill her and send her two cubs to a rehab facility. That community is clearly, and understandably devastated.
And now, nonprofit wildlife rehabilitator, San Diego Humane Society, which strongly supports this bill, faces months of time consuming expensive care to raise Blondie's cubs stepping in for their mother to try to teach them how to be wild bears. When those cubs are re released back to the San Gabriel Mountains, they run the risk of facing a fate similar to their mother. We can and must do better. This investing in cost effective proactive efforts only increases cost to address the negative impacts of conflicts, and those get paid by the state, local governments, families, communities, nonprofits, local law enforcement, ranchers, and animals. A broad and diverse coalition of organizations support this legislation and wanna see the state invest in strategies that are not just nice to have, but need to have.
We urge your support today.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. We appreciate your handy stickers there. Okay. Reminder.
Go ahead.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Good morning, committee members. I'm Pamela Flick. I'm the California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, the other proud sponsor of SB eleven thirty five. Gray wolves are native to California, and they belong here.
From OR arrival in late two thousand eleven after an epic journey from Northeastern Oregon to our nine current packs of wolves, it's a remarkable it's remarkable that these ecologically important animals have naturally returned to our state under their own wolf power. But, wolves have returned to a very different state than that of the nineteen twenties when they were driven to local extinction. But, wolves are adaptive critters and can survive and even thrive in challenging conditions as long as humans are willing to share the landscape with them. That social tolerance is key to successful coexistence as is direct support to ranchers and information sharing about best practices to reduce wolf livestock interactions. California had the opportunity to do things differently when it comes to a gray wolf recovery, but the situation in Sierra Valley last year changed things for the worse.
The lethal removal of the Bay Mseo pack after they'd grown habituated to preying on livestock for over a year is a failure in our efforts to coexist peacefully with these wild animals. The use of nonlethal strategies to reduce wolf livestock interactions, including human presence, managing attractants, physical barriers, predator deterrence, and livestock husbandry practices is more effective and cost efficient in the long run. Such conflict mitigation efforts should have been put in place well before nearly 90 livestock losses were incurred by a single wolf pack last year. It's imperative that proactive strategies be deployed early and often and at the landscape scale if one ranch does uses conflict deterrence and their neighbors don' the entire effort can unravel and that' why we support community wide adoption of proven practices we must also ensure that the state when the state provides compensation funds ranchers is all doing their part through proper and documented use of practicable proactive coexistence measures are working collaboratively with our counterparts at the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association and are optimistic that we are on a path to amendments that reflect a shared vision for this program. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. We will now have others in support. Anyone else in support who would like to comment?
Speaker 4
Spying some time, mister chair. There are several folks outside. I'm Matt Robinson with Schogeter and Tuchmelder Lang. Today, I'm here on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor and Tomcat Ranch, both in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Jenny Berg, California state director for Humane World for Animals in support.
Speaker 11
Anjali Ranadeve founder of Woman for Wolves. We've lost our connection to wildlife and nature by 60%, so it's more important now than ever to make sure that we safeguard our wild spaces and our wildlife, so we are in support of SB eleven thirty five. Thank you. Good morning chair and members on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, Audubon California, California Wolf Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, Endangered Habitats League, Environmental Protection Information Center, In Defense of Animals, Promise of Melmis Den, Mountain Lion Foundation, Occidental Arts and Ecology Center, Resource Renewal, and Wild Futures, we are in very strong support.
Speaker 9
With the dismantling of the US Forest Service, it's more important now than ever to protect our wildlife and fund those who are purposes to here protect it, in strong support.
Speaker 12
Hi. My name is Rina Hashmi. I'm the cofounder of Women for Wolves. SB thirteen eleven thirty five is about response responsible wildlife management rooted in coexistence, not crisis management. Let's let's invest in prevention, protect our wildlife, and choose coexistence, please.
Speaker 11
Good morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Kaitlyn Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Good morning. Kim Delfino on behalf of the California Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the California Native Plant Society in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. We will now turn to opposition. Do we have any lead opposition witness? We do.
Let's see. Yeah. Do you wanna make room? Sure. That'd be great.
Okay. Excellent. You each have two two minutes. Apologies. Legislation in support.
Okay. Just under the wire. You made it.
Speaker 13
Okay. Alright. Good morning, chair Becker and members. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association. We are currently opposed to this measure unless it is amended.
I do want to start out by saying that we are broadly supportive of the two programs at CDFW that this bill proposes to govern, the Human Wildlife Coexistence Program and the California Wolf Program. That said, we are currently opposed to this bill because we're not quite there yet on elements of the wolf livestock coexistence and compensation program under this bill. We have proposed amendments to the author and the sponsors that would do a few things. First of all, we are supportive of the 50% set aside for nonlethal deterrence in this bill because there is demand out there for it. But when the fund condition of the compensation program gets particularly low, we want to set aside that set aside.
Additionally, we want to make sure the funds for nonlethal deterrence are used judiciously, so we have proposed amendments that propose to only require this where it's foreseeable that there would be wolf conflict. Finally, we have proposed, as miss Flick mentioned, a practicability element to this legislation, and that would have some factors for CDFW to consider in determining whether or not nonlethal deterrence is practicable, including, for instance, the availability of state funding. We are negotiating with the author's office and with the sponsors. Those have been optimistic conversations. In the spirit of this bill, they have been collaborative and not confrontational.
Speaker 9
We are hopeful that we will get to a place where CCA can at least remove our opposition, if not support this bill down the road, but we are not there yet on elements of the wolf livestock coexistence and compensation program. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Very helpful. Please go ahead.
Thank you, chair. Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau. Again, same here with an opposed unless amended position. And I'd reiterate Cattlemen's comments around practicability and reality. I'm optimistic again about the progress we've made with the with the supporters, of the bill.
Speaker 14
And I would just mention that in a best case scenario, this bill along with our joint budget budget ask, which senator Blake Spear has graciously put forward, you know, and with the work from the sponsors and our two groups, we'll hopefully find a framework that is successful for this program going forward. I do just wanna pause kind of on the comments there and just say a big thanks to the Department of Fish and Wildlife who in the last two weeks have rolled out frameworks for hazing, for county liaisons, and better information sharing, and options to reduce attractants on the land, which are all things that we've been asking for, all things that make this program better, all things that help our ranchers going forward. So, that, I'm tremendously thankful to the department and Director Hartle for her work. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, thank you. Do we have others in opposition? Anyone want to add on? I think we do have a few outside.
Oh, just yeah.
Speaker 4
Hi. Sorry. I'm actually in support of s eleven thirty five. I'm Tara Dade. I'm from Woman for Wolves, and I just
Speaker 1
Okay. Okay. Great. Alright. We're gonna bring it back to the committee.
I know we'll have some discussion here. Senator Grove.
Speaker 16
Thank you, mister chair. First of all, number one, thank you for working with the opposition. We had a mountain lion bill last year that was something that senator Alvarado Gil wanted to do, which is basically some of the language that you have in this bill on deterrence and making sure that the wildlife doesn't come into the neighboring where kids play. Right? Where kids play.
We have the same situation with wolves, but you have been an author who has, even from Coastal San Diego, you have worked with the North State and our law enforcement partners, our cattlemen, like, especially in Sierra View that have lost, hundreds of livestock, baby calves. And I think that you've just worked really well, and I appreciate that very much. I do wanna reiterate what the opposition said that we're not there yet. I signed on to the letter of support based on your request because I thought we would get to a place where the ranchers felt like that they really had a chance to have cattle survive. And it is a dollars and cents thing, but it's also a legacy thing.
You know, when these baby calves drop on the ground and then two wolves start ripping apart, it's not the prettiest thing you've ever witnessed. And when you live in that area and I wish I could have put this in a a picture that would be better, permission to just show a photograph of mister chair.
Speaker 16
When you live in that area, you wake up to things like this. This is I don't know if you can see it, but it's a doorstep and there's a bloody mess outside the door. These people live rural, and they have to keep their outside working dogs that chase cows, that bring the cows off the hills so don't take horses up. They have to keep them indoors 90% of the time because the wolves will attack them. This is a 700 pound elk that was dragged onto this porch by a wolf that killed that elk on the front porch.
This family has children that plays out in their front yard that they can't play out in their front yard because you never know when a wolf is gonna show up. So I realized these wolves don't show up in South South, you know, beach area in San Diego, but they do show up in my district and in senator Dolly's district. There's I track the calves. The ranchers send me information and photographs. And I do I do think that we'll get to a place where because I do think you're being balanced.
And I'm not making fun of you if you're in San Diego, but I just think you're balanced. And if we could get you up there to where you can really see how the livestock operate in these wolves and they're not puppies. They're probably as taller taller than that table right there. These wolves are not puppies. They are they run-in packs, and they are very vicious when they go after, like I said, a baby calf on the ground.
You know, the the cow gives birth, and they just start ripping that cow apart, or they'll chase it down to complete exhaustion and then rip it apart. So there has to be some compassion for that as well. I realize it's a dollar and cents thing for the ranchers, but it has to we have to have some. I I appreciate the fact on the the the funding letter to the budget request. I appreciate that California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Chuck Bonham is gone.
I think Megan is the new director. I haven't had an opportunity to spend time with her, but I did spend a significant amount of time with Chuck Bonham and secretary crowed Crowfit on the wolf situation up there. And, you know, we do need to keep them out of the residential areas. We it's just a fact. You can't have wolves running on the playground at a schoolyard either where toddlers and TK people TK kids are are there.
It's just not safe. I do have a couple of questions just to ask. How does eleven thirty five ensure ranchers are fully compensated for both direct losses and indirect impacts for fence damage and herd disruption?
Speaker 4
Right? Thank thank you. Thank you, senator Grove. What was the last part of the question? It was about full compensation for direct and indirect losses.
Speaker 16
Like, these holes will go after a herd, they'll plow through a fence just to get away from them. Yes.
Speaker 4
Sure. Thank you. Chair. Yeah. Thank you.
Thank you for the question. I do wanna note, as mister Wilbur and others have noted, including myself, that we're we're in communications with both the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association. Yeah. And and I do too.
Speaker 4
good working relationship to say to say the least. I do want to note also that in parallel right now, California Department of Fish and Wildlife is conducting an evaluation of the wolf livestock compensation program. So, there's two things that are happening kind of in parallel right now. We just completed the fourth or fifth series of workshops just yesterday in West Sacramento in their in CDFW's office, and we are talking about all three prongs of the program. So, if you're not familiar, prong one is the direct losses for confirmed or probable livestock losses.
Prong two is the reimbursement for non lethal tools and strategies to reduce interactions. And then prong three is the indirect losses. We haven't yet got to the indirect losses. That is quite literally the next thing on our agenda for our workshop that is on going to be on May 4. And we just scheduled that yesterday.
So I have suggested to CCA cattlemen's and farm bureau that we hold off on trying to get into the nitty gritty of the details on suggested amendments on November because I don't want to get out in front of that collaborative and public process that CDFW is doing. So, we are talking about it not just between our organizations, but a much larger working group, including ranchers, cooperative extension, the California Wolf Project that's being run at California, UC Berkeley. And then CDFW has also promised to committed to go out to the communities and hold public meetings. We're also working on a survey that's gonna go out to both folks that have already participated in the compensation program and get their feedback on what's working and what hasn't been working on that program, and as well as potential participants that are in wolf country and the general public because we're talking about taxpayer money right so we're trying to cast a very wide net to get feedback on the program and then integrate that into a set of recommendations to the department for what that program will look like going forward should funding become available
Speaker 16
I appreciate it. You said CDEFW would go out there. They they have been out there. They have been out there, and and Wade Crowfoot has been out the secretary has been out there Yes. To really get a to kinda get a grasp on this.
Because I think that what we try to implement in this building, and if you have no idea what's happening out there, it doesn't work. Like, I know that one of the that one of the things that you mentioned in your opening testimony was dogs. Like, dogs is a deterrent. The wolves eat the dogs no matter what kind of dogs they are. They could be king corsets.
