Transcript Highlights:

• risk to property and risk to communities.
• Among those significantly include a commitment to community wildfire risk reduction, expanded mitigation
• We have to focus on using wildfire risk reduction modeling to identify the right mitigations in the right
• mitigating that one.
• , of reducing risk, wildfire mitigation, and how critical it is.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The joint Senate hearing of the Natural Resources and Water Committee and the Emergency Management Committee focused on wildfire resilience, with members discussing the SB 254 report on enhancing California’s response to natural catastrophes. Opening remarks emphasized the scale of wildfire damage, the need for prevention and preparedness, and concerns about the affordability and insurability crisis. Senators repeatedly contrasted the relatively small share of funding going to community hardening with the much larger amounts spent on utility wildfire mitigation and landscape-scale projects, and several members raised concerns about CEQA delays, one-time funding, and the need for more sustainable, ongoing financing. The Legislative Analyst’s Office presented an overview showing about $4.7 billion in state wildfire resilience appropriations from 2018-19 through 2025-26, with funding shifting from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to the General Fund and then to Proposition 4. LAO noted that only about $65 million had been specifically targeted to community hardening, while most funding went to forest health, fuels, research, and related programs. LAO also said one-time funding will decline in coming years and that future GGRF support is uncertain, though General Fund use is not legally precluded. Members asked about maintenance costs, polluter-pays ideas, and whether performance metrics should focus more on property and community risk reduction than acres treated. Cal Fire’s State Fire Marshal described the state’s community wildfire preparedness strategy, centered on home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation. He said roughly 4 million homes are in the wildland-urban interface, most built before modern fire-resistant standards, and argued that the state must move from response to prevention. He said Cal Fire is incorporating the SB 254 recommendations into its updated action plan, has streamlined some fuel-reduction projects under a recent executive proclamation, and is shifting some grant funding toward maintenance of existing treatments. Cal OES described the AB 38 pilot and FEMA hazard mitigation work, saying the pilot helped build tools and standards for home hardening but that federal approval delays remain a major barrier; the agency reported 155 hardened properties, 19 under construction, and 370 assessed and waiting. The Wildfire and Forest Resilience Task Force said it has coordinated more than $6 billion in state and federal investments, is moving toward regional block grants and better data-driven prioritization, and is developing separate community and landscape strategies. The hearing ended with discussion of modeling, data gaps, utility coordination, contractor capacity, and possible legislative or budget changes to better align funding and metrics with community safety outcomes.

Transcript Highlights:

• MITIGATION RESILIENCY HARDENING OF PROPERTIES IN FLORIDA AGAINST CATASTROPHIC OR OTHER RISK.
• PROGRAM AND BUILDING THE MITIGATION PROGRAM THAT TRULY QUANTIFIED THE RISK THEN AN INDIVIDUAL PIECE
• HURRICANE RISK IS THAT WE BELIEVE A HOMEOWNER'S BEST OFF IF THEY APPROACH MITIGATION AS A SYSTEM OF
• FIRST, THEY NEED TO KNOW THE MITIGATION WORKS AND IT IS GROUNDED IN SCIENCE AND ACTUALLY REDUCES RISK
• ANYONE IN THE RISK POOLS TO SUBSIDIZE THE RISK.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Assuming mitigation can decrease risk in California by 50%, addressing only the 10% highest-risk communities
• and properties, you can reduce 20% of the total risk with targeted mitigation.
• and mitigating those risks.
• And Neil, I think you mentioned in Section 3.1.2 that that might help mitigate the risk for insurance
• The report also is clear that effectively mitigating wildfire risk isn't just a utility problem, It's

