Transcript Highlights:

• Wildfire Fund.
• it's through horrendous air quality due to the wildfire smoke or wildfires destroying communities overnight
• We had a robust wildfire mitigation program.
• because of wildfire risk, then how could Marin Wildfire be considered a success?
• Basically, yesterday we're talking about wildfire mitigations. How do we stop these wildfires?

Summary: The joint Senate hearing focused on California wildfire resilience funding, the SB 254 report on natural catastrophe resilience, and how the state should better prioritize community hardening, recovery, and financing. Senators emphasized that catastrophic wildfires have driven major property losses, insurance cancellations, and affordability problems, and several members argued that prevention and home/community hardening should receive far more attention than they have to date. Members also raised concerns about CEQA and other permitting delays, the need for ongoing rather than one-time funding, and whether the state should rely more on the General Fund, utilities, or other sources such as polluter-pays approaches. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state has appropriated about $4.7 billion for wildfire resilience since 2018-19, with most funding going to forest health, fuels reduction, and related landscape work, while only about $65 million has been specifically targeted to community hardening. LAO also noted that future one-time funding is likely to decline, that GGRF revenues may be limited under the new cap-and-invest structure, and that maintenance costs for treated areas could be substantial over time. Senators pressed LAO on why wildfire resilience is not more often funded through the General Fund and on whether current spending matches the scale of the risk. Cal Fire’s State Fire Marshal described the state’s community wildfire preparedness strategy, centered on home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, and said the SB 254 report aligns with Cal Fire’s direction. He said California has roughly 4 million homes in the wildland-urban interface, most built before modern wildfire-resistant standards, and highlighted recent streamlining that approved 383 fuels-reduction projects in under 30 days during an emergency proclamation. Cal OES described the AB 38 pilot and FEMA hazard mitigation work, saying federal approval delays have been a major barrier and that the state has hardened 155 properties so far through the pilot, with many more in process. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force said the state has coordinated more than $6 billion in state and federal investments, treated over 700,000 acres annually, and is shifting toward more regional, data-driven planning and block grants. Task force staff and Cal Fire both said they are moving beyond simple acreage metrics toward models that estimate avoided loss and community risk reduction, but acknowledged major data gaps on parcel-level home hardening and defensible space. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, with members discussing possible future legislation and budget changes, including home inspection reforms and continued CEQA streamlining.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we are in a better position than many to understand the cost, risks, and management of wildfire.
• And we are in a better position than many to understand the cost, risks, and management of wildfire.
• It takes decades of investment and management. Parties in the case of a utility-caused wildfire.
• state wildfire fund.
• Wildfire is a tragedy.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 2275, which would create a Wildfire Prevention and Protection Fund and a new council to oversee utility wildfire mitigation, claims payments, and related administration. Staff explained that investor-owned utilities would be required to participate, consumer-owned utilities could opt in, and utilities would pay annual contributions and maintain approved wildfire mitigation plans to qualify for claims coverage. The prime sponsor, Rep. Christine Reeves, said the bill was intended to address wildfire liability, support prevention, and create a more comprehensive statewide approach to wildfire risk. Members asked about retroactivity to July 1, 2021, utility contribution limits, and whether the bill would lower rates or improve mitigation funding. Public testimony was split. Supporters included the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Department of Natural Resources, wildfire survivors, and several wildfire and insurance advocates, who emphasized the need for compensation, stable funding, prevention, and better resilience planning. Opponents included several utilities, utility associations, business groups, and public utility district representatives, who argued the bill would shift uncapped costs to ratepayers, lacked clear liability reform and solvency protections, and could be vulnerable to future fund sweeps. Some witnesses cited California’s wildfire fund as a model, while others said Washington needed a broader, more holistic solution focused on prevention and liability reform. No vote was taken on HB 2275; the public hearing was closed after testimony. The committee then moved to executive session on House Bill 2238, which directs the Department of Agriculture to develop a statewide food security strategy and adds food security coordination and food system performance monitoring to the department’s duties. Four amendments were adopted: L-061, requiring consideration of regulatory cost metrics and periodic competitiveness reporting; L-062, directing the strategy to recommend legislative actions to make food more affordable and reduce food assistance need; L-060, adding people with lived experience of food insecurity and BIPOC small farmers to consultation requirements and focusing on root causes of hunger; and L-063, adding fuel and labor cost tracking to agricultural viability metrics. Amendment L-064, which would have required a consultant study on proposed agricultural labor legislation, failed on a 5-6 roll call vote. The committee then adopted the amended substitute and reported Substitute House Bill 2238 out of committee with a due pass recommendation by an 11-0 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• Water managers are engaged now.
• a management tool, both the heat energy and number of embers produced from wildfire in those landscapes
• But the reality is the most damaging wildfires...
• Wildfire Service.
• Wildfire Service is going to take on all things related to catastrophic wildfire as well as prescribed