They could be German shepherds. They could be pit bulls and the wolf winds. And some of these animals are family pets too, not just, you know, border collies and things like that that run the cattle operation, but or that participate in the cattle operation. So what we think you know, you guys might think somebody in this room might think, oh, a dog will scare a wolf. A dog will not scare a wolf.
It doesn't work. There's that deterrent doesn't work. But you can respond if you'd like.
Speaker 1
Before we do that, let's just take a moment and establish a quorum Sure. If we may.
Speaker 1
Okay. A quorum has been established. Please go continue with your questioning.
Speaker 16
So I'll stop with my commentary, and I'll just go on to the next question. I just want you guys to know that what you guys think works here in this building, and it sounds like a great idea. It doesn't work on the ground to the people who have to deal with this. So including mountain lions. It's not just the wolf situation.
It's the mountain lion situation as well. But how do we ensure that 50% of the allocation for nonlethal deterrence does not diminish available resources for compensating verified livestock losses? Like, how do we make sure that even though they're doing everything they can to deter it based on what the law is gonna say when this bill passes is what I'm assuming is gonna happen, how do we make sure that there's still reimbursement for the loss of revenues and a dollar and cents thing to the livestock?
Speaker 4
Yeah. That's a great question. Thank you. And mister Wilbur actually spoke to this, and I made one one word in my comment that talked about practicability. So we're talking right now about practicability of these nonlethal deterrents.
So that is an ongoing conversation. You know, we haven't landed just as they've said, but we are working hard to make sure that we we come to alignment on that. I also wanted to mention you have a you mentioned that you haven't spent any time with the new director, Megan Hertel. I do wanna note that she also just recently went on, I think, seven county tour of Northern California and spoke with ranchers and sheriffs and other county officials and really went on a listening tour. And we've heard really excellent feedback from from the communities up there to that that just having her presence there and her listening ear has been really helpful.
I urge you to to reach out to her and spend some time
Speaker 16
a couple of meetings that we haven't been able to secure. One was my fault. One, she couldn't,
Speaker 16
It just didn't work out. And I know and that was based on the rules committee's confirmation. But so I guess I appreciate that very much. What we wanna make sure is that there's a dollars or resources set aside for that livestock loss. How's it and I guess is there something in the bill, or are you willing to put something in the bill that allows the local elected sheriff in that county to issue degradation permits like they do sometimes in other places where there is a public safety issue.
If you have a wolf like, for instance, there was a degradation issued permit issued, I believe I believe, for the mountain lion that drug a kid off a bike a pike a path and took him out in the woods, killed him, buried him, and came back later to eat him. So that once that lion mountain lion attacked another a human and then attacked another human, that mountain lion is not safe. You can't scare it away. They tried tree and free. They tried all these things, and it doesn't work, and it's still coming back after human taste.
Like and then they were able to eliminate that threat for public safety. Is there anything that's gonna address the issue for sheriffs to issue degradation permits for public safety?
Speaker 4
Not at this time because wolves have a different legal status than mountain lions in California. You know, they are protected under CISA, so a depredation permit is not allowable at this
Speaker 16
time. Okay. How does the bill account for situations where nonlethal deference is not practical or feasible due to cost, terrain, or land use restrictions?
Speaker 16
Yeah. That's gonna be the next step. Yep. So I appreciate I mean, like I said, I signed on the the letter for the You the request because I think the author has really acted in really good faith. And Chuck Bonham was going out to those communities.
I'm glad to know that Megan is doing it as well. So I I do know that everybody's trying to figure out a way to solve this problem. And, but we do have you know, the wolf is an apex predator, and I know that it's it's protected. But, it's if it if you have this livestock in this if you had this wildlife in your schools, in your communities, in in these communities that you guys represent, your constituents would be all over you to stop it. They don't feel safe.
I mean, like, that was a 700 pound elk that a wolf drove on their drug on their doorstep. So and those aren't outlier things. Those are things that happen almost on a daily basis. Not so much the elk, but the dead cattle and the dead calves. Absolutely.
So sure. Through the chair. Go ahead. Oh, sorry, sir. Go ahead.
Speaker 8
I I just wanted to say that your description is making the case, and I think you know it this program. It like, when this program existed for the several years it did, there were dedicated staff in the region who were working, not just on wolves, but on all the different species and engaging directly with the community and providing that advice and technical assistance that they need. And it is the the results of disinvesting in that is the experience that we're now having not just, you know, in your community in Monrovia, in Downtown San Francisco. I mean, it's it's that's why we're so passionate about trying to put this program forward so that we're being proactive in in on a species specific, kind of risk specific approach upfront to avoid then mitigate, keep conflicts from happening and escalating to these kinds of situations.
Speaker 3
No. They had mountain lions and coyotes on occasion. Coyotes fairly frequently, mountain lions on occasion. Okay.
Speaker 16
I thought you said wolves. Sorry. Okay. Well, I appreciate the author working with the the opposition. I hope we get there.
I really do hope we get there because it's something that desperately needs to be addressed, not only for, you know, wildlife. And I'm not against the wildlife, just something for wildlife, but we have to protect human population as well. So thank you, mister chair, for allowing me to answer ask those questions.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chair. And and I I I I I wanna agree pretty much with the whole line of discussion. Maybe not all the all the specific requests, but everything that senator Groves said. I I I represent the I think I'm the the most northern state legislator on this committee, and livestock and the human and the and the and all those things. They're they're very real conflicts in in in my district.
And, obviously, if this were if if senator D'Arrazza were running this, we would insist on a binding agreement. If we're gonna coexist with wolves and grizzly bears and mountain lions, they should have to sign on the on they should sign an MOU with us. They can't. So that's I mean, that's what makes this hard is that there's nobody on the other side of the table to agree. So we have to figure out how to coexist from our perspective and from the perspective of the various species that we cohabit you know, we cohabitate with in the state.
So I appreciate the incredible complexity. I do think the the cattlemen and Farm Bureau, the the issues that they've raised are are reasonable and we and we should be addressing. I'm I'm encouraged by both the author's comments and the and the sponsors in terms of the progress on that work because I think that is very important. The other thing I would just wanna observe is that because we've typically framed this, and I think even in the opening, framed this principally as a this is happening because of kind of humans, us consuming habitat. And so we're we're forcing species into smaller and smaller niche niches that are sometimes aren't viable, and then and so we end up with these conflicts.
And all of that is true and has been true since these programs began. But we grappled with this a lot on the statewide thirty by thirty committee as well, and, you know, as as human caused climate change was identified as an issue, back then, many folks in this room, many folks who were supporters of the bill, and and several of us, you know, sort of forecast this was gonna be a much bigger problem. That if Stockton is seven degrees hotter, if most of Senator Grove's district and half of mine are six or seven degrees hotter, then that changes changes the ecosystem in very fundamental ways. And and so we we I think we we've tended to think about species and land conservation as sort of fixed in space. Like, they've always been here, and therefore, we need to do everything possible to make sure that that we're not conflicting here.
But if the microbial environment and then everything up the food chain to the apex predators all depends on a climate that's six degrees cooler than it will be in Sanger or in Fairfield or elsewhere, then not the right framing any longer because we should expect a lot more species movement that's unexpected and isn't caused by a housing development, but caused by our failure as a species to address our contributions to climate change. So, the need for this is gonna become much, much more important than simply the traditional WUI issues, but really, it is both the lack of food and the existing ecosystem, but also the fundamental ecosystem suitability for many of these species and the species underneath them on the food chain that's gonna cause this to be a much bigger issue. I'm very encouraged to see the work on it and getting ahead with it both with the bill and with budget proposal. And, we congratulate the author and the sponsors for looking at this smartly and collaboratively to make sure that it actually works. Thanks so much to Center Grove for helping to ground truth this because it's definitely possible.
We know the strategies that will not solve it, but at least make it as solved as it can be. And I'm encouraged and hopeful that you're gonna get there as well. So
Speaker 1
Well, I'll just say for my part, yeah, Santa Clara County, which I represent, was actually in the top five for wildlife incidents in the recent CDFW data. And I'll echo. I wanna appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I knew we'd have a robust discussion. I've heard the center from Bakersfield talk passionately.
Well, I mean, in very you know, it's a very serious incidents that have happened in in her district. Some of this we in senate Richardson's grizzly bear bill, we we had some of this discussion previously. So but I think everyone commends you for your work and to hear the opposition speak about that collaborative work. And a bill on coexistence is is is very heartening because I think, you know, we recognize really, I recognize the the desire for it. And we talked about the kind of balance.
Do we want that have some of that wildness in California? I certainly do. But we do have to make sure, of of course, that we do manage it with the people whose livelihoods and families. We don't want people not afraid to leave their homes, essentially, which is one the I've heard from the senator from Bakersfield in the past. So we did need to take steps on this.
I signed on to the complimentary budget request to fund the program opposed by the bill because of the importance. Again, I wanna thank you. So I will be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close?
Speaker 7
Well, I really appreciate the engagement from the committee and also from those who spoke in opposition to the bill and the sponsors. We we are really working on essentially a global response to this with the state, with all the interests that are affected, with those who care about protecting wildlife. I think we will get there, and we're we're we're off on a really good start because we we have identified what needs to happen, and we're working together through a series of many meetings and things to make sure that we get there. So I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Do we have a motion? Okay. Senator Cobaldin has a motion to pass to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 15
Becker, aye. Steauto? Allen? Cobaldan? Aye.
Cobaldan, aye. Cortese? Grove? Stern? It's 20 on call.
Speaker 1
Okay. That is 20 for now on call. You have another opportunity. Thank you. Your other bill is on consent.
Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 2
Who's been patiently waiting. Okay. I'm gonna ask for some quiet while we Senator Terrazzo, welcome.
Speaker 20
Is this on? Hello? Hello? Is it on? Okay.
Okay. Wow. It's noisy. Good morning everyone. I just want start out by saying we have coyotes up and down the sidewalks in front of my house in Northeast
Speaker 20
good morning. Good morning, mister chair. Thank you for all your work and having the discussions with the opposition. Appreciate that. And I don't wanna thank your staff.
Speaker 5
They worked really hard on this, and so appreciation to all of you. And good morning to all the members. For over two decades, California's Show Me the Water laws have established a mechanism to help local governments understand whether large scale developments have a reliable water supply. These assessments look at whether a development project has been accounted for in long term water supply planning, and if not, whether sufficient supply exists to serve the project alongside existing and future uses over a twenty year period. Water supply assessments, or WSAs, applied to projects meeting certain requirements, including residential developments over 500 units or non residential projects that demand a similar or greater amount of water.
Speaker 20
Because WSAs have been in place for more than two decades, we have largely taken them for granted. But before these safeguards existed, California approved developments based on what was often called paper water. Water that looked available on spreadsheets but did not exist in reality. The consequences were real. Some communities were built without sufficient water to support the people living there, and residents were forced to go to grocery stores to purchase large bottles of water because the water they were promised at home was not actually available.
These harms disproportionately impacted poor communities and communities of color. WSAs give local governments, developers, and water agencies the information they all need to align growth with water supply. That kind of upfront clarity helps ensure a new housing and development can actually be built and operate as intended. A WSA was triggered when a city or county determined that a certain large scale development was subject to CEQA. In recent years, as the state has streamlined housing and exempted some types of development from CEQA, the WSA is no longer triggered.
Meaning, some projects are no longer required to go through this important step. This bill ensures that as we continue to build much needed housing and other development projects, we are also equipping local decision makers with the information about the water supply to serve those projects. With increasing variability in water conditions, including declining snowpack and potential drought scenarios, making sure California's growth is supported with reliable water is more important than ever. At its core, this bill is about making sure water supply planning and land use planning continue to be linked together and that the WSA can continue as a tool for these local efforts. Mister chair, I ask for your I vote members of the committee.