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee held the first of several informational hearings on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study, focused on wildfire risk, utility liability, and how to finance catastrophic losses. Chair Allen opened by describing California’s recent utility-ignited wildfires, the creation of the wildfire fund under AB 1054, and SB 254’s extension of that fund and requirement for a study. The California Earthquake Authority, as wildfire fund administrator, presented the report’s process and findings, emphasizing that the study was intended to be neutral and broad, based on extensive stakeholder outreach, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, communities, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities. CEA’s report organized recommendations into three policy pathways: continued mitigation investment, more equitable allocation of catastrophe burdens, and expanded state roles in catastrophe financing. For utilities, the report discussed options such as setting a binding risk-tolerance standard, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, creating confidential reporting with safe-harbor protections, reforming utility liability including possible changes to inverse condemnation, limiting damages, reducing insurance subrogation, and creating a fast-pay facility for survivors. The financing analysis compared a more durable wildfire fund, risk transfer/reinsurance, liability reforms, and state-backed mechanisms such as a state insurer, a state backstop, and broader funding for community wildfire mitigation. The CPUC said wildfire mitigation oversight has improved, but wildfire-related costs are driving electricity bills higher and creating an affordability crisis. The Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan review and field inspections, and recommended stronger safety reporting and more safety-weighted executive compensation. In member discussion, senators and assemblymembers focused on the cost of the status quo, whether the burden should be shared by ratepayers, utilities, the state, or other parties, and whether California should consider broader disaster-financing approaches. Several members raised concerns about inverse condemnation, the pace of survivor compensation, local land-use responsibility, and the need for a more comprehensive statewide solution rather than piecemeal bills. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• To mitigate wildfire risk and improve community resilience.
• All co-ops have a fire mitigation plan already, and they've identified high-risk areas.
• All co-ops have a fire mitigation plan already, and they've identified high-risk areas.
• But there is increasing risk that seems to be challenging to mitigate against at sort of a regional,
• Chair, so the cost recovery, which is necessary to do the best job to mitigate against that risk, is

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This reinforces that community-wide mitigation delivers greater risk reduction benefits than isolated
• If the state's goal is to mitigate risk to even half of those homes in the highest hazard areas, that
• community risk to wildfires.
• in the high-risk areas.
• risk into the future.

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:

• This reinforces that community-wide mitigation delivers greater risk reduction benefits than isolated
• If the state's goal is to mitigate risk to even half of those homes in the highest hazard areas, that
• community risk to wildfires.
• It's at risk in the high-risk areas. An overall number of homes at risk in the high-risk areas.
• risk into the future.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation tools, with members and witnesses emphasizing that California’s wildfire losses, insurance costs, and affordability pressures require a broader strategy than the status quo. The chair framed the issue as a tipping point for the state and asked witnesses to discuss how to scale mitigation, improve coordination, and make programs more effective and sustainable. Early testimony from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety explained how embers, flames, structure density, and combustible materials drive community conflagrations, and described the IBHS Wildfire Prepared Home standards, including a base “Prepared” level and an enhanced level. IBHS said California is ahead of other states but still needs standardized, verified mitigation, and noted research suggesting home hardening can reduce losses and improve insurability. The Legislative Analyst’s Office highlighted key policy questions for lawmakers, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. Members pressed for practical, lower-cost approaches, and witnesses repeatedly stressed that the first five feet around a home is critical, that many mitigation steps are DIY or relatively low-cost, and that financing will be necessary because many homeowners cannot afford full retrofits. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption challenge, not something the state can fully pay for, and recommended a blended model of education, low-interest loans, smaller grants, and insurance discounts to drive mass adoption. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council and Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described local programs using assessments, neighborhood-based Firewise efforts, grants, and resident participation, while also calling for better marketing, clearer standards, workforce development, and stronger links between mitigation and insurance benefits. In the later panels, Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal described the state’s layered approach: parcel-level hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation. Cal Fire said its defensible space inspection program needs ongoing funding and staffing to remain permanent, and the LAO said the proposal has merit but could be modified depending on budget conditions and alternative funding sources. Cal Fire also described a forthcoming defensible space financial assistance program focused on Zone Zero and vulnerable communities, estimating about $8,000 per home and roughly 3,125 homes served with the proposed funding. The State Fire Marshal clarified that local Zone Zero ordinances cannot be less restrictive than state minimum standards, though local governments have flexibility above that floor. Throughout the hearing, members and witnesses returned to the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, consistent standards, targeted incentives, and sustained funding to move from pilot efforts to mass adoption.