Summary: The subcommittee began by announcing a change in the agenda order, moving item 6 ahead of item 1 and then item 7, and noting there would be no votes taken on any items that day. Item 6 covered a proposed operational efficiencies control section for the Natural Resources Agency that would let multiple departments jointly fund landscape-scale or multi-jurisdictional projects and allow Finance to transfer climate bond funds to a lead state entity. The LAO said the proposal was reasonable but suggested the Legislature consider requiring summary notification on how it is used; Finance said it would consider that request. Item 7 focused on the 2026-27 biodiversity and nature-based solutions spending plan. Finance and the Wildlife Conservation Board described the climate bond funding for habitat restoration, wildlife crossings, public access, tribal nature-based solutions, and related work, including $111 million proposed for WCB and $30 million for Salton Sea habitat and public access projects. The LAO supported the overall approach but flagged the San Andreas Corridor Program as an area where the Legislature may want to specify geographic priorities. Members discussed the pace of Salton Sea work and whether the proposed projects would count toward disadvantaged community goals. Item 8 addressed Cal Fire’s aviation contract and staffing needs for wildfire response. Cal Fire said year-round fire activity, a larger and more complex aircraft fleet, and labor market pressures justified the proposed contract increase, including more mechanics, pilots, and maintenance support. The LAO recommended approval, saying the proposal addressed health and safety concerns. Members asked about contractor staffing, competition in the bidding process, and future technology for early fire detection and suppression. The committee then took up item 1 on golden mussel containment. Fish and Wildlife described the invasive species’ spread in the Delta, the task force and response framework, and a request for eight new positions funded by Prop. 4 to support control plans, outreach, monitoring, research, and coordination with partners and law enforcement. Members pressed the department on whether the state should fund more direct decontamination infrastructure and grants to local water managers, and on the realistic goal of containing the mussel. The chair and several members emphasized the urgency of the threat and requested an itemized breakdown of the $20 million request. The hearing then moved to a broader LAO overview of wildfire prevention and response funding, where the LAO summarized the state’s funding mix and warned that ongoing wildfire resilience funding will likely decline as one-time bond and GGRF funds are exhausted, prompting discussion of long-term funding options and the balance between prevention, suppression, and community hardening.

Transcript Highlights:

• rather than wildfire prevention.
• For example, California's budget for resource management and wildfire prevention has tripled since 2017
• For example, California's budget for resource management and wildfire prevention, For example, California's
• budget for resource management and wildfire prevention has tripled since 2017.
• Know, are protected, and considered vegetation management impacts from fighting wildfires and how that

Transcript Highlights:

• Wildfire Fund.
• it's through horrendous air quality due to the wildfire smoke or wildfires destroying communities overnight
• Wildfire data standards and metrics.
• because of wildfire risk, then how could Marin Wildfire be considered a success?
• Basically, yesterday we're talking about wildfire mitigations. How do we stop these wildfires?