With me today, I have Debbie Michael with the sponsor of the bill, East Bay Municipal Utility District. Thank you.
Speaker 9
chair and members, thank you. I'm Debbie Michael. I'm the legislative representative with the East Bay Municipal Utility District or EB MUD. We are pleased to sponsor SB ten eighty five. I'd like to thank the chair and also the committee staff for the thorough analysis.
I'd also like to thank senator D'Arrazzo for authoring this important statewide bill. EB MUD sponsored legislation dealing with water supply planning including the 1983 bill which put into place the requirement for urban water management plans which are long term plans for water supply. There were multiple efforts in the nineteen nineties to link water supply planning and land use planning, including s b nine zero one by Costa in 1995, which was the origin of the water supply assessment statute. This was at a time when paper water was common. The 2001 show me the water legislation recognized the importance of these two efforts.
Speaker 17
The land use planning and water supply planning are tied together. Even that was involved in those two bills as well as the six ten cost and s p two twenty one fuel. The water supply assessment process focuses on identifying the water supply needed for large scale development as the senator indicated. Once the assessment is completed, it goes to the city or county to help inform their land use decisions on the project. What we found at EB MUD is that early coordination with project developers through the the water supply assessment or the WSA process ensures that the water supplier can discuss the infrastructure improvements and related costs that may be necessary, any conservation measures in place, and whether recycled water is available to serve certain projects.
Speaker 9
Without the WSA, those discussions happen further along in the development process. SB ten eighty five allows this process to continue even if the large scale development isn't subject to CEQA. And I would say that the legislature at the time this policy was put in place in 2001, I don't think contemplated CEQA exemptions for 500 dwelling unit projects. So this this policy has important statewide implications, especially in light of the impacts of climate change and future droughts on water supply. EB Mudd respectfully requests your I vote on SB ten eighty five.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. I understand that we do have a fair amount of people who would like to add on here. So in the room and outside the room. We will go ahead.
Speaker 21
Mister chair members, Matt Broadford, United here International Union in support. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Mister chairman members, Dennis O'Connor with the Mono Lake, also speaking for the Sierra Club of California clean water action leadership council for justice and accountability and restore the Delta.
Speaker 24
Hello. Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.
Speaker 6
Good morning. Kiley Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Marty Farrell on behalf of California Coastkeeper Alliance in support. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Jack Worson on behalf of the Elievenheim Municipal Water District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.
Speaker 26
Keith Dunn on behalf of the state building construction trades council here in support for the senator.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon, members. Good morning, chair members. Ross Buckley on behalf of city of Sacramento, and on behalf of my colleague with regional water authority.
Speaker 27
Good morning Kyle Jones with community alliance of family farmers the San Joaquin Valley water collaborative action program planning and conservation league defenders of wildlife and unlimited support thank you.
Speaker 6
Good morning, chairman and members. Marissa Hagerman with Trout and Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of California environmental voters. Thanks to the author.
Speaker 27
Good morning, chair and members. Anthony Townahill with California Special Districts Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Good morning, mister chairman, members of Ed Frankel here on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Alright. We're gonna now turn to opposition witnesses. Yeah. Can we make room there?
That'd be great. Thank you. Excellent. Go ahead, Marty.
Speaker 26
Eric, good morning, chair and members. I'm Ben Turner with Acxiom Advisors representing the California building industry association. We appreciate the time the authors staff has spent with us regarding our concern with the bill however we remain opposed at this time. CBIA has no objection to planning for future water needs and verifying the housing developments have sufficient water supplies. I'd like to emphasize that under current law, even the for projects that are exempt from CEQA, no housing can be built without a verified water supply.
This bill, as drafted, creates unintended consequences that could slow down the very housing projects the legislature has worked hard to streamline. First, we don't believe the legislature overlooked water supply assessment when it enacted AB 130 and SB 131 last year. The decision to exempt qualifying housing projects from CEQA necessarily included WSA requirement which has always been embedded in the CEQA process. SB ten eighty five would chip away at last year's policy choices. Second, the WSA is not the only safeguard water agencies already water agencies already prepare urban water management plans projecting water supply demand and the subdivision map act requires a binding water supply verification before a map with more than 500 units can be approved.
The WSV, the water supply verification, like the WSA, includes a twenty year analysis including dry years, but isn't just a forecast. It has legal teeth. Third, and for the final point, extracting WSA from the CEQA process creates legal uncertainty. Under current law, you cannot sue over a water supply assessment by itself. You can only challenge it as part of a broader CEQA lawsuit.
Speaker 6
Under this bill, the water agencies will be required to create a document and provide it to the lead agency for review. The review process, the secret process for CWIC exempt projects doesn't exist, and the agency is legally in charge of a value is not legally in charge of evaluating it. CBIA is concerned that WSA's outside of the CEQA process will become an invitation for more lawsuits undermining last year's CEQA reforms, adding costs and delays to critically needed housing projects. We don't object to providing water agencies with notice when housing projects are proposed so they can undertake water supply assessments. We do object to having them be considered as part of the project approvals that are exempt from CEQA.
Speaker 26
So, it's currently drafted, the bill is a step backward for housing supply. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Yeah. Thank you, mister chair. I was alive. I was in and around this building when when these bills were originally passed twenty something twenty five years ago. And they were in response largely to and the reason why they applied to such large developments is is we had one one, the legislature was very concerned about growth in total.
Kind of the opposite orientation that we have been in the last several years, where housing development was seen as a problem to get under control. I mean, we should be very clear that that was California's that was California's orientation for for for quite a bit of time, and we've we've seen the consequences of that. I was a part of that movement too, so I I accept first responsibility. It was the right thing to do in terms of trying to protect the environment and communities, but it also had consequences. But, we saw, and even even in in this county, in Sacramento County where we're we're sitting, we saw lots of major projects, mainly kind of sprawling subdivisions outside of existing jurisdictions coming forward with large water needs and with pretty shaky water supplies being verified for them.
And so, the the two bill the Costa bill and the Kuehl bill were important steps forward to try to to get a handle on that. Obviously, now we are in a different position in terms of of housing production. Housing production is not something we're trying to disincentivize. So I think the the the, you know, the issues that the BIA has raised are are important ones. But I think the the and, you know, these these assessments don't apply to folks who have private water services, which is my district my district has everything.
I know Senator D'Arrazzo's district is the same. We have some some cities and counties that that depend on private water companies, investor owned, some that are municipal districts, which despite the name are not cities, you know, like they're East Bay Mud. There are other special districts. And then many where the water the public water system is a function of the city. Sometimes the county, but but definitely the city.
And those are all very different circumstances. And so, I think and and, you know, I think an area of concern to me is I'm not sure what without the litigation and everything else, like, what's the point of these assessments in some cases? But the one area that I think is very is is the the most problematic is for those where the where the city and county are the same as the water system. So, if I am the mayor of my own city and we have a a project, a large residential project comes in, remember, we're we're really mostly talking about infill projects because that's what AB one thirty applied to. So, it's no longer out in the middle of nowhere, who knows where the water is.
So, it's an infill project. It's in my arena list. It's in my housing element that we're gonna build here. I've built my general plan around it. So the project comes in, and so now I write I write a letter to the water public water system saying, pursuant to the fuel cost or the Dirazzo bill, now and please provide the water assessment.
And I put that in the mail, you know, walk it downstairs in city hall, put it in the mailbox, send the letter off. The next day, I go to the mailbox and pick up a letter, and it's came from the city. But now I'm the mayor in charge of the water system, and it's saying, please tell us the whether there's water available. It's the same people. Right?
And that's because the the the city is the one that operates the water system. So, of course, the city's already had to do the urban water management plan. The city has done the water system master plan that is the basis for its impact fees and everything else. It's done the water assessment for purpose of of its general plan and therefore its housing element in the first place. So, there's no I'm I'm asking myself to do an assessment of what I've already assessed.
So, this particular situation where the the public water system and the city and county are the same thing, there's not there's no value being added. I understand I absolutely get the the the East Bay Mudd example because in that case, the they're different entities. And so, we we have I've said these in my district. I'm served by East Bay Mudd that are making decisions and are reviewing permits. They are not they have no idea.
They can't make commitments about the water supply or deliverability without getting an assessment from East Bay Med. So, in that case, it makes sense, and that's very common in California. But, it's equally common for the city to be the water purveyor and and directing them to conduct a separate study when they already must, and particularly as the witness said, pursuant to the subdivision map act, they can't approve the project without a hard water connection already. So, I think that's I'm not totally convinced about the overall bill, but I get where the author's trying to go and absolutely want to continue to work on it. But, this one the area that I think is very problematic here is the creation of this extra set of layer of processes and studies that aren't needed because when the municipal when the public water system is also the permitting agency for the project in the first place, they already have all the information that is necessary in order to make that decision, and doing an additional study is simply wasted time and money and delay in the project itself.
So, had a brief conversation about the author, but right before the hearing, and so, obviously, there's questions to be resolved, so, just encourage and hope that you'll continue to explore some of these issues and try to assure that we're getting this as precise and tight as possible so that we're getting the water information that is necessary to make sure to bring that land use and water connection together without without sending folks on missions to do work that they is not is not necessary and costly and imposes delays on the housing that we need to build.
Speaker 20
Sure. I I just want to say, obviously, our intention is to lessen, not increase. And, I think that's really important because when there's there's coordination upfront, when there's early coordination between land use and the water use, that is supposed to help the efficiency of the process not increase, you know, bureaucracy or other steps. So, that's our intention. I don't know if Debbie, if you want to miss Michael want to add to that.
Sure.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Senator Capaldin for the question. Yeah, I think you're right. It is very important for the special districts in California. We don't know when those projects are moving forward at the city or county level. I will say that for cities and counties we we do have some city support from various jurisdictions but the way that the water supply assessment works and and really what the senator does with that is doing with the bill is trying to leave the water supply assessment statute intact because it has twenty five years of proven track record of enabling conversations at the outset of the planning process.
But for a city if a project moves forward they can just use the urban water management plan to ensure that the precise amount is accounted for in that urban water management plan. That's written into water supply assessment law. One way they can turn around the water supply assessment more quickly is by doing that check against whether the water is included in that long term planning document.
Speaker 18
Yeah. I I get that, but there's no there's no conversation if the if if the city of West Sacramento has got a project in front of it. There's no conversation that needs to be induced. So I I appreciate what you're saying, but they they they shouldn't be doing this at at all because they're the they are the answer to their own question. There's no dialogue or negotiation that that has to happen because the in in that case, like, the which is uncommon that they they they are the holder of the information and the decision maker on the housing permit in the first place, and they're they're already aware of that.
So having them go through even if they have an expedited way through an assessment process, they're still doing an assessment that doesn't provide any value to them, to the project, or to public engagement Because, the public engagement's on the project itself by the same jurisdiction that is considering the water plan.
Speaker 27
Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, mister chair. Oh, thank you, mister chair. Think we come from different lands, land too much water and land of not enough water, and so you sort of reflected in the orientation.
It almost seems like maybe not duplicative, but sort of excessive to be studying, you know, where your water comes from when you have too much water and it's overflowing and you're actually trying to manage flood risk. And that's the that's the trick with landing these bills of of statewide impact. Right? It's how to tailor them to a diverse set of regions. I think went from a Southern California perspective for me on this bill, I'm I'm I'm desperate for it.
This is this is crucial. And I'm really excited you brought the measure forward because I don't wanna have to go up north and take more of their water unless or maybe not take it, buy it, or borrow it. Steal it.
Speaker 27
No. Yes. Coexist with it with dual missions. We wanna be able to be self sustaining in Southern California, and we want to be able to have our own water security and and rely and and really make those urban water management plans more and more robust. So, you know, my hope with this this measure is not to to sort of add new layers or have unnecessary studying, but in fact, just improve the urban water management planning, which, you know, in the in the LA region, we're going hard for recycled water.