Transcript Highlights:

• those flood risks.
• It identifies existing risks to lives and property from flooding, identifies potential actions to mitigate
• those flood risks... ...identifies potential actions to mitigate those flood risks and looks ahead and
• That includes over 3,000 flood mitigation evaluations, over 600 flood mitigation projects, and nearly
• , a higher level of risk.

Summary: The House Committee on Natural Resources met to focus on flooding issues across Texas, with particular attention to South Texas and the recent catastrophic flooding in Central Texas. Chair Harris and Vice Chair Martinez emphasized that flooding is a statewide problem requiring continued legislative attention. The committee heard invited testimony from Hidalgo County Commissioner David Fuentes and Hidalgo County Drainage District No. 1 General Manager Raul Sassine, who described the March flood event in Hidalgo County, including more than 20 inches of rain, six deaths, over $100 million in local damage, widespread road flooding, and repeated shutdowns of Interstate 2 and its frontage roads. They argued that existing drainage systems are under capacity, that TxDOT projects must account for downstream drainage impacts, and that local governments have already invested heavily in mitigation through bonds and partnerships. Fuentes and Sassine also described the county’s long-term flood mitigation and water-reuse efforts, including the Delta region water management project, which would capture stormwater, runoff, and treated effluent, reduce flooding, and create potable water supply. They said the drainage district manages about 780 miles of channels and 1,100 acres of detention facilities, has used prior Flood Infrastructure Fund and GLO grants, and has ongoing applications for additional state and federal assistance. Members discussed the need for TxDOT coordination, emergency access on frontage roads, local “skin in the game,” and the possibility of combining flood control with aquifer recharge and water supply projects. Texas Water Development Board Executive Administrator Brian McMath then presented an overview of the state’s flood planning and funding framework, including the post-Harvey legislative changes that created the Flood Infrastructure Fund, the Texas Infrastructure Resiliency Fund, and the regional/state flood planning process. He summarized the first state flood plan adopted in 2024, noting that about one in six Texans live or work in known flood hazard areas and that regional plans identified 4,609 flood risk reduction solutions with an estimated cost of $54.5 billion. He also reviewed TWDB programs for flood grants, community assistance, flood insurance compliance, stream gauges, TexMesonet, flood mapping, and the TexasFlood.org viewer. Members asked about drainage fees, technical assistance, gauge placement, the relationship between flood maps and FEMA FIRMs, and whether flood mitigation funds could support aquifer storage and recovery or recharge projects; TWDB staff said such projects can be eligible if they include flood mitigation components, but direct technical assistance cannot be paid from Flood Infrastructure Fund dollars. The committee concluded by expressing interest in further study of combining flood mitigation with aquifer recharge, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We created four work streams to focus on risk reduction and how you pay for it, the mitigation piece
• The money was spent and it was spent on wildfire risk mitigation. All right. That's really helpful.
• The money was spent and it was spent on wildfire risk mitigation. All right.
• The money was spent and it was spent on wildfire risk mitigation. All right.
• That's really helpful. the money was spent and it was spent on wildfire risk mitigation. All right.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on the California Earthquake Authority’s SB 254 report and possible reforms to California’s utility wildfire recovery system. The chair framed the discussion around the Palisades and Eaton fires, the high and growing wildfire-related costs on utility bills, and the need to weigh tradeoffs among survivors, ratepayers, utilities, insurers, and taxpayers. The chair emphasized that the SB 254 report is an inventory of policy pathways rather than recommendations, and that the Legislature’s role is to evaluate the options publicly. The first panel featured wildfire survivors William Abrams and Joy Chen, who described severe ongoing displacement, housing insecurity, delayed compensation, and frustration with what they characterized as opaque and unfair compensation structures. They argued for greater transparency, clearer accountability for utilities, stronger oversight of wildfire mitigation spending, and incentives tied to safety performance. They also urged faster survivor payments, but only if they are full, fair, and not financed by shifting more costs to taxpayers or ratepayers. Committee members asked about gaps in the SB 254 report, the meaning of “full” compensation, and how a fast-pay facility might work. The second panel included the California Earthquake Authority, RAND, PG&E, LADWP, Consumer Attorneys of California, and the Public Advocates Office. Tom Welsh of CEA explained the report’s process and the current wildfire fund structure, including that utilities remain liable, the fund reimburses eligible claims, and prudency reviews can require reimbursement to the fund. RAND’s Lloyd Dixon outlined how roughly $38 billion has been paid to survivors, insurers, and public entities since 2017, and noted substantial litigation costs and cost-shifting among stakeholders. Utility representatives supported reforms that preserve financial stability and reduce risk, while consumer and public-interest advocates opposed shifting more costs to ratepayers and stressed accountability, audits, and safety-linked recovery. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Bills: SCR56, SCR79, SCR85, SCR120, SCR129, SCR181, SCR63, SCR112, SCR194, SCR195, SCR196, HB202, HB963, HB1050, HB1511, HB1546, HB1550, HB1553, HB1643, HB1656, HB1658, HB1664, HB1667, HB1682, HB1700, HB1721, HB1810, HB1823, HB1824, HB1878, HB1969, HB2005, HB2078, HB2152, HB2246, HB2270, HB2279, HB2289, HB2385, HB2417, HB2429, HB2503, HB2599, SB253, SB847, SB1142, SB1432, SB2043, SB2050, SB2074, SB2102, SB2135, SB2138, SB2140, SB2320, SB2340, SB2386, SB2396, SB2397, SB2398, SB2433, SB2446, SB2521, SB2544, SB2567, SB2578, SB2580, SB2595, SB2601, SB2645, SB2673, SB2706, SB2727, SB2802, SB2852, SB2892, SB2929, SB2972, SB3007, SB3069, SB3073, SB3076, SB3136, SB3138, SB3157, SB3204, SB3234, SB3247, SB3302, SB3324, SB3325, HB1815, HB2592, HCR32