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving to wildfire risk, utility wildfire risk, we will kick off with Vice Chair Hall calling folks up
• My name is Whitney Mikado, and I'm the wildfire program manager at Chelan PUD.
• So we've hired two wildfire liaison managers.
• manager of the infrastructure.
• We are not-for-profit, we are publicly managed. We're privately funded, but publicly managed.

Summary: The committee first heard updates on the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) and related funding. Department of Ecology staff explained how MTCA and the hazardous substance tax support cleanup, prevention, stormwater, and local assistance programs, but said forecasted revenues have declined while appropriations and transfers have outpaced incoming funds. Ecology said the operating account will require underspending to stay balanced this biennium and that the problem is ongoing, with further reductions possible if forecasts worsen. Ecology also reviewed the state cleanup program, noting there are more than 14,500 cleanup sites in Washington and that new sites continue to be discovered faster than they are cleaned up. A question from Representative Lee raised the long-term issue of declining fossil-fuel-based revenue, and Ecology agreed that this is a future structural concern even though the current shortfall is driven more by forecasts and transfers than by fuel-use decline. The Pollution Liability Insurance Agency described its underground storage tank and heating oil programs, saying it has modernized from a reinsurance model to a financial assurance model with stronger state oversight and cleanup milestones. Russ Olson said the agency’s dedicated petroleum tax account is in strong financial condition, but emphasized the importance of preserving that funding source. He also discussed the loan and grant program for historic commercial releases and a new heating oil loan/grant program, while noting the agency is working on equity concerns where liens can be disproportionate to property values in smaller communities. Practitioners and advocates then offered differing views on MTCA’s performance: one attorney urged a collaborative review process to make cleanups faster, less expensive, and more certain, while another consultant argued the program is too conservative and process-heavy and should focus more narrowly on actual exposure and realistic cleanup standards. Environmental and community groups countered that MTCA is essential for cleanup, pollution prevention, stormwater control, and public participation, and that it is especially important for environmental justice communities such as the Duwamish Valley. Port and city representatives stressed that MTCA grants and cleanup funding are critical for large redevelopment projects, but said long timelines, permitting delays, and funding uncertainty can slow projects and jeopardize commitments. The committee then shifted to utility wildfire risk. Staff summarized recent legislation, including requirements for utility wildfire mitigation plans, creation of a wildfire mitigation standards work group, authorization for captive insurance by local governments and PUDs, securitization authority for disaster costs, and the existing wildfire response and resilience account. Chelan County PUD and Puget Sound Energy described extensive mitigation efforts such as vegetation management, grid hardening, undergrounding, AI smoke cameras, weather stations, enhanced operating settings, public safety power shutoffs, and community outreach. Both said wildfire risk is rising and insurance costs are increasing, and Chelan PUD asked the Legislature to restore funding to the wildfire response and resilience account. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner said a 2022 utility liability market study found insurance availability is tightening as perceived risk rises, and reported that a 2025 work group recommended restoring community resilience funding, requiring insurers to share wildfire risk scores and mitigation steps with property owners, and creating a grant program based on insurance industry wildfire standards. A PNNL scientist added that wildfire probability is increasing in parts of Washington and that mitigation requires long-term, landscape-scale coordination. The final speaker began describing California’s approach to wildfire risk, but the transcript cuts off before that presentation concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Moving to wildfire risk, utility wildfire risk, we will kick off with Vice Chair Hall calling folks up
• My name is Whitney Machado, and I'm the wildfire program manager at Chelan PUD.
• So we've hired two wildfire liaisons managers.
• manager of the infrastructure.
• We are not-for-profit, we are publicly managed. We're privately funded, but publicly managed.