I mean, we have a we have a the most aggressive vision in the West. And so, precisely because we don't want to have to try to reach north and to reach to all these other places and to haul this water from from the East and or from from lakes that are threatened. And so I think this is crucial, and I think, you know, the development community is very creative right now, and the kind of develop the kind of projects we're building are more and more efficient. But what we don't want is sort of just an unintended consequence of what is important streamlining maybe on the on housing development side to somehow undercut our broader water security strategy. So I appreciate the the the sort of the northern perspective on this, but sort of wanted to bring that and and and thank you for the measure.
I I'd love to be added on at the appropriate time. Don't know if you're amending the bill today. Are you are there no men's day, but whenever is the appropriate time, I'd love to be added on and just help keep working through some of these regional, you know, differences to make sure that we've got a really efficient process, but also that we're we're we're building in this in this state in a way that's not gonna leave us dry for in in decades to come. Yeah. So Thank you.
That's all I got.
Speaker 16
Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. Thank you, mister chair. I do I do wanna thank the author for collaborating and working again. That always doesn't happen in this building, so I thank the author for for working with the opposition to try to figure out solutions that will work out.
And I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. For my own part, I just wanna thank you as well. We put this bill over, you know, at my request really to keep working on it. You know, I will say I've had some heartburn on this bill because we did just go ahead and do streamlining. And, you know, in my view, if we're saying housing is a priority as a state, then housing needs to be a priority, and then we need to figure out the water.
You know? And and I I I appreciate the comments from senator Stern as well, and it gives a perspective, you know, why and just some of the reasons you're doing this bill and why this bill is needed. But I do think there is additional work to do. I do appreciate you. You've been engaging in those conversations.
I know there's conversations as late as yesterday evening. Maybe I'll ask the opposition. For the record, do you feel confident that conversations are are moving in the right direction?
Speaker 26
I think I think the the sponsors and the author staff understand where we're coming from, and we've proposed several possible avenues of reaching agreement, but I haven't gotten there yet.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, I wanna thank, again, thank the author for for having those conversations and the sponsors. I do believe there is something to land here. I know we as recent as yesterday, we talked about a number of different options in the in in in our committee and with our staff. I guess to the author, mean, I think it's it's not your intention to kind of open up these projects for lots of lawsuit potential when we just went through streamlining.
Is that is that accurate to say?
Speaker 20
Absolutely. We passed what we passed. This is different. Know? This is about making sure that, in fact, we're far more efficient.
We have all the information in front of us so we could make these kinds of decisions that we didn't have to worry about maybe in the past. We do have to think about them now. And so our you know, my goal is not to bypass the efforts that we're making, whether it's for housing or any we have a lot of big projects that, you know, some of us are involved with. So it's not to bypass that or it's not to shove those in the in the trash. It's about making sure that when we do build these projects that we have sufficient water.
That's the goal.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yeah. So I think, you know, what we're working towards is something to indicate, you know, this is really a planning you know, this is for planning purposes. So I think if we're aligned there, I think we can, you know, move forward in that spirit and continue the conversations. And, again, I just wanna be clear.
You know, nobody want you know, the big urban the big sprawl projects, those would be subject to sequel anyway. Right? So I think what we're really talking about are the big the urban infill projects. Those are the ones that I'm concerned that might be more than 500 units. Those are the ones that we've been concerned about here.
So I think with that, yeah, just it's a little unclear if this bill could expose a project, increase litigation risk from a group challenging adequacy of a WSA, and I think that's what we wanna work forward work on going forward. I think we can get there with time on agreement how to minimize that that risk of litigation. So, with that, I will invite you to close.
Speaker 20
Thank you mister chair and members and I respect for last year. I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Please call the roll. Oh, we need a motion. Would definitely like to move the bill? Senator Stern will move the bill.
Do pass to local government.
Speaker 15
Becker, aye. Serrato? Allen? Aye. Allen, Cobaldin?
Aye. Cobaldin, aye. Cortese, Grove? Stern? I.
Stern, I. 41 on call.
Speaker 1
Oh, yes. That's right. I know we had a we to you. It's very exciting. Happy birthday.
Speaker 29
I'll use whatever resources necessary to Yeah. To get my stuff through. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Okay. Okay. I know we're this room gets a little noisy in transition time, but we appreciate we'll give our full attention to senator Richardson. Go ahead.
Speaker 29
No problem. Good morning, chair and members. I'd like to start off by thanking senator Becker, Edith as the consultant, and all the team. I kinda believe with my legislation, no actually means maybe. So so thank you for your patience in working with us, and I'm happy to accept the amendments that have been provided by the committee.
I wanna start off by stating that currently California has a wildfire mitigation program and it's conducting a home hardening pilot program only in six counties inclusive of Lake County, Siskiyou County. I'll just pass on the others. Suffice to say that all of the counties are in Northern California and one in San Diego, and it's not ironic by that that our leadership has been in the last few years in Northern California and San Diego. So today, what we're hoping to do is put aside boundaries of state representatives and actually look at what is the need in the community. In January 2025, Los Angeles County experienced extremely dry conditions and high winds.
These factors long recognized as key catalysts for wildfire outbreaks resulted in two of the most destructive wildfires in California history. The Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire consumed more than 38,000 acres of land and destroyed over 16,000 structures and displaced just under 13,000 households. Following the fires, the office of emergency services, Cal OES, and the department of forestry and fire protection highlighted 10 counties with the highest wildfire risk and social vulnerability. Los Angeles ranked ninth out of all 58 counties. In light of the Palisades and Eaton fires, s b twelve seventy formally codifies that the legislature's intent to expand the California wildfire mitigation program to include the top 10 counties, irregardless of members and leadership and so on, that those counties with the highest wildfire risk would be identified by Cal OES and Cal Fire.
The four additional counties that would be included are Riverside County, Calvarez County, Los Angeles County, and Tuhami. I probably said that wrong. Apologize. You for you wonderful people who represent it. This bill also directs that any unspent pilot program funds remaining after 07/01/2029 would be returned to the state for redistribution to the counties ranked seven through 10 and requires that financial assistance prior to being prioritized for these counties upon future legislative appropriations or additional federal funding.
More plainly stated, if additional funds are available and this legislation goes through, those seven through 10 counties would be prioritized. And then once we pass 2029, it would fall in the regular order and all counties would participate. We're doing this because the funds that were currently allocated have been completely allocated to all the counties, and so we wanna make sure that the plans that they have taken, they have an opportunity to bring them to fruition. As we continue to rebuild and fortify our communities that were ravaged by the Palisades and Eaton fires, Home hardening assistance is a critical component that must be considered to provide a sense of relief to homeowners, cities, counties, and insurance companies. SB twelve seventy will help to ensure residents living in high risk communities are able to benefit from the state's wildfire mitigation program.
With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote, and I promise mister Weiner I would be fast. It's up to you from here on out. Okay.
Speaker 1
No lead witnesses. So we think we do have some some Me too, add on testimony.
Speaker 11
Senator Richardson and her staff's work on this bill. We had some slight but very important concerns, and I believe those amendments will alleviate those. So we stand in support today. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Good morning. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support. Okay.
Speaker 11
Julina Voris on behalf of the League of California cities in support with the amendments. Very appreciate the willingness to work on this bill with the author. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Alright. David Quintana with the South Coast Air Quality Management District. We have an interim support, but we'll have a full support in May when the board meets. Okay.
Speaker 1
Opposition. Anyone in opposition? No opposition witnesses. Any opposition me twos? Seeing none.
We'll bring up yeah. Bring him back to the committee. Any comments? Senator Stern.
Speaker 27
Yeah. Just briefly, I know this bill involves Cal OES, so in my emergency management chair hat on, You know, I appreciate the author's work to to rectify some of these historic inequities in the wildfire community hardening framework. We have state funds also beyond just the FEMA HMA dollars that are also really critical here. I think my my biggest I think the challenge we've all got to sort of overcome going forward is how do we how do we do we harden? Do we try to go for big dollar projects?
The 11 and a half million we've pushed out the door have sort of been for larger retrofits that are very expensive, and your money's gonna burn up quick if you do that. I'd rather cover more ground, and I appreciate that you're trying to expand the aperture. I think, frankly, the 10 counties aren't enough. I think that, you know, whether you're in Napa, Sonoma, or in Ventura, that they're gonna want a piece of this. And the problem is that when we're spending it in very, very large chunks, the money goes away quickly.
So what I'm hoping is through your legislation and your leadership here, but also through the budget process, and through our bond funds, and some of the other funds we're gonna be pushing out in this arena through OES, that we find better ways to scale this money. And so, in other words, rather than doing, say, example, a $200,000 project to remove to retrofit someone's deck that's wood and you turn it into composite, To instead make sure that 500 homeowners have mesh on their vents so that embers don't get in. You're gonna be able to scale this at a to a much wider range and to cover much more risk if we allow and push for those sort of smaller dollars for more people as opposed to bigger dollars for a limited tranche of people. So I think you by expanding the aperture here with the bill, you're already pushing in that direction. But I just sort of wanna prelude to where I hope this hardening conversation evolves to as the year goes on.
Happy to move the bill at the appropriate time, and thank you for letting me make the comment.
Speaker 18
Yeah. I I wanted to pick up on on senator Stern's comments and maybe pose it as a as a question. So we had a pilot to learn and we've expanded all of the pilot now. Or
Speaker 18
Allocated. Okay. Thank you. Allocated all the pilot. So, we're learning from the pilot.
What's the thinking about continuing to have this be geographically focused? That made sense for a learning project. I'm But, curious as to as to as why you've chosen to do that as opposed to make it Recognizing what what Whichever approach we take, the money's gonna be limited. But, it could be, you know, which are the Which projects are the most cost effective in the in the in the ways the senators should set or you know, some other metric other than just straight straight geography?
Speaker 29
Permission to answer. Actually, to both senators. Frankly, I would have no objection if the program applied to everywhere, and whoever had a project that needed it would submit their project. It would be evaluated, and the funds would be allocated. That would be my ideal.
Frankly, though, since this is legislation and we're impacting six other counties, I didn't wanna reach too far, frankly, because those six counties may now feel, well, okay, we thought we were gonna get, you know, x amount more. Now we realize if everybody else is in, we might get a little less. And so I really didn't wanna get into that fight. I felt that with what happened last year, the case was clearly made that fires can happen anywhere. They can happen in Los Angeles.
They can happen in Paradise. They can happen anywhere. So our point was just to really evaluate a more reasonable number. Top 10 seemed reasonable, but I would not be opposed and I would defer to the chair in this committee. If at some point through this process you want to extend it.
I have no objection to that. I frankly feel it should be based upon what is the need of the area. If a area can demonstrate, for example, in senator Smallwood's district, there's a old oil field in Kenneton Reserve and it butts up against homes. Home hardening should happen there. In my area where Palisades Conservancy, it abuts against naval housing.
And when I say abut, I'm talking like 10 feet, 20 feet. I'm not talking about half a mile. So I would have no problems with, and I really believe legislation should be in this way, is that whatever needs it most should have the project. So I would respectfully ask that we would continue this bill out. However, if you would like us to reconsider it being broader, I'm okay with that, or if you wanna stay where it is.
But I concur that it really should be any project, any geographic area. It should be where the need is, where the risk is that, you know, the additional vegetation could potentially cause greater harm.
Speaker 18
Through the chair. I I very much appreciate that, and and and I'm I'm gonna support the bill today on on on that on the basis. Hard for me to to go back to my my community. We have we we had fires last year also in in Napa and Sonoma, just as an example and say, hey, we're we're just not eligible because of of a of a bill, not because not because the needs are different, but I but so I I appreciate that and and and and hope that you'll you'll continue to look at doing that as we go forward. And also, just to underscore what Senator Stern's point, think, which is that we will not have enough money for all the need.