Keywords: lifeguards, first responders, public safety, ocean safety, emergency response, community wellbeing, invasive species, octocoral, Pearl Harbor, environment, Navy responsibility, marine ecosystem, ecosystem preservation, shoreline maintenance, civil service, classification review, compensation systems, labor shortage, employee retention, department collaboration

Transcript Highlights:

• These mitigation measures are targeted to reduce wildfire risk.
• In high wildfire-risk areas, we're patrolling our lines to identify and mitigate any issues.
• And they relate to how mitigation changes the perception of the risk and the future cost of claims.
• I really just want to underscore that wildfire risk mitigation is a journey.
• Risk reduction and mitigation work so that we can start to bend that risk curve down.

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:

• , the hazard risk ranking and then the mitigation strategy, those two chapters will give you everything
• about uh mitigating some of those<01:10:32.719> risks.
• those risks. those risks.
• Um, is there risk? Of course, there's risk.
• Um, is there risk? Of course, for me. Um, is there risk? Of course, there's<01:26:33.679> risk.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Public Safety held an informational briefing with the City and County of Honolulu Department of Emergency Management on its hazard mitigation plan and recent emergency events on Oahu. Chair Dela Botti opened the meeting by explaining that the briefing was intended to review the mitigation planning process, the city’s hazard mitigation plan, and lessons learned from recent tsunami and wildfire threats, building on earlier briefings with state emergency management and transportation officials. Director Collins and hazard mitigation staff officer Ian Kio presented the plan, describing it as a five-year FEMA-required document focused on reducing long-term risk to people and property, not an operations plan for active disasters. Kio outlined how the plan was developed over roughly 18 months with a core team, steering committee, consultant support, and public input, and said it was formally adopted by the mayor’s office and approved by FEMA in July 2025. He said the updated plan was aligned more closely with the state hazard mitigation plan, expanded to cover 15 hazards including climate change and sea level rise, and organized around hazard risk rankings and mitigation strategies. He identified the highest-risk hazards as climate change and sea level rise, floods, health risks, hurricanes, tsunamis, and wildfires, and said the plan includes short-, medium-, and long-term actions such as education, Firewise community planning, flood mapping, and major infrastructure projects like tsunami walls and street elevation work. He also emphasized that the plan will be maintained with yearly updates and ongoing public feedback. Collins then discussed after-action findings from the July 6 Meli fire and the recent tsunami response, noting that reviews are still ongoing. He said the fire response showed strong initiative and teamwork, including police officers helping with fire suppression support and door-to-door evacuation efforts before firefighters arrived, and a staff duty officer who initiated a wireless emergency alert without waiting for higher-level direction. He said these actions reflected a culture of rapid decision-making when lives are at stake. Collins also urged residents to prepare by making family plans, gathering supplies, checking flood and tsunami risk maps, retrofitting homes, and obtaining insurance before disasters occur. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the informational briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Actions, I'm sorry, from flooding and potential actions to mitigate those flood risks.
• It identifies potential actions to mitigate those flood risks and looks ahead to provide floodplain management
• That includes over 3,000 flood mitigation evaluations, over 600 flood mitigation projects, and nearly