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Summary: The committee first heard an update on the Model Toxics Control Act (MOTCA) and related cleanup programs. Department of Ecology staff described how MOTCA and the hazardous substance tax fund cleanup, prevention, stormwater, and other environmental work across state agencies, but warned that forecasted revenues have fallen while appropriations and transfers have outpaced incoming funds. Ecology said the operating account will require spending reductions to stay solvent this biennium, and that further cuts may be needed if forecasts worsen. Ecology also reviewed the state cleanup process and the scale of the problem, noting more sites are being discovered each year than are being cleaned up. The Pollution Liability Insurance Agency said its dedicated petroleum-tax-funded accounts remain stable, and highlighted its newer financial assurance and heating oil loan/grant programs, while noting concerns about equity for small property owners facing large cleanup liens. Practitioners and stakeholders then offered differing views on how MOTCA should work. One cleanup attorney argued the program has become too slow, expensive, and process-heavy, and urged a more risk-based, collaborative approach with less reliance on conservative assumptions. Environmental and community advocates countered that MOTCA is essential for cleanup, pollution prevention, stormwater control, and public participation, especially in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods that bear disproportionate toxic burdens; they urged stronger funding, tighter scrutiny of tax exemptions and budget diversions, and more accountability for stormwater spending. Port and city representatives emphasized that MOTCA grants are critical for large brownfield and waterfront cleanup projects that support redevelopment, but said long timelines, permitting delays, and funding uncertainty can stall projects and jeopardize existing commitments. The committee then shifted to utility wildfire risk. Staff summarized recent legislation on wildfire mitigation plans, captive insurance, securitization, and the wildfire response and resilience account. Chelan PUD described extensive mitigation work including vegetation management, grid hardening, undergrounding, AI cameras, weather stations, and partnerships on forest-health projects, and asked the Legislature to restore funding to the wildfire response and resilience account. Puget Sound Energy described similar investments across its service territory, including undergrounding, tree wire, sensors, cameras, weather stations, drones, and public safety power shutoffs, and said wildfire is its top risk. The Office of the Insurance Commissioner summarized a 2022 utility liability market study and a 2025 wildfire mitigation work group, recommending restored community resilience funding, clearer wildfire risk information for property owners, and a grant program based on recognized home-hardening standards. Committee members asked about insurance cancellations, neighborhood-level risk, and whether utilities’ or insurers’ maps are used; the commissioner’s office said insurers generally use their own data and that Washington’s FAIR Plan remains small compared with other states.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the general manager of Rowland Water District.
• And welcome to emergency management, right?
• cause of wildfire damage and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk of water system design.
• cause of wildfire damage and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk of water system design.
• My agency and water system have managed through two of California's top 10 most devastating wildfires

Committee: Senate Emergency Management

Transcript Highlights:

• management nationwide.
• that treats utility wildfires completely different from other wildfires.
• spread of all wildfires.
• We could have wildfire bonds, wildfire bonds...
• They need money to do wildfire mitigation, but we, Wildfire mitigation—they need money to do wildfire

Summary: The hearing focused on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study and its recommendations for addressing California’s wildfire risk, utility liability, and the financing of catastrophic losses. Committee members and presenters discussed the history of the wildfire fund created after the 2018 fire crisis and PG&E bankruptcy, the role of the California Earthquake Authority as fund administrator, and the report’s three broad policy pathways: continuing mitigation investments, more equitably allocating catastrophe costs, and considering expanded state involvement in catastrophe financing. Presenters emphasized that the report was intended as a neutral, stakeholder-informed analysis rather than an advocacy document, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities. CEA, CPUC, and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety each described their contributions and recommendations. CEA outlined options such as risk-tolerance standards for utilities, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, confidential near-miss reporting, liability reforms, and a fast-pay facility for survivors. CPUC stressed that wildfire mitigation and liability costs are a major driver of electricity affordability problems, and said the state should broaden how wildfire recovery and mitigation are funded beyond ratepayers alone. Energy Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan oversight and recommended stronger safety reporting and stronger safety weighting in utility executive compensation. The modeling portion of the report estimated that a more durable wildfire fund could require about $36 billion in capitalization, with lower initial capital needs if risk transfer or liability reforms are used, but potentially higher ongoing premium or assessment costs. The report also examined state-backed insurer or backstop models, post-event funding mechanisms, and targeted community wildfire mitigation, which could reduce overall funding needs. Members raised concerns about the cost burden on ratepayers, the financial stability of utilities, the fairness of asking communities outside high-risk areas to pay, the role of local governments and home hardening, and whether broader climate-related liability or insurance reforms should be considered. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with plans for further committee hearings and stakeholder discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Water managers are engaged now.
• fire can be a management tool, both the heat energy and number of embers produced from wildfire in those
• management and the benefits that we have from that.
• Wildfire Service.
• Wildfire Service is going to take on all things related to catastrophic wildfire as well as prescribed