And so, thinking about Because the need can be scaled in both the scope geographically is so big, but also the need can be scaled if each as he says, if each project is a million bucks or 200 we'll we'll never get there. So, you know, if the process for how these funds get awarded or allocated pays attention to need, but also what are the most effective, promising, efficient practices that will induce changes in the market and what have you. And also recognize that, as you know, we're not talking about there's really not that much point in $10,000,000 hardening my home if everybody else's home around me hasn't had the basics done. So, we're really so, we want to encourage through this program the cost effective things that will reach universality more than faster than they will reach perfection in any single property as you're going forward. I hope you consider putting a performance basis on this so we can so we can learn how to make the kind of market changes that senator Assurance described as well.
Speaker 29
So, permission through the chair? Yes. If it be the will of the committee, I am once you all decide, I'd be more than happy to accept amendments prior to going to appropes about if you chose to expand it to all counties. And I would also be more than happy to add an amendment that said that this program group would reevaluate and maybe provide a little more direction on the types of programs that they would want to consider, meaning considering a larger scale of people versus larger projects. So if that be the will of the committee, I have no problems with accepting amendments along that line because I concur with them.
Speaker 27
We have a we have another stock in emergency management. I don't know you could
Speaker 1
Okay. Oh, great. Well, first, I was trying to clarify where we are. I have a couple comments and then turn it over for you to close. So this bill recognizes the high wildfire risk.
And again, I just wanna thank you so much for your passion, your leadership. We've spent a lot of time discussing this bill. And it recognizes risks faced by Riverside, Calaveras, Los Angeles, and Tehama Counties, the top seventh through tenth ranked counties for wildfire risk and social vulnerability by the community wildfire mitigation program. The amendments to this bill encourage additional state and federal funding to go towards providing home hardening retrofits to homes in Riverside, Calvaris, Los Angeles, and Tehama Counties. Amendments will be taken in emergency management committee next week, the ones we've already agreed to due to legislative timeline.
Sounds like there'll be some additional discussion. But, again, I wanna really thank you. I mean, this home hardening is something that cuts across actually a lot of committees. You know, the the insurance committee, how do we make sure when people home harden that they actually get rewarded for that? That's the goal we're all been working towards.
I had a bill around, you know, community wide mitigation. Again, as we says, senator Cabaldon said, if just one house doesn't doesn't really help, how do we encourage the communities? There's education component. I know I've done a couple, you know, home hardening town halls and just, you know, really there's a whole education component as people understand what's what's really effective. We're also waiting for the governor, a long delayed decision on on on zero zone zero and defensible space and we tried to get some money for that.
So this really is a really wide ranging discussion but you've really focused us on areas of need beyond the the first six that have gotten that initial money and how are we going to fund them, how are we going to help them. And I really appreciate you bringing the discussion forward and representing these counties, but also speaking broader about the issue. So thank you. With that, would you like to close?
Speaker 29
As a good senator, I respectfully ask for an I vote on s p twelve seventy.
Speaker 1
Okay. So we have a motion, from senator Stern. It's, due pass to emergency management. Please call the roll.
Speaker 15
Senators Becker? Aye. Becker aye. Sarto? Allen?
Aye. Allen, Cobaldan? Cobaldan,
Speaker 15
Cortese, Grove? Grove, I. Stern? Aye. Stern, I.
Alright. You're all on call. Thank you.
Speaker 1
That is 50. That's on call. I'm gonna turn the gavel over to center Grove for a moment.
Speaker 3
Okay. Senator, senator Weiner, you're up with SB895. You can proceed when wetter ready, senator.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. Colleagues, I'm here today to present Senate Bill eight ninety five. I appreciate the committee's collaboration with us on this important legislation.
Speaker 30
Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you, madam vice chair. Thank you to the committee for hearing this important legislation, is to support scientific research in California.
Speaker 16
Can I ask you guys to take your conversations outside, please? Thank you, Senator Stern. Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Colleagues, health and scientific research is an integral part of California's economy and our culture. It helps us cure disease, it improves our environment, and it bolsters and improves the lives of millions of Californians. Research in California has directly saved millions of lives around the world. It's made foundational contributions to the invention of major technologies, including the Internet, CRISPR, and AI.
It's discovered chemicals responsible It's discovered which chemicals are responsible for holes in the ozone, and it has sequenced the human genome. That all happened here in California because of our commitment to science. Scientific research constitutes nearly 6% of California's GDP, and California contributes roughly one third of all US investment in research and development. One third. The next highest state sits at 6.8%.
Research and development contributes more than $200,000,000,000 annually to our economy, and the sector directly employs nearly 700,000 Californians. In 2024, California researchers patented more new technologies than all other 49 states combined. Research supports local economies. It creates strong middle class, often union jobs that benefit entire regions. For all these reasons, top research talent comes to our state from across the world to work at our leading institutions and to make homes for themselves.
From biotechnology to medicine, agriculture, climate, AI, and beyond, California is the global leader. Yet despite the clear benefit and importance of research, the federal administration, this administration has attempted to stifle what is in essence a golden goose, not just for California, but for our country. The administration under President Trump has sought to cut billions and billions of dollars in research funding, both by taking a wrecking ball to various federal science agencies, such as the National Institutes
Speaker 30
Health, NOAA, National Science Foundation, the CDC, and so forth, and also cutting scientific research at universities here and around the country. Fortunately, the courts have rejected a number of those attempts, but they and Congress has, in a bipartisan way at times, pushed back because scientific research is not a partisan issue. But, we are still seeing cuts, we're still seeing a reduction in grants, and we're still seeing politicization of research and a broad chilling effect on scientific research. We are seeing and we are at risk of a major brain drain from this country and from California as scientists wonder if they have a future here. We are seeing them go to Europe or Canada or other places that are happy to have them because scientists make countries stronger and better.
In 2025, the NIH and National Science Foundation funded 2225% fewer grants compared to the ten years prior. Research requires a stable funding environment to manage multi year projects. If researchers don't know year to year whether funding will continue, they will take their research elsewhere. If California does not retain our top tier science talent, we will lose our pipeline to life saving research and to major industries in our state. SB eight ninety five proposes to double and triple down on California's global leadership in science, and to ensure that research continues here regardless of the ups and downs of the federal government.
This bill will place a $23,000,000,000 bond on the November ballot and will create a California Foundation for Science and Health Research to oversee those monies and others, public and private, that will come into the foundation, and will enable us to continue that leadership. The measure also includes very innovative provisions to ensure that California can recoup the benefits of this research happening here for our general fund, and also for lower drug prices from drugs that are discovered as a result of this research for Californians. I respectfully ask for your I vote, and with me today to testify is Nicole Guerito, a PhD student in civil and environmental engineering at UC Berkeley, and also a member of UAW Local four thousand eight hundred eleven, one of our sponsors. And Hal Collard, MDMS at UC San Francisco. He's UC
Speaker 30
Francisco's vice chancellor for research. So, you see, also is a cosponsor of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Thank you, senator Weiner. Your witnesses have two minutes each. Please continue.
Speaker 31
Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Doctor. Hal Collard.
I'm happy to be here as a proud native Californian and as a longtime physician scientist and currently as the Vice Chancellor of Research at the University of California San Francisco. Thanks for giving me a few minutes to share why the University of California believes that SB eight ninety five is essential to the future of California's scientific community. As the senator mentioned, the federal government has been the financial lifeblood of America's scientific research since the nineteen fifties, a model that was made possible by a broad consensus across the country that federal investment in science improves lives. In California, this investment enabled the growth of our world class research universities and institutes and led to the scientific breakthroughs, many of which were mentioned, that have and continue to revolutionize health and well-being. It's also provided over 50,000 good paying California jobs, generated an estimate $15,000,000,000 per year in Californian economic activity.
It's over two dollars per every dollar invested. Unfortunately, this funding is under threat. In fact, it's already compromised. America's support for science is diminished. I spent a lot of time in Washington talking with members of congress and agencies, and this is being actively discussed and questioned.
Speaker 21
And we're seeing that in some of the numbers that were just mentioned by the senator. SB eight ninety five can change this narrative. It will ensure that California's scientific community navigates today's choppy federal waters and will provide California with an expanded opportunity to invest in the scientific priorities of the state. SB eight ninety five will sustain and create new jobs, enrich our economy, and ensure that California remains the world's leader in cutting edge scientific discoveries. For all the reasons noted above, the University of California is in strong support of s b eight ninety five.
Speaker 8
Good morning to the chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to to speak today. My name is Nicole Guerito, and I'm here in strong support of s eight ninety five as a member of UAW four thousand eight hundred eleven. I'm a third year civil and environmental engineering PhD student at UC Berkeley in the lab of Professor Lisa Alvarez Cohen. I'm also a proud born and raised Californian educated entirely by our public education system.
In my research, I study the fate and transport of toxic chemical contaminants, including PFAS, in the environment. The work that I and many other scientists do generates the scientific knowledge California relies on to understand and protect public health, ecosystems, and natural resources. Over the last year, California's research institutions have been destabilized by federal funding cuts and legal uncertainty. Because federal grants support a large share of university research, these cuts do not just affect individual labs. They disrupt union jobs and the technical capacity California depends on.
Speaker 20
Just a few weeks ago, my own lab felt those cuts directly when a five year federally funded project on PFAS precursor biotransformation was cut short with two years of work and about half $1,000,000 lost. Federal funding instability also impacts the workforce pipeline that trains researchers. A first generation undergraduate at UCLA, I relied on the NIH funded Maximizing Access to Research Careers, or MARC program, to remain in school during the severe financial strain my family faced during the COVID-nineteen pandemic. When that program was placed on hold last year, I saw how quickly federal cuts can close pathways into this work. SB895 would help California stabilize research funding at a time federal cuts are already disrupting scientific work, union jobs, the lives of people that make it possible.
Speaker 8
This is important for this committee because California's ability to protect the environment, respond to contamination, and steward natural resources depends on sustained scientific capacity and workforce? I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Excellent. I understand we do have a number of folks, and so please bring them in.
Speaker 27
Good morning, chair and members. AJ Mendiola on behalf of lieutenant governor Eleni Kunalakis in support.
Speaker 16
Good morning. Gia Chen on behalf of the California consortium of addiction programs Professionals in support.
Speaker 19
Thank you. Mark McDonald on behalf of the Consortium for Developing Leadership and Science in support. Good
Speaker 6
morning. Chloe Lugal Scoville for student services and advising professionals at the UC in support.
Speaker 7
Good morning. Bravo with Cruise Strategies on behalf of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support.
Speaker 21
Mister chair members, Matt Broad here on behalf of teamsters California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Hi. My name is Alicia Yaffe. I'm with CAPS, UAW Local eleven fifteen. We are the state scientist union, and I'm here in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Hi. Good morning. Ben Cox, assistant project scientist at University of California Davis and UW forty eight eleven member in support. Thank you. Good morning, mister chair.
George Osborne for the union of American physicians and dentists, cosponsor in support.
Speaker 23
Nico Molina on behalf of the Silicon Valley leadership group in support. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Khaled Mahmoud, UAW four thousand eight hundred and eleven, resident of Berkeley, California, strong support.
Speaker 4
Hi there. Brianna Maguire, scientist at UC Davis, a member of UAW four thousand eight hundred eleven, resident of Berkeley, and strong support.
Speaker 9
Hi there. I'm Emily Weintraub. I am a resident of Woodland and a member of UAW four thousand eight hundred eleven, and a teaching assistant at UC Davis, and I support.
Speaker 32
My name is Carolina Rios. I am a graduate student researcher at UC Davis, a resident of Davis, California, a UAW forty eight eleven member, and a strong supporter.
Speaker 23
Thanks, chair Becker and members of the committee. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Northeastern University in strong support. Craig Polsfer on behalf of Equality California in strong support.
Speaker 8
Hi. Amy Fletcher, a researcher at UC Davis and statewide treasurer for Up DCWA ninety one nineteen and a strong supporter. Hi. Good morning. Chair, members, Janice O'Malley with AFSCME in strong support.