• Risk and recommended flood risk reduction solutions.
• projects, and mitigation to individual properties through the development of risk assessments and local

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the focus on emergency and risk mitigating risk. >> That is a good thing to hear, but I also know
• So the focus on emergency and risk mitigating risk. >> That is a good thing to hear, but I also know
• So the focus on emergency and risk mitigation.
• So the focus on emergency and risk mitigation.
• So the focus on emergency and risk mitigation.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Public Safety held an informational briefing on hazard mitigation planning and recent tsunami and wildfire threats. Chair Dela Buladi opened by framing the meeting around the need for iterative disaster planning and lessons learned from events such as the Lahaina wildfires, the Puna Coast earthquake/tsunami, and recent wildfire activity. The committee heard first from Hawaii County Civil Defense Administrator Tomage Magno, who explained the federal and local hazard mitigation planning process, including the requirement for an active five-year mitigation plan to qualify for federal disaster funds. He described the plan as a living document built from prior plans, public and agency outreach, risk and capability assessments, and ongoing updates, with county departments, state agencies, and subject matter experts participating in the process. Magno outlined several FEMA-related mitigation funding programs, including flood mitigation assistance, post-fire assistance, pre-disaster mitigation, revolving loan funds, and dam safety grants. He emphasized that the Hawaii County plan was recently approved by FEMA, that the county council approves the plan, and that the county reviews it annually with a formal revision process beginning in the fourth year. Members asked about how the plan tracks project status, how priorities and funding changes are handled, and whether federal funding programs might be affected by HR1; Magno said the county is proceeding on the assumption that funding will remain available and noted some sources have been reestablished. He also said the county encourages council participation in meetings and planning. Department of Transportation Director Ed Sniffen then addressed the committee on DOT’s response to a recent tsunami threat, saying the agency had about four hours to prepare before the first wave arrival and was focused on its own operational response rather than the broader statewide planning process. In response to questions, he stated that FHWA funds cannot be used for evacuation routes, which is why prior legislative funding was important. Members also discussed specific mitigation projects such as fire breaks, bridge retrofits, and the Singing Bridge, with DOT noting that work is underway and that a replacement bridge upstream is being planned to carry traffic during repairs. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the informational briefing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And we created four work streams to focus on risk reduction and how you pay for it, the mitigation piece
• Another theme that you see in the report is that effectively mitigating wildfire risk is really a whole-of-society
• I think one of the important points from the report is that utility investments and risk mitigation have
• The money was spent, and it was spent on wildfire risk mitigation. All right.
• The money was spent and it was spent on wildfire risk mitigation. All right.

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:

• For mitigation, there is talk of a BRIC 2.0.
• The mitigation money that we have depended on for decades, I think, The mitigation money that we have
• We will continue helping at-risk communities access grants, advance flood mitigation projects, update
• For those of us not well versed in mitigation, what exactly does that, not well versed in mitigation.
• But as I'm picturing mitigation, mitigation means sort of disabling it, possibly shooting it down.