Transcript Highlights:

• And there was no wildfire fund back then. And so all. Wasn't a wildfire fund back then. Yeah.
• wildfire.
• wildfire so there's there is particular covered wildfire so there's there is in the instance of the
• those to wildfire risk mitigation.
• We invest heavily in wildfire prevention and mitigation, enhanced vegetation management, system hardening

Committee: House Utilities and Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• rather than wildfire prevention.
• For example, California's budget for resource management and wildfire prevention has tripled since 2017
• Sonoma County and Santa Rosa for future wildfires.
• And wildfire is not just a North Coast issue.
• play in wildfire prevention?

Summary: The hearing focused on lessons from the 2017 Tubbs Fire and how Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and local partners have changed wildfire prevention, recovery, and rebuilding practices since then. Assemblymembers emphasized that the region has become a model for the state, with a shift from suppression to prevention, and panelists described improvements in defensible space, home hardening, vegetation management, alerting, and community coordination. The discussion also highlighted the continuing importance of sharing Sonoma County’s experience with other wildfire-impacted communities across California and beyond. Fire officials and local leaders described specific prevention measures now in place, including Santa Rosa’s vegetation management ordinance, ignition-free/Zone Zero requirements in rebuilding, restrictions on certain mulches, removal of dead and dying trees near roads and defensible space zones, and expanded prescribed burning authority. They also stressed the importance of community organization through block captains, Firewise/COPE-style networks, and the Mark West Area Community Fund. Speakers said these networks helped residents navigate recovery, avoid fraud and bad contractors, coordinate with local agencies, and support neighbors, but they argued that such efforts need more formal structure and stable funding. Water and permitting officials discussed how the fires changed their work. Santa Rosa Water described new regional coordination, generator and backup power upgrades, emergency training, and lessons learned about wildfire-related contamination in water systems, including the need to restore pressure, flush, and test quickly after a fire. Permit Sonoma said rebuilding was balanced by streamlining permits while still requiring safer, more resilient construction, and noted that reduced fees and one-stop permitting helped speed recovery. United Policyholders described helping residents maximize insurance proceeds, organize information, and avoid scams, while warning that insurance availability and affordability remain major barriers and that insurers are increasingly rewarding risk-reduction measures. Across the panels, the main policy requests were for faster and more flexible grant processes, more stable long-term funding for prevention and community programs, stronger support for home hardening and defensible space, better training and tools for local governments and legislative staff, and continued attention to insurance and utility-related resilience. No formal votes or actions were taken in the transcript excerpt; the hearing was informational and ended with a transition toward public comment and further discussion of remaining statewide wildfire policy needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• And there was no wildfire fund back then. And so all. Wasn't a wildfire fund back then. Yeah.
• covered wildfire.
• that to wildfire risk mitigation.
• And until you disincentivize them from creating wildfires and incentivize them to prevent wildfires,
• We invest heavily in wildfire prevention and mitigation, enhanced vegetation management, system hardening