Speaker 9
Hello. I'm Chris Henning with UAW four one two three, the CSU student workers in strong support.
Speaker 23
Hello. Justin Garcia, vice president of CAPS UAW local eleven fifteen on behalf of the local union in strong support. Hello,
Speaker 30
everybody. Patrick Dexter, international rep with United Auto Workers Region six representing the nine Western United States in strong support.
Speaker 18
Hello. My name is Victor Quiroz, assistant director, UAW Region six, nine Western states in support.
Speaker 23
Good morning. Jerry G. Russo Cloak with the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research in proud support. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Chair and members, Nate Solov on behalf of several organizations in support that couldn't be here today. The Parkinson's Association of San Diego, Parkinson's Community Los Angeles, the Parkinson's Association of Northern California, Greater Fresno Parkinson's Support Group, Parkinson Network of Mount Diablo, American Parkinson's Disease Foundation, the Parkinson's Foundation, the California Academy of Sciences, and the San Diego Natural History Museum. Thank you so much. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good morning, chair and members. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association. On behalf of our 29,000 members who work in the CSU system, we're, in proud support. Thank you, chair and members. Chris Morales on behalf of the CSU office of the chancellor in support.
Speaker 6
Chair and members, Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on California environmental voters. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Do have anyone in opposition? Do we have a lead opposition witness? Anyone else who hates science? I'm kidding.
No. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, let's bring it back to the committee. Senator Stern.
Speaker 27
Yeah. Thanks, mister chair. Thank you, senator Winner, for standing up for science. And the the role of of research right now is is more critical than ever. I'm co author of the measure.
So I I'm I'm excited to see it come before us today. My concern is is less so about the four corners of the bill and and more so about sort of how the funding administration could be impacted by by some of the sponsors. We've seen one of your sponsors, UAW forty eight eleven, strike in recent years over and and and create, basically, an environment where Israeli students aren't welcome in the union, where they struck in in favor of BDS and trying to boycott any association with that that country or its right to defend itself. And and my concern is that if they're sort of the the sponsors of bill that the kind of important PFAS research that that you're doing, if it ever integrated with, say, an international consortium that's doing PFAS research, where right now there is really important PFAS work going on from a number of universities around the world, Berkeley, but also Hebrew University and others, that somehow that this could be sort of should end around our anti BDS laws and somehow allow that union to wage a protest and block that kind of funding. I know that's one particular issue, but I I I guess I want the rest of the world desperately needs American universities to be doing research in an open minded way that doesn't try to take the politics of the moment and insert them into in what is supposed to be a much more open approach.
And so, say, you know, efforts on PFAS or in climate science and renewable energy, any area where it may touch, say, a university in Israel, that that that's a that wouldn't be subject to pressure or discrimination in any way. So I just wanna make sure.
Speaker 30
Yeah. So I I wanna be clear. This, the foundation, the institute that this creates, not This is a statewide institute. We have a broad coalition. I'm proud that UAW, UC, CSU, Stanford, we have an amazing coalition.
I want to just say, for the record, not just specific to this bond, but about science funding in general. Last summer, I literally had leadership from UAW and UC together in my office to lock arms as they were gonna fight back together. Obviously, there have been it's a union, it's employer. There are times when there's organizing efforts or even disagreements. That's normal in labor management relations, but we all came together to do that.
And I'm really so grateful to all of the supporters, including UC and UAW, for saying whatever disagreements anyone has, we wanna protect science. And what's happening out of DC is not acceptable, and California needs to step up. California's laws and rules will apply here. People have a First Amendment right to advocate and protest in any way they think appropriate, But this institute is going to be governed by California law, and it's going to collaborate with universities around the world. But first, of course, we've to create it, which means the legislature and the voters.
Bonds are always hard, so beauty of this bond is that we have really gotten this big tent of everyone together. You can see it just in the number of co More than a third of the legislature is co authoring this bond. I will use this opportunity to say that as bond discussions happen in this building, because we know how this goes, bonds compete. And it is so important that this bond get oxygen and see the light of day and get through, because I wanna see a bright science future for California.
Speaker 27
Thank you. I I'm just hoping and your sponsors are welcome to comment, but I just don't want this to be unlike the how federal research funding has become politicized for this somehow to be subject to the same pressure. And so I think that's to elevate this in the way you're talking about is is I think why you've designed this pretty well. And I was looking at the board composition, for example, and it seems to be, you know, pretty well focused, but I just yeah. I would hate for this to to be sort of pulled back down into those divisive kind of issues simply because in the spirit of international collaboration, there may be some overlap.
So sponsor's welcome to comment, but I'll be keeping an eye on that going forward.
Speaker 8
I could comment. I do not believe we struck about Israel. The last strike that I know of was two years ago. Recently, we negotiated a contract with the UC successfully avoiding a strike. And I would say I would stand behind that, that we're ready to talk and negotiate and, like, save science and bring money for that.
Speaker 1
But generally open to working around the world with whoever is leading science. Okay. Thank you. Any other? Senator Grove.
Speaker 16
Thank you, mister chair. First of all, you're not wrong on a lot of the points that you're making, that science and and research is is why are you laughing at me?
Speaker 16
You're not wrong on most of the points that you made. You're not. You're not wrong. Science and technology and research is is vitally important to our STEM programs, to health and wellness, to saving lives. Agree with those points that you made.
I do wanna echo the comments that my colleague just made from Calabasas, I believe, is where he's from. But, you know, the the and it is interesting to me that the UAW, that's the United Auto Workers Union. Right? Is that not what is that what not UAW is?
Speaker 30
Represents me. Around the country a lot of science researchers, and been a sort of a leading voice in scientific research.
Speaker 30
I mean, that's yeah. Yeah. I mean, a lot we have a lot of unions that start with their name, and they grow from there. Yeah.
Speaker 16
Yeah. I didn't know that. That was interesting. And then but I guess that with the UAW, there were videos of UAW employees from the UC system and students on these campuses, echoing my colleague's comments in a little stronger way. But you were blocking Jewish students from going on campus and blocking them from going into their classrooms and blocking them.
And these are taxpayer resources that, you know, we're providing you to do research and you mobilize individuals on campus. And I get there's a free speech issue, but there's also a definitely a hate issue against Israel, Jewish individuals, and and the community at large that believes that faith. So that does concern me just like it concerns us. And I realized that the author is Jewish and that my colleague from Calabasas is Jewish and also mister Allen is Jewish. So I do get that, but I do have a concern about that to voice.
Speaker 30
Yeah. Listen. Listen. We the the last few years have been have been tough for for many, many people here and around the world. But this is like this is something an area where we have everyone has locked arms in in a I think in a very powerful way to understand that people are going to have differences and they're and that is normal.
And, obviously, I have had my own opinions over over time, and and which I've I I take fire from from all sides on at times. I but But ultimately, this is about science in California, and I think it's a very powerful thing that we have students, and faculty, and researchers, and universities, and unions, and all of the Parkinson's world, and it's just this huge coalition that's come together. Whatever disagreements we may have around collective bargaining or wages or anything else, we all want to fund science. And that's the powerful thing about this this bill, and I'm really proud of it. And I'm grateful to both the u a the UC and UAW for coming together as cosponsors of this bill.
How often does that happen? Not very often. And I think it's really and I'm really grateful for that.
Speaker 16
No. And and it doesn't happen very often. And I did start out by saying I agree with a lot of your points both that that the UAW and even your PFAS research. I did some research because of water restrictions to the Central Valley represents the Central Valley, and a lot of our our farm water to produce the food we eat goes out into the Bay Area. And I noticed that 91% of my research, 91% of the fish in the Bay Area are contaminated with forever chemicals like PFAS, and that's because of the wastewater treatment plants in San Francisco that haven't been upgraded.
And they're let literally flushing their waste out into the ocean, which is contaminating the fish. So that was interesting to learn too and that you were someone who follows that. So I do I do believe that you've made a lot of points. I agree with the fact that we should fund science and research and what this and the the the funding of the bill, if that makes sense, and the people of the state of California, being able to vote on it is better than us making a decision that we're just gonna tax them again. But, I don't think Californians can afford this, to shoulder this, no matter the benefits.
But we're spending a 130 to a $135,000,000,000 on high speed rail that will not be built in our lifetime. And not to throw another controversial issue into this bill discussion, but it will not be built my youngest granddaughter is two years old, and it will not be built in her lifetime. And it's a $135,000,000,000, and you're asking for 23,000,000,000. We gave 25,000,000,000 to them over the last couple of years. I mean, there's a better way that we can spend our money.
And I and I realize that's a controversial statement, and I realize that you have no control. Well, actually, you did. You were the budget chair when all this happened. So so but I do I do agree with you that we need to fund science and technology. I just don't agree putting it on the ballot and saddling it to California taxpayers is the answer when we have the highest affordability, not affordability rates in the entire nation.
Sorry. And
Speaker 30
I I appreciate that. What what I what I will say, big picture, we are the fourth largest economy in the world here in California. And if you look at the just We have led the world in so many spaces over time, technology, entertainment, agriculture, solar in Kern County. We are the largest state, fourth largest county in the world. We should be able to fund scientific research, have a good transportation system, have a great healthcare system.
We should be able to do all of these things. I just think we should have a can do attitude California. I know you have a can do attitude, and I think we should, as a state, have a can do attitude that we can do these things.
Speaker 16
And and I agree with you, but this year, we're facing, you know, a 30 plus billion dollar budget deficit. In some cases, it's even higher than that. We have companies leaving the state. Our highest income earners are leaving the state. And I know we disagree in that that you don't think they are leaving the state, but they have announced it publicly.
Rappino Foods, HP, you know, go down the list. So I just think that there's a better way we can spend our money. I agree. I just don't agree with saddling the California taxpayers alone for the $23,000,000,000, but I do agree that it needs to be funded. And I wish we could figure out a different way to do it, But thank you for letting me make comments.
Thank you for the engagement, sir.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair, and and thanks to all the folks that came to testify. I think at least 70% were constituents of mine. The impacts on UC Davis, obviously there are impacts on our pushing back the frontiers of knowledge on so many of these key issues that the author and that the testimony has taken, but it's also had devastating impacts on the community and the infrastructure. And as has been said, we can't just turn it off and on because we're losing we're losing researchers to other plate to other institutions and to other states or folks that choose not to go into the into the sector.
We are as the author said, we are the fourth largest economy in the world because of our investments in physical infrastructure, aqueducts, roads and transit, universities, but also especially because of our investments in research. So, is it's absolutely it's it's you're up this is the right it is a righteous cause. I do like, in design questions on this, I I just wanna kinda join some of the conversation that's been happening. First is on just on the maybe maybe you could describe. The the committee analysis laid out the the federal cuts to research in dollar figures.
And, I think it maybe was just coincidence, but the federal cuts that are listed in the analysis added up to almost exactly the same number that's in this bill. And so, I'm curious if if, you know, if as one question is, like, why 23,000,000,000? If that's equivalent to the entire cut to federal that's proposed in the federal government to research, recognizing we're not gonna do a bond every year, of course. But, why that that that would be a even even for California, that's a very large bond number, and particularly given some of the the the capacity issues that senator Groves ide ID'd?
Speaker 30
So, as with all bonds, it doesn't it's not like you do a bond that all gets issued on day one. Right? This will be over years. It'll be spread out. And so, it's it's it's not intended nor would it be appropriate to issue all those bonds in Europe, and that's true with any bond.
It takes years and years. There are some bonds that, even years and years later, have not been fully issued. There's that. In terms of the amount, that was, you know, early on. We thought that that over time would not be able to to compensate for everything happening from the federal government, but would be enough for us to have robust research funding in California.
Of course, it's not like 23,000,000,000 is magical. If if we're able to make this happen, there will be a lot of give and take as there are with bonds in in general. Yeah.