Summary: The committee held a work session focused on the effects of tariffs on Washington’s economy, agriculture, and small businesses, followed by updates on emergency management, cybersecurity, disaster resilience, tsunami preparedness, and World Cup security planning. Office of Financial Management economist Abdelamintrawe Trieri said tariff increases are expected to raise prices, reduce output and employment, and lower state revenue over a four-year horizon, with the hardest-hit sectors including aerospace, food and beverage manufacturing, and agriculture. Members asked about updated tariff scenarios, crop-specific impacts, inflation versus deflation in different goods, and whether some manufacturing sectors could benefit; staff said updated numbers would need to be rerun as tariff rates changed. Washington Department of Agriculture representative Ryan Hamm described how tariffs raise costs for farm inputs such as equipment, parts, packaging, and fertilizer, while also affecting exports of key commodities like wheat, potatoes, apples, cherries, dairy, and wine. He said some sectors support tariffs on competing imports, but retaliation and market restrictions have hurt exports, especially to China and, in the wine sector, Canada. Department of Commerce representative Andrea Chartock outlined export assistance, business finance, recruitment, and industry-sector development programs, and proposed expanding tariff-resilience support through market diversification, supply-chain optimization, and efforts to attract investment and federal funding. She also noted uncertainty around delayed federal STEP funding for small business export assistance. Emergency Management Division Director Robert Ezell warned that federal disaster and mitigation funding is becoming less reliable, citing the denied bomb cyclone disaster declaration, delays in FEMA grant processing, and possible restructuring of FEMA that could shift more responsibility to states. He said Washington may need stronger state-funded public assistance, individual assistance, and mitigation programs, along with broader coordination among state agencies and local governments. Cybersecurity staff described state efforts to support local governments through the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee, threat intelligence sharing, vulnerability assessments, and a proposed volunteer incident response team, while noting the loss of MS-ISAC funding and the importance of continued state matching funds for cybersecurity grants. Hazard mitigation and tsunami staff emphasized the need for sustained investment in flood, wildfire, earthquake, lahar, and tsunami resilience, including vertical evacuation structures and language-access outreach. Ezell also briefed the committee on World Cup security preparations and federal grants for counter-unmanned aircraft systems, explaining that the state can buy mitigation capabilities but current authority to use them remains largely federal; the committee asked follow-up questions about fan zones, training, and the meaning of drone mitigation. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with adjournment after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We assign a risk score. And then we obligate funds to the city and county based on that risk score.
• Flood Mitigation Assistance grant.
• Hurricane Loss Mitigation is the state mitigation program, 100% housed... ...state mitigation program
• Moving on with additional flood risk reduction, so instead of the temporary flood risk reduction you
• risk reduction, community involvement flood risk reduction.