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and broader options for reforming California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the scale of wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh trade-offs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described long delays in compensation, housing insecurity, and what they viewed as a system that protects utility shareholders more than victims. They urged greater transparency, clearer accountability for utility spending and safety performance, faster and fuller compensation for survivors, and reforms such as independent audits and better alignment of utility incentives with wildfire prevention and restitution. The second panel began with Tom Welsh of the California Earthquake Authority, who explained that the SB 254 report was intended as a broad inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations. He described the report’s process, including stakeholder submissions, workstreams, and a convergence process, and outlined the current wildfire fund structure: utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims after a covered wildfire, and the CPUC later determines prudency and possible reimbursement back to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon summarized compensation data, saying utilities paid about $38 billion between 2017 and 2024, with major shares going to injured parties, insurers, and public entities, while litigation costs and survivors’ own losses remain substantial. He noted that legal fees and delays reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive. Utility and public-interest witnesses offered differing views on the report’s pathways. PG&E’s Tyson Smith said the report shows inaction is the worst outcome and argued for community wildfire risk reduction, equitable allocation of catastrophe costs, and state-led resilience tools. LADWP’s Fernando Valero emphasized the vulnerability of municipal utilities and cities, and supported inverse condemnation reform, a state-sponsored liability insurance framework, damages and subrogation limits, and stronger insurance access. Consumer Attorneys of California’s John Fisk argued that IOU-caused fires are not natural disasters but the result of negligence and sometimes criminal conduct, and opposed reducing utility liability while supporting stronger oversight and audits. The Public Advocates Office’s Nathaniel Skinner focused on affordability, saying ratepayers already bear large and growing wildfire costs and warning against shifting more costs onto bills without measurable risk reduction and tighter accountability. Committee members then began questioning witnesses about what counts as measurable mitigation, how to define full and fair compensation, and how any fast-pay process should work.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the general manager of Rowland Water District.
• And welcome to emergency management, right?
• cause of wildfire damage and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk of water system design.
• My agency and water system have managed through two of California's top 10 most devastating wildfires
• To create the opportunity to fight wildfires.

Committee: Senate Emergency Management

Summary: The Senate Emergency Management Committee held its first meeting and adopted committee rules for the 2025-26 session. The committee heard SB 1001, which would require the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to issue identification cards for essential utility workers so they can more easily access evacuation zones during emergencies. The author and supporters, including Rowland Water District and the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, said the bill was prompted by delays during the Eaton Fire, when utility crews in marked vehicles were denied access despite having authorization. Members generally supported the bill as a practical way to improve coordination between utilities, law enforcement, and incident command during disasters. The bill was voted out on a do-pass motion to the Senate Public Safety Committee. The committee also heard SB 1153, which would require urban retail water suppliers in high-risk areas to include wildfire-specific procedures in emergency response plans and make findings clarifying the role and limits of public water systems during wildfires. The author and witnesses from water agencies argued that public water systems are not designed to function as wildfire suppression systems and that the bill would improve planning while addressing growing liability exposure after major fires. Senator Perez raised concerns about balancing liability reform with accountability and the need for future infrastructure hardening, and the Vice Chair emphasized that the bill should not create a hollow safe harbor. The author accepted committee amendments clarifying that negligence liability remains intact, and the bill was moved out as amended to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee. A consent item, SB 870, was also approved. After roll calls were completed and absent members later voted, all three measures passed the committee 8-0. SB 1020 was pulled from the hearing for a future date.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the general manager of Rowland Water District.
• And welcome to emergency management, right?
• cause of wildfire damage and that wildfire spread is not an inherent risk of water system design.
• My agency and water system have managed through two of California's top 10 most devastating wildfires
• To create the opportunity to fight wildfires.