Speaker 18
The the other design question, and and it I guess it touches on what senator Groven and senator Stern were asking about. But, think more fundamentally, that California's world leading investments and success in research have been because we have, at the state level, almost entirely invested in research agnostically. We haven't had a state agency or a state department or a committee or in the budget process where we said, University of California, do research on the following 17 things. And, that's important both because we're not good at it, at making those determinations, and also because it's subject to lots and lots of other motivations and incentives and what have you. So, California has been distinctive in our recognition that the basic research in particular, but even applied research has to be, you know, it needs to be generated by the opportunities that are at the frontier of knowledge.
Not just our desire, what we hope will happen, but where, you know, where is science at today. But, that has to be led by scientists. And, NIH and other federal agencies are designed in the same way. And so, the notion of a of like a of a board or a committee that has something other than pure operational functions does concern me. And and even and and so I just you know, I I wanna as as as the bill moves forward, please think about, like, the the board has a patient advocate and health care provider.
Like, you can see already that it's designed to lead to particular emphases and investments and what have you, and that's not what a board should be doing. That's not that's not what's made cal California so strong in the research space. And I recognize it for the purposes of a bond measure that goes before the voters, kinda laying out wildfire safety, biomed, like, these are important things, and we want voters to be able to put basic research in the lens of what matters to them. But we we we really have to avoid state government or one of its committees kind of making like, this is these are this is our most most important need. Let's go do that without understanding that it's not just the need.
It's where are we at on the frontier of the acknowledgement. Design matters, I mean, that we the voters approved the regenerative medicine bond years ago, and the the theory there was a little bit different, which was that a bond was appropriate because what we were buying with the bond wasn't just the research itself. What we were doing was buying basically for to be crass, buying world leading market share in this space, that we're gonna make California the center of regenerative medicine by making a big investment all at once. And, therefore, a bond we're gonna pay back for thirty years, like a mortgage, was justified because the benefits were gonna keep coming. So, I I just know, I understand the reason why the the the the bill is structured this way, but really just, you know, as you as you go forward, please, please, please, you know, let let's let's not create a a state mechanism where any of us or any or any committee is making judgments about about where the research is supposed to be happening and leave that to the successful model that California has pioneered around the world of letting basic research being led by scientists in financing, too.
Speaker 30
No. Again, am confident that if we're able to get traction, which we're hoping to do, there will be plenty of conversations about structure. In terms of the subjects in the bill, those are not exclusive. We want this to be want this to be broad.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, for my part, a co author of this measure as well, I appreciate you bringing it forward. I think what we've seen, many people have already commented. I won't reiterate around the cuts and how important science is to the world, but also to this is to our California economy. I will say, know, of all states Texas has sort of shown the way where they said, hey, you know, we want to put money into a a fund.
And they start I think sort of 50,000,000, they've added a 100,000,000 a year and and and I've heard reports people say that's that you know that itself has been transformative for the for their ability to keep researchers in the state and and, you know, again shows the power of sort of state state models. So we are the leader in science and and this I think this bill will will help keep us that way. I appreciate all the other comments. I think we can all agree that also global free collaboration with scientists around the world is important. So, appreciate all those comments as well.
But, happy to support this. Would you like to close?
Speaker 30
Thank you so much. I want to thank both of my witnesses and our co sponsors, and I really want to reiterate how powerful it is to have UC and UAW working hand in glove on this measure, and it shows that science is something that is unifying and can bring us together. I will say that for me, when I look at what's happening in this country around science, I was recently last fall having lunch with the daughter of a cousin of mine, I can't remember, it that second cousin or first cousin once removed, whatever you call it, a young woman who, since she was a child, like a genius on math and science, and she's about to complete her applied physics PhD at MIT. Her partner, he's finishing his physics PhD at Harvard, and they're working on the most interesting things that are going to make humanity healthier and better. She said to me, we might have to move to Europe because there's no funding for us here.
That's what this is about. Over the last year, as I have spent so much time at the UC talking to Nobel laureates, but also even as inspiring, working with grad students, researchers who are doing this amazing work and just starting their scientific trajectory where they are going to do brilliant things and cure diseases and just make the world better. I want them to do that in California. I want it to be here, and I want us to continue to lead. Whatever happens with the federal government, we should take our own future in our hands.
And s p eight ninety five, this science bond, is an opportunity to do that, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 15
aye. Sarto? Allen? Allen? Cobaldan?
Aye. Cobaldan? Cobaldan? Aye. Grove?
Stern? Aye. Stern I.
Speaker 33
Thank you, mister chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present this bill, I I wanna also thank the committee staff for their work on the bill, and I accept the committee's amendments. As proposed to be amended, this bill incentivizes regional entities or their designees under the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Program to begin bringing together more public entities, nonprofits, and other private entities such as insurers and utilities to form regional wildfire public private partnerships. And we've been talking about wildfire mitigation, hardening, etcetera. This is about trying to create better systems to address some of the the big picture problems that we've been discussing both today and in previous hearings.
The idea is that these partnerships will work together to to develop wildfire mitigation projects that reduce risk and result in in avoided losses from several different perspectives, that of public entities, nonprofits, insurers, utilities, fire related folks, and other impacted private entities. As part of the planning, participants will discuss and agree upon different levels of funding. Each is willing to commit to the projects. The planned projects would be eligible to receive seed money from state revenue bonds in coordinating with the I Bank. And the partnerships will enter into a repayment plan so that the bond funds are repaid over time.
As you know, as we've discussed, wildfires have become increasingly more frequent, more destructive in our state, and the most recent large fires in my district caused $30,000,000,000 in losses. In the 2526 fiscal year, our state spent $4,000,000,000 on wildfire related activities, the vast majority of which is going toward firefighting and suppression with only 10% going toward prevention. But it's estimated that the annual need for mitigation alone is between 4 to 7,000,000,000 in statewide needs according to the recently released s p two fifty four report by the California Earthquake Authority. So, in fact, senator Becker's s p two fifty four aptly identified that there is a need for coordinated statewide programming for community focused mitigation. And the report recommends creating a state coordinated financing model that blends public revenue and private investment to stretch limited public dollars.
So, you know, continued I think the idea is a continued reliance on the current funding mechanisms through state and federal dollars is simply insufficient in terms of producing the volume of mitigation work that we really need with regards to our fire risk. And so the model in this bill is based on success that various groups such as Blue Forest have had with bringing together all of these actors, these types of actors from the public and the private sectors to fund projects and leverage additional money through bonds on the private market. So 2018, the Yuba Water Agency committed $1,500,000 to help leverage a forest resiliency bond of 4,600,000.0 to restore a 15,000 acre area in the Yuba Yuba watershed. And among others, CSAA Insurance Group was an investor. The project was completed, the investors were paid back in five years, it it creates more risk reduction that benefits our utilities system, our insurance system, and the public.
Another project for folks to know about is a project up in Butte County. It's underway with partnership from PG and E, from CAL FIRE, and Butte County Fire Safe Council. It's in the Plumas National Forest, where we've got a project that Blue Forest is coordinating with in partnership with the USDA Forest Service, with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, PG and E, the Department of Water Resources, and the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. So, you know, the private sector we know benefits significantly from, you know, whether it's insurers or utilities or others that have a stake risk reduction, they benefit from risk reduction, so it's important to incentivize their involvement to not only contribute financially, but also provide important feedback on what actions are needed to meaningfully reduce their risk from their perspective. Because we know the stakes are getting so high, of course, certainly the February report highlights how high those stakes are.
Anyhow, with me to testify in support of the bill, have Sam Uden on behalf of Net Zero California. Yeah, please.
Speaker 14
Thank you. Thank you, chair and members. My name is Sam Uden. I'm the cofounder and managing director of Net Zero California. We're a nonprofit that develops policies to support California's climate goals, we're and proud to support s b twelve ninety seven, which would establish a new mechanism to finance wildfire mitigation, including by mobilizing a blend of public and private capital.
Speaker 34
So as we know, California is facing escalating wildfire crisis, and the only way to solve it is through wild fire mitigation. Actions like home hardening, defensible space, and vegetation management. But a key obstacle is that there's not even close to enough public money available to support these actions at the required scale. The state currently puts up about $500,000,000 each year, which is, we estimate, about 10% of the annual need. So if we don't solve the state's wildfire mitigation financing problem, we don't solve the state's wildfire problem.
The key is mobilizing private capital to the cause. Utilities and insurers spend tens of billions of dollars every year on wildfire related costs, but this is ignition reduction, liability, and claims, not community wildfire mitigation. SB twelve ninety seven creates a mechanism and incentive for these entities to allocate capital towards community wildfire mitigation. These investments would be facilitated by new public private partnerships that would have access to a new revolving fund and state backed revenue bonds issued by iBank. Lastly, I want to mention that the s p two fifty four report, which was released last week, you know, a core recommendation from that report was for news and as the senator mentioned, new state coordinated strategies to finance wildfire mitigation.
So the overlap with this bill is substantial, and, you know, we view this bill as serving to implement that priority recommendation from the report. So I wanna thank the senator for his leadership and the committee staff for some good amendments, and we respectfully request your vote. Thanks.
Speaker 28
Good morning, mister chair and members. Doug Houston representing the CR Business Council in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Hello. Kealy Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Anyone in opposition to this measure? No lead witness? No no add ons? Okay.
I'll take it back to the to the members. Any comments? Questions? Okay. Yeah.
I just wanna thank you for all your work in wildfire in the wildfire insurance, emergency management, all this this whole space. As you said, and this actually ties on to our debate on senator Richardson's bill as well. Right? We need more dollars and any way we can come up with innovative financing mechanisms is a very positive in my book and will help fund these coordinated state strategies as you mentioned the report calls from. So very supportive, really appreciate the bill and the creativity in trying to unlock additional sources of funding with creative financing mechanisms.
With that, we'd like to close.
Speaker 33
I appreciate you're recognizing what we're trying to do here. This is a massive statewide challenge and we're trying to come up with a mechanism that's going to help and really bring the various players to the table. Without our respect for S and I vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a a motion for senator Stern. Do pass to business professions and economic development. Please call the roll.
Speaker 15
Allen, aye. Cobaldan? Aye. Walden, aye. Cortese?
Aye. Cortese I. Grove? Stern? Aye.
Stern I.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you, member. Five to zero. Thank you. Alright.
Senator Stern, I think you have our last bill. Oh, that's still on call. That bill will still be on call. Senator Scherner, you have 14 o four.
Speaker 27
Thank you, mister chair. First, just wanna start out by appreciating the committee's work on the bill, and we will be accepting the committee amendments. SB 14 o four addresses a deal that was struck years back before some of you were in the legislature where the good senator from Tehama from the other side of the aisle, we were seeking a compromise around a two thirds vote, And we decided to use the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to backfill an existing fee to address CAL FIRE's firefighting needs in the state responsibility areas. That framework has persisted to the present day and has cost the state cost that fund hundreds of millions of dollars. This this measure seeks to reform that that old deal and bring back some of that funding from its local the local areas from which it originated.
I happen to represent a lot of state responsibility area. And I will just tell you, and I'm not going to throw my Well, I am going to throw my folks under the bus right now. My Looking at a house that, say, my parents live in, or a house that my neighbors lived in growing up in Malibu, and thinking about their huge needs and how much we lean on CAL FIRE, and their ability to pay $115 a year to make sure that they have adequate firefighting needs seems like a better source of funding than leaning on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, where there are such a range of huge needs. Whether it's major transportation infrastructure, relieving ratepayers energy bills, and the sort of wide swath of inequities that plague our state. So, this bill, especially thanks to the committee amendments, will will rectify that backfill.
We we recognize based on the previous conversations that there is need for more and more wildfire mitigation funding. So, this bill is really not designed to sort of undercut that, and we believe that whether it's a one time funding right now through the general fund or through other kinds of mitigation measures and other kinds of tools that we can build a more robust wildfire funding framework. But we believe also that the areas that are most impacted by fires have to pay their fair share. And I I recognize that this is difficult for some, but I don't think the rest of the state should necessarily be subsidizing areas like mine for their firefighting needs. I think we are capable of handling that ourselves.