Summary: The Committee on Community Affairs met with a quorum present and heard two hurricane-recovery presentations focused on Florida’s response and long-term recovery efforts. Kevin Guthrie, Executive Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, reviewed response and recovery operations for Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, including meals, water, sheltering, search and rescue deployments, power restoration, debris removal, flood-control efforts, and generator distribution. He also described ongoing public assistance and mitigation funding, the state’s FROC system for standardizing and speeding reimbursement documentation, and the Elevate Florida residential mitigation program, which will use about $400 million to elevate or reconstruct eligible flood-insurance properties and may expand to county-run programs. Senators asked about manufactured homes, school shelter hardening, mobile home tie-downs, reimbursement for USAR teams, debris hauling, regional sheltering, and FEMA review delays; Guthrie said the state is trying to move recovery faster and more proactively, while acknowledging some limits and federal bottlenecks. The committee then heard from Justin Domer, Deputy Secretary of Community Development at Florida Commerce, on HUD Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery programs. He explained that Commerce administers long-term recovery funds through its Office of Long-Term Resiliency for housing, infrastructure, and economic development, with funds used as a last resort after FEMA and insurance. Domer outlined the process for the most recent $925 million allocation covering multiple disasters, including Idalia, Debby, Helene, Milton, Broward flooding, and North Florida tornadoes, and said the state currently manages about $3.4 billion in DR funds, rising to over $4 billion with the new allocation. He highlighted completed and ongoing housing programs for Hurricane Irma, Michael, and Ian, plus workforce recovery programs and subrecipient infrastructure grants. Senators asked about Broward and Fort Lauderdale funding, homeowner turnaround times, and mobile home eligibility; Domer said Broward and Fort Lauderdale will have separate HUD-directed programs, and the committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of those, as Assemblymember Rogers [member_569] stated, were specifically to mitigate risks that
• What are you guys going to do to actually mitigate this risk so that we stop meeting in your city?'
• You know, we've talked about the zone zero, hopefully. we can do to mitigate that risk.
• You're now potentially transferring that risk to the local jurisdiction to deal with that mitigation
• Other communities to best mitigate risk from future wildfires.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on lessons from the 2017 Tubbs Fire and how Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, and state partners have changed wildfire prevention, recovery, and rebuilding practices since then. Opening remarks emphasized that catastrophic wildfire is now a statewide issue, that California has shifted more toward prevention and resilience, and that Sonoma County’s recovery has become a model for other communities. Panelists included fire, water, permitting, community recovery, and insurance experts, who described how local experience has informed broader policy discussions. Santa Rosa fire and city officials described major changes in prevention and preparedness, including stronger public education, a vegetation management ordinance, an ignition-free/Zone Zero approach, and more detailed community wildfire protection planning. They said these efforts helped reduce damage in later fires, such as the Glass Fire, and noted ongoing challenges with prescribed burning, smoke management, grant delays, and maintaining vegetation treatments over time. Santa Rosa Water described improvements in regional coordination, backup power, generator redesign, and wildfire contamination response protocols after the city became the first utility to identify wildfire-related contamination in its water system. Community recovery leaders stressed the importance of block captain networks, neighborhood organization, and trusted local information in helping residents rebuild and avoid fraud. They argued for more formal support, training, and funding for block captain programs, as well as better long-term financing for local mitigation work and utility upgrades. Permit Sonoma officials said the county tried to balance speed and safety in rebuilding by streamlining permits, reducing fees, and helping residents rebuild to stronger standards, though they noted the loss of a major BRIC grant has slowed home-hardening outreach. Insurance advocate Amy Bach said wildfire risk reduction is increasingly influencing insurer behavior, with some companies offering discounts or more favorable treatment for Firewise communities and homes meeting wildfire-prepared standards. She urged continued funding for mitigation grants, better disclosure when insurers use aerial imagery to non-renew policies, and caution against removing wildfire coverage from standard homeowners policies. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken in the hearing; it was an informational discussion intended to gather testimony and policy recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• And some of those, as Assemblymember Rogers stated, were specifically to mitigate risks that were directly
• What are you guys going to do to actually mitigate this risk so that we stop meeting in your city?'
• You know, I feel like it's interesting from a mitigating the future risk.
• You know, I feel like it's interesting from a mitigating the future risk.
• There's From mitigating the future risk, there are so many tools out there.

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:

• ON THE RISK SCORE.
• FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE GRANT.
• HURRICANE LOSS MITIGATION IS THE STATE MITIGATION PROGRAM, 100 PERCENT HOW HOST I'M SORRY 100 PERCENT
• THESE ARE THE EXAMPLES OF THE MITIGATION PROJECTS. AND THE MITIGATIONS.
• MOVING ON WITH ADDITIONAL FLOOD RISK REDUCTION INSTEAD OF THE TEMPORARY FLOOD RISK REDUCTION THAT YOU

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• mitigation.
• They are dedicated to wildfire risk mitigation.
• I'm just going back to page, I think it's 13, the PyroKit, the wildfire risk and mitigation planning
• , or eliminate that risk. risk in terms of defenses and controls.
• And managing that risk by the criticality and the opportunity to mitigate it.