Summary: The Senate Emergency Management Committee held its first meeting and adopted committee rules for the 2025-26 session. SB 1020 was pulled from the agenda for a future hearing. The committee heard SB 1001, which would direct the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to issue standardized identification cards for essential utility workers so they can more easily access evacuation zones during emergencies. The author and supporters, including Rowland Water District and the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, described a breakdown during the 2025 Eaton Fire when utility crews were denied access despite having credentials, causing delays in shutting off water at damaged homes. No opposition was present, and members broadly supported the bill as a practical emergency response measure. The committee voted 8-0 to pass SB 1001 to the Senate Public Safety Committee, with the measure held on call until all members voted. The committee also heard SB 1153, a wildfire preparedness bill from Senator Caballero. The bill would require urban retail water suppliers in high-risk areas to include wildfire-specific response procedures in their emergency response plans, and it includes findings clarifying that public water systems are not designed to function as wildfire suppression systems. The author accepted committee amendments clarifying that the bill does not limit liability for negligence, and witnesses from water agencies and industry groups supported the measure, citing the need for better planning and the financial strain of post-fire claims. Members discussed the balance between improving preparedness and avoiding language that could create a liability safe harbor or shift responsibility away from needed infrastructure investments. The committee voted 8-0 to pass SB 1153 as amended to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, also held on call until all members voted. A consent item, SB 870, was also approved. After the committee reconvened and all members present voted, SB 870, SB 1001, and SB 1153 each received unanimous 8-0 votes and were reported out of committee. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Mark Brown, with Marin Wildfire.
• For our wildfire protection grants and vegetation management projects.
• Jim Wood, here on behalf of FireSide, a California-based wildfire risk management company.
• Jim Wood, here on behalf of FireSide, a California-based wildfire risk management company.
• resilience. ...can really help in focusing our efforts on wildfire resilience and management, fighting

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• The wildfire is a different threat.
• And that's how wildfire came about.
• Mark Brown, with Marin Wildfire.
• For our wildfire protection grants and vegetation management projects.
• Jim Wood here on behalf of Fire Side, a California-based wildfire risk management company.

Transcript Highlights:

• and preventing wildfires.
• I'm just wondering. ...and all the things that are really difficult about managing and preventing wildfires
• Does the state have authority or the resources to help wildfire prevention and management on federal
• Proposition 4, Wildfire and Forest Resilience.
• investment in wildfire resilience.

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview from the California Conservation Corps on its 50-year history, current operations, and budget proposals. Director J.P. Patton described the CCC’s work in conservation, disaster response, education, and workforce development, noting 26 facilities, about 3,000 Corps members annually, and a funding mix of roughly 55% General Fund and 45% reimbursements. Members praised the program and asked about revenue sources, recruitment, retention, and post-service tracking. The CCC said it has a 5,000-person waitlist, uses first-come, first-served admissions with minimal eligibility requirements, and is working to improve data on outcomes. The committee also discussed the Greenwood Residential Center, where the CCC seeks staffing and operating funds to reopen a rebuilt facility in El Dorado County; the LAO suggested considering fewer new members or a delayed opening to reduce General Fund pressure, but no vote was taken and the item was held open. The committee then considered a CCC wildfire readiness proposal to move hand crews to a seven-day operational schedule. CCC and Cal Fire representatives said the change is needed because wildfire is now year-round and because the current model leaves crews unavailable in many months due to staffing gaps. They said the proposal would improve reliability for Cal Fire, preserve training opportunities for Corps members, and better align the CCC with Cal Fire’s 66-hour workweek. The LAO supported the concept but recommended considering lower-cost alternatives, such as relief staffing or partial reimbursement. Members also discussed the decline in incarcerated fire crews, with Cal Fire explaining that reforms and eligibility changes have reduced the pool of incarcerated people who qualify for camp and fire work. One member raised the use of goats and grazing for fuel reduction, and staff responded that such methods can help with prevention but cannot replace hand crews for suppression. The item was held open. Cal Fire then presented its department overview, emphasizing its expanded workforce, year-round wildfire response, vegetation management, community preparedness, and partnerships with federal, local, tribal, and private entities. Members asked about contract counties such as Orange County, reforestation and seedling capacity, federal reimbursement, and the 66-hour workweek rollout. Cal Fire said it is still below the seedling capacity needed for post-fire reforestation and relies heavily on public-private partnerships. The committee also reviewed a proposal for permanent funding for defensible space inspections. Cal Fire said it needs 31 positions and ongoing General Fund support to replace temporary funding that expires in 2027 and to maintain a goal of 250,000 inspections per year. The LAO said the proposal has merit but suggested alternatives such as a different General Fund/GGRF mix, reinstating an SRA fee, or approving the positions on a one-time basis. Members generally supported the work but raised budget concerns, and the proposal was held open. Finally, Cal Fire began presenting a fixed-wing pilot and mechanics contract increase, explaining that its aviation fleet has grown and become more complex, requiring more pilots and maintainers for year-round operations. The department said labor market pressures have increased contractor costs and that the contract is needed to support continuous aerial firefighting readiness. The transcript cuts off before further discussion or any action on that item.