What I will say though at the outset is that we have had really good conversations with the opposition, and we know there's some sensitivity in particular members districts, probably including my own, where people say live on a fixed income, and maybe they've got a $2,000,000 property, but they have no source of income, and that extra $115 would be a burden. So, we're exploring with the opposition if there's a way to sort of tailor the fee backfill to address some of those inequities and those sort of disparities economically and regionally. So, those will be ongoing conversations that sort of hone in on that slice of data. But I think overall, we just feel like there's a sort of fairness principle that we should be abiding by when it comes to firefighting and when it comes to wildfire mitigation, where the communities that are facing the greatest risk also have to have some skin in the game. And so with that, respectfully ask for your iVote, I'll I'll turn it over to my lead witness here, Joe Guardias with NRDC, and take it from there.
Speaker 17
Good morning, chair or good afternoon, chair and committee members. I'm Joe Guardias, a fellow with NRDC, here testifying in support s b 14 o four which would restore a fee on property owners within areas that cal fire is responsible for management and fire suppression. As climate change risk has accelerated wildfire damages, progressive sources of spending for wildfire prevention haven't kept up. As a consequence, between 2017 to 2019 through 2024 and 2025, electricity rates have increased 80%, making ratepayers the number one source for wildfire prevention in the state. This disproportionately falls on low income households and discourages transitioning off of fossil fuels.
Budget tax spending on fire suppression has increased 89%. Home insurance premiums have increased 25%, and wildfire acres burned, damages, and lives lost haven't abated in terms of their rate. SB 14 o four grows the total amount of investment opportunities to counteract these costs while maintaining spending for these SRA areas. Thank you. I invite any questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Anyone who would like to add on?
Speaker 6
Good afternoon, chair and members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting, registering support on behalf of climate resolve. Thanks to the author.
Speaker 11
Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Stacey Heaton with the rural county representatives of California. We represent 40 rural counties statewide, and our counties have a lot of SRA in them. I wanna start by thanking senator Stern for the meeting that we've had. We had a very nice, frank conversation about this, and I think that there is a pathway forward.
Speaker 10
However, I do wanna start by saying that many folks that live in rural communities that are in the SRA or are in high fire hazard severity zones did not create or ask for this problem. Many of them have lived in their communities for decades and their families have been there for generations. Many are elderly on fixed incomes and are struggling with maintaining their defensible space. If we want to talk about having skin in this game, we' asking homeowners to spend thousands of dollars, many of them are going into debt, to do full home retrofits. We are also about to pass zone zero, so they'll have to do things like partial fence replacements, new landscaping within five feet around their homes, also a costly thing.
Speaker 11
And it may not sound like a big thing to get a $115 bill in the mail, but to a lot of our residents, it will be a very big thing. We were also involved when this fee was originally implemented in 2012, and it was a bit of a mess, to be honest, in the implementation, in the administration. It was costly to the state. It took a lot off the top of the revenues. I feel like Edith's analysis did a really good job of characterizing that.
Thank you. And so, I do believe there is a path forward. However, you know, we talk about subsidies, and we subsidize a lot of things in the state for things that people are just having happen around them, and this is no different. We remain respectfully opposed to the bill, but we'll continue to work with the author going forward. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good afternoon. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. Also in respectful opposition, I'd like to thank the author for his time yesterday meeting with us to discuss the bill. We look forward to hopefully coming to working through some different options for resolution here. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Kaylan lovinthal with the California state association of counties also in respectful opposition but we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office of this bill thank you
Speaker 19
Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to acknowledge the conversation I had with the author. I'm coming in today to fill in for regular member. I'm happy to be here by the way.
Speaker 13
And I just wanted to acknowledge and appreciate the assurances that he just made on the record that what I would call the fixed income issue is gonna be worked on. I know where it should land exactly but we all know that whether it's school bond issues or just about anything else out there that's become as us boomers have populated so heavily in the senior or older adult space, these things have become a lot more of a concern and common out there. I don't think it has anything to do specifically with your bill and the good intentions shifting the responsibility. But I think it probably just needs to be addressed so that folks don't get at odds with their own communities. Have some very, I guess everyone talks about their district in unique ways.
Speaker 19
But we have not only the situation that you described where the empty nesters really couldn't afford their own homes if they had to acquire it anytime in the last thirty years. But they're there. And they're on fixed income. Moreover we've had a lot of because we're in a valley. Santa Cruz Mountains on one side and the Diablo Range, the coastal range on the other side.
And even though we have an urban growth boundary at the 15% slope line right at the base of that slope line has been a really popular place to put moderate income smaller residential units including townhomes and things like that. And as retiring committees literally with age restrictions 55 and older or whatever the age restrictions are. So that was a thing that was a trend in the development of our valley 80% of my district contains areas like that. Again appreciate wherever you can get in terms of some sort of a compromise on that. And I'll be supporting it today because I know I know that you're you're trying to work on that.
Thank you.
Speaker 18
So, I I can't support it to today. I I have some a lot of concerns about this impact in my own district for some of the many of the reasons that the opposition say, but also the author led with. It's just the cost of home hardening, the loss of your fire the loss of any fire insurance coverage. Mean, even folks that aren't seniors on fixed incomes, many of them are struggling. We and the world are creating more and more cost for them.
That's a challenge. The same time, I very much respect the author tackling this core issue. It'd be easy to say, hey, let's just let somebody else spend a bunch of money here and this is I mean, you've created you've opened up a really important issue, which is that the the greenhouse gas fund should be focused on its actual purpose because there are people paying that too. And, you know, for the reasons of a long of a deal a long time ago, this isn't the right funding source for these activities. So, I understand that.
I appreciate that, agree with that, and know how courageous it is to kind of take this on directly. So, I'm hoping we'll find ways to make that work. I think the challenge is listening to some of the support testimonies. It's especially hard to do this fee in many parts of my district when it doesn't the purpose here is not to add more money for wildfire mitigation or suppression. We're not adding money for that purpose.
We're freeing up the money that's coming from a source that's not really appropriate for this. But, it's really hard to say to folks in my district, hey, we're gonna put this fee on and and we know you're struggling with your own hardening and zone zero and loss of insurance and everything else, and we will spend not a penny more on wildfire. So, that's the that's the hard part that's here. I think I think, you know, folks in my folks in my own communities would be would be more or maybe less less angry about paying the the the state responsibility area fee if it was going to fix the contribute to the ongoing solutions of all the issues that we've talked about today and the investments that need to get made. But, we're not quite there yet.
And, I know that's not the purpose of the bill, but I'm hopeful with the author's creativity that we will find a way to bring these issues together. So, I can't support it today, but very much appreciate and respect the author's courageous leadership on this and looking forward to some some solutions emerging.
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, for my part, again, I appreciate your efforts here. The GGRF fund is our fund to reduce greenhouse gases. That's why we created it. And and, unfortunately, we've tapped into it too much for other worthy priorities, whether it be clean water, other things, but not directly related to the mission.
So I 100% agree with you that we do need to get back to having the GGRF focused on greenhouse gas reduction, you know, with a a sort of true bang for the buck. And and I also appreciate you bringing this forward knowing that many, it'll raise fees on many people in your area, in your district who you represent. It's not always popular, so I appreciate you even being willing to step forward and have the conversation. But, you know, I think to your point, many of them would be happy to pay it. Again, if they know that money's gonna be used effectively in their area,
Speaker 1
pay it. But you know, the point is it is helping them in those areas. And so I appreciate you moving forward. I know there's a lot of discussions that will remain to be have on this. Yeah.
I think enough said. There are some amendments we've already discussed that will be taken in revenue and taxation committee next week due to the timelines. The analysis incorrectly refers to this as double for the emergency management section double for to rev and tax. So that will be the next step. I will be supporting the bill today.
Would you like to close?
Speaker 27
I really appreciate the conversation. And I would just say I've obligated myself here with this legislation, not just to remedy what I what I think is a misuse of the current greenhouse gas reduction funds, but but to to make sure people actually do get something for what they're paying in. And I think I'm willing to take on that challenge. I'm gonna need your help, all of your help with that. I think we've actually adopted some really important legislation today that could help with that from Senator Allen say, or whatever we end up doing with Richardson's bill going forward.
And there's a number of other measures in this arena that you're championing, mister chair. So I would say let's throw this spicy element into the mix of our broader broader efforts here in the senate, and I I hope you will consider taking a vote today. Okay. Do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
Senator Allen, the motion is due pass to revenue and taxation. Please call the roll.
Speaker 15
aye. Sierto? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye.
Baldwin? Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Grove?
Stern?
Speaker 1
Okay. That is 42. Is it four to no. Four no. Just 40.
440. Bill on call. Alright. Now if we can quickly go back, let's start with the consent calendar. We have seven items, I believe, on consent.
Senator Cavaldin moves the consent calendar. Please call the roll.
Speaker 15
Senators Becker? Aye. Becker aye. Sierto? Allen?
Aye. Allen I. Cobaldan? Aye. Cobaldan I.
Cortese? Aye. Cortese I. Grove? Aye.
I. Stern. Aye. Stern I. 60.
Speaker 1
60. That is on call. So let's start from the top and go through and call the absent members. Starting with file item one, senator Weiner, do you pass the appropriations?
Speaker 1
5 to 0. Yeah. 5 to zero. That bill will stay on call. File name three, Blake Spear.
Due pass appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 18
Senator Saarto. Allen. Allen I, Cortese, I, Grob, Stern, I, Stern, five to zero.
Speaker 1
Five to zero. The bill stay on call. Next up's file on five. Richardson, due passed emergency management. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
Six to zero. Call. Six to zero. Okay. Next up, file number 11.
Senator Allen, you passed the business professions and economic development. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 1
Six to zero. On call finally. Well, the bill we just did. I think we got everyone on that one. 40.
Okay.
Speaker 1
no. Oh, Grove, no. Okay. So we will update that to 41. 41.
Alright. We are gonna take a brief recess. We'll take a oh, we're gonna take a brief recess right now. Thank you. Yeah.
I need to put
Speaker 27
Water Committee will reconvene in thirty seconds. Alright. We're back. We are going to lift the calls on the outstanding items, and I'm gonna lean on the committee assistant to guide me through this. Are we starting with consent calendar or file item one?
One. Okay. You you ready, mister vice
Speaker 27
Okay. We're gonna start with file item number one, s b eight ninety five. The motion is due passed to appropriations. Please call the roll.
Speaker 27
Okay. That has four ayes, two nos. The measure's out. File item number is that okay?
Speaker 27
It's File oh, sorry. 55 to 2. The measure's out. Thank you. We'll go to file item number two, s b ten eighty five.
Motion is due passed to local government. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 27
That is six two 0. The measure is out. File item number three, s b eleven thirty five. Measure motion is due passed to appropriations. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 27
she was saying, I'm sorry. That that measure the the it is five to one with one abstention. That measure is out. Good looking out. We're going to file item four, s b eleven sixty seven.
A motion is due sorry. The consent. So sorry. We'll we'll we'll do the consent calendar now. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 27
I don't know what I've done to change. Alright. We're on the record here. Let's get it together. We got it.
Alright. File number five. SB twelve seventy. Motion is to pass to emergency management. Do pass as amended.
No. Do pass to emergency management.
Speaker 27
Okay. That seven to zero measures out. File number 6SB1390 oh, nope. Sorry. Those are all consent items.
11. Thank you all for hand holding me through this. SB twelve ninety seven do pass to business professions and economic development. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 27
Seven to zero measures out. And last, file item 12, SB 14 o four do pass to revenue and taxation. Please call the absent members.
Speaker 27
Oh, changed it. No. Okay. Sorry. That is four two two.
That measure is out. Thank you all for your time. This meeting is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.