California Senate Bill SB427

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/18/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 4/8/25
• Refer: 4/8/25
• Report Pass: 5/23/25
• Engrossed: 6/2/25
• Refer: 6/9/25
• Report Pass: 7/15/25
• Refer: 7/15/25
• Report Pass: 8/29/25
• Enrolled: 9/10/25
• Chaptered: 10/3/25
• Passed: 10/3/25

Caption

An act to amend Sections 2787, 2791, and 2796 of the Fish and Game Code, relating to fish and wildlife, and making an appropriation therefor.

Summary

SB 427 extends California’s Habitat Conservation Fund financing structure for five additional years, through June 30, 2035, and extends the related continuous appropriations through July 1, 2035. The bill continues the existing requirement that the Controller transfer $30 million annually from the General Fund to the Habitat Conservation Fund, net of certain offsetting transfers from specified special funds and accounts. It also preserves the current statutory allocation framework that directs money to the Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Coastal Conservancy, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the California Tahoe Conservancy, and the Wildlife Conservation Board. The bill does not create a new program so much as it reauthorizes and prolongs an existing one established under Proposition 117 and later extended in 2019. The fund remains dedicated to acquiring, enhancing, and restoring wildlife habitat, open space, wildlife corridors, urban trails, and related conservation projects. The bill also keeps the existing spending conditions, including limits on administrative costs and geographic distribution expectations between northern and southern California.

Impact

SB 427 amends Fish and Game Code Sections 2787, 2791, and 2796 to extend the operative dates of the Habitat Conservation Fund’s annual General Fund transfer and continuous appropriation authority from 2030 to 2035. As a result, the Controller must continue making the $30 million annual transfer, subject to the same offsets and exceptions, and the recipient agencies may continue spending those funds under the same statutory allocation rules. The bill therefore preserves current state conservation funding law rather than changing the underlying purposes or distribution formulas of the fund.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support throughout the legislative process. Committee and floor votes were overwhelmingly favorable, with most votes unanimous and only one recorded no vote in a later committee action. The lack of recorded opposition in the available context suggests general agreement on continuing an established conservation funding stream for habitat protection and related public land and open-space projects.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record. The main policy issue is the continued commitment of General Fund dollars to a dedicated conservation account, which can raise budget-priority questions in appropriations settings, but the bill advanced through fiscal review and floor votes with minimal resistance. Any potential disagreement would likely center on the long-term use of state funds and the continued earmarking of money for specific conservation entities and regions, rather than on the bill’s mechanics or purpose.