Transcript Highlights:

• by the managers at WDFW, treaty tribes, and, where applicable, co-managers.
• I'm the director of forest management for The Nature Conservancy and a certified forester that manages
• And then we manage that risk.
• Full funding of wildfire means that we have the tools to manage that risk.
• And how beavers are managed in Washington State, and where we'd like to see management go with beavers

Summary: The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held public hearings on several bills and a joint memorial, with testimony largely focused on steelhead recovery, agricultural viability, wildfire funding, and shellfish fees. On SB 6241, which would create a wild broodstock conservation program for steelhead, staff described a statewide program with a fiscal note of about $14.6 million in FY 2027, while sponsor Sen. Braun argued the concept could boost wild populations and fishing opportunity at lower cost than the fiscal note suggests. Proponents, including anglers and conservation groups, said broodstock programs could improve fisheries, preserve genetics, and support local economies; opponents, including Trout Unlimited, argued the bill was too broad, not sufficiently science-driven, and should be left to agency and co-manager discretion. The public hearing closed with a strong pro/con sign-in count in favor of the bill. The committee then heard SB 6104, a broad agriculture-protection bill that would require agricultural impact statements for certain agency actions, annexations, and zoning changes, and would direct mitigation measures when actions harm agricultural or natural-resource-based commercial activities. Sponsor Sen. Muzzall said Washington agriculture is under severe pressure and losing farms, while supporters from farm groups said the bill would force agencies to consider ag viability and compensate for impacts. Opponents, including a small farmer and environmental advocates, said the bill was too procedural, could burden modernization or conservation efforts, and might create uncertainty around existing conservation funding accounts. The hearing ended with more testimony in opposition than support. The committee also heard SJM 8015, urging the federal government to ensure wildfire-response consolidation does not reduce capacity or firefighter safety. Sponsor Sen. Short and many testifiers, including private forest owners, tribes, students, conservation groups, and local officials, emphasized the importance of maintaining and fully funding Washington’s wildfire response and forest-restoration investments, especially the 1168 account. Testimony highlighted fuel breaks, early detection, community protection, and the economic costs of wildfire. The memorial drew overwhelmingly pro testimony. Finally, the committee suspended the five-day notice rule to hear SB 6318 on commercial shellfish fees; staff explained it would cap Department of Health fee increases after a recent fee review, and shellfish growers strongly supported the bill as necessary to keep small farms viable. The committee also took a work session on beaver relocation and habitat restoration, where presenters described beavers as a water-retention and wildfire-resilience tool and discussed coexistence, relocation, and possible future management changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first is pre-wildfire, which includes early warning and real-time monitoring of wildfire risk.
• We also mitigate the consequences of those wildfires by modeling the wildfire spread, for example.
• Next is post-wildfire, which occurs after the wildfire has happened.
• of these large-scale wildfires.
• These are all perfect conditions for drastic wildfires. Very drastic wildfires.

Committee: House Science, Technology & Telecommunications Committee