Transcript Highlights:

• Customers for wildfire mitigation spending.
• AB 1774, which imposes audits of wildfire mitigation spending, is necessary.
• costs, wildfire mitigation plans, and related matters.
• costs, wildfire mitigation plans, and related matters.
• And do we think that wildfire mitigation is really happening?

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ongoing recovery mitigation to this date is public assistance.
• The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, mitigation by its definition, is actions taken to reduce or eliminate
• Flood Mitigation Assistance grant.
• Hurricane Loss Mitigation is the state mitigation program, 100% housed... ...state mitigation program
• The one on the bottom left is mitigation reconstruction.

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:

• and fairness, and it prohibits the operation of an unmanned aircraft system, otherwise known as a drone
• this does not apply to law enforcement or other public safety professionals that may be flying their drones

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• multiple public health jurisdictions, centering some of that expertise and availability, showing some drone
• Drone surveillance and data systems that many agencies had never had access to before.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Health and Human Services Committee convened for its first meeting of the 2025 session, with Chair Melissa Wiklund outlining the new co-chair arrangement, rotating gavel, committee size of 12, and the seven-vote threshold needed to move bills and motions. Members and staff introduced themselves, including several new senators, committee administrators, counsel, fiscal staff, researchers, and new pages. The committee then began its agenda with an overview of the Minnesota Department of Health from Deputy Commissioner Wendy Underwood. Underwood described MDH’s mission and structure, emphasizing public health’s focus on prevention, population health, and the social and economic factors that drive health outcomes. She highlighted the state’s health disparities, the department’s five bureaus, and major work areas including infectious disease response, newborn screening, environmental health, chronic disease prevention, health regulation, health equity, and operations. She also discussed the Center for Health Care Affordability, saying the department has been meeting with stakeholders and has hired a director to begin work on advisory bodies and community engagement around rising health care costs. Members asked questions about physician shortages, burnout, administrative burden, and health care bureaucracy. Senator Grunhagen argued that excessive paperwork and micromanagement are worsening access and workforce shortages, while Senator Abeler asked for data on whether past disparity programs have been effective and whether some efforts should be consolidated. Underwood said MDH has rural health programs, workforce supports such as loan forgiveness, and research on administrative costs and low-value services, and she noted the department has published legislative reports with more data to come. The chair then moved the committee to a broader discussion of public health system development in Minnesota, introducing City of Bloomington officials to present on a recent report.

Transcript Highlights:

• It gets funding to do mitigation historically has.
• And the Welfare mitigation grants program that's run by J.
• Mitigation at Cal OES.
• But I'm engaged in flood mitigation, seismic mitigation, coastal hazards, and specifically managing FEMA
• But I'm engaged in flood mitigation, seismic mitigation, coastal hazards, and specifically managing FEMA

Summary: The hearing focused on California wildfire resilience, with the first panel discussing statewide funding, policy, and strategic priorities, and the second panel shifting to home hardening and defensible space. The LAO outlined the state’s wildfire risk, the large increase in resilience spending in recent years, and the fact that most funding has been one-time rather than ongoing. Testimony emphasized that wildfire risk varies greatly by region, that the state must balance response spending with prevention, and that success should be measured more carefully than by acres treated alone. Witnesses also noted the importance of local, federal, utility, and Proposition 4 funding sources, as well as the need for long-term maintenance and strategic prioritization rather than scattered projects. Cal Fire leadership and other witnesses stressed that California’s wildfire problem is not uniform: forested areas, chaparral, and wildland-urban interface communities require different strategies. In Northern California and forested watersheds, speakers emphasized fuels reduction, prescribed and cultural burning, strategic fuel breaks, watershed protection, and maintaining forest health. In Southern California, testimony focused on wind-driven fires, ember intrusion, ignition prevention along roads and power lines, and the limits of large-scale vegetation clearing. Several witnesses argued that the state should invest where it can leverage local and regional partnerships, support capacity-building programs like Regional Forest and Fire Capacity, and improve data systems to track treatment effectiveness and project outcomes. Members repeatedly pressed witnesses on how to prioritize limited funds, asking what should be done more of, less of, and first. The chair argued that protecting homes and communities through hardening and defensible space should be a major priority, especially near structures, while also acknowledging the need for broader landscape work and watershed protection. There was discussion of incentives such as insurance discounts, property tax treatment, and community certification for hardened homes, along with the need for multiple payers rather than relying on the state alone. Cal Fire reported new and expanding data tools, including treatment trackers, defensible space inspection dashboards, and a fuels treatment effectiveness program that evaluates whether nearby treatments affected wildfire behavior. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only.

Transcript Highlights:

• wildfire mitigation grant program to new counties?
• Chair, you brought up community level mitigation and certification.
• Mitigation at Cal OES.
• Adding on the mitigation actions in the blue box.
• I need to do something about flood mitigation in my community.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Because after conversations we’ve had last year and trying to get more money back into mitigation, we
• And so this mitigation working group is stakeholder-driven.
• So these are some examples that we’ve had of mitigation-based projects, or mitigating impact of OHVs,
• I think if you start standing up the mitigation program, you see more and more law enforcement.
• As you know, I mean, mitigation, you're talking multiple years.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The committee met to review the state’s off-highway vehicle program, with opening remarks focused on balancing recreation, safety, tourism, and land-use conflicts among OHV users, hikers, bikers, ranchers, and land managers. Arizona State Parks and Trails reported on OHV fund revenues, grant balances, and process changes intended to speed up mitigation and law enforcement spending. The agency said it has tightened grant oversight, eliminated informal grant “buckets,” increased delegated authority for quicker project approval, and is using contracted trail crews for expedited maintenance and mitigation. Examples discussed included fencing and signage at Bulldog Canyon, erosion-control work at Charlew Gap, and a mitigation project at Windmill Mountain Ranch. Members emphasized that prior committee discussions helped recover nearly $4 million from stale grants and redirect it to current priorities. Arizona Game and Fish reported that OHV education and enforcement activity has increased. The mandatory online safety course has been taken by more than 149,000 people through ADOT and 15,000 through Game and Fish, and officers said compliance, especially helmet use by children, has improved. Game and Fish also described its OHV enforcement role, including seven dedicated officers and 97 field officers, training for about 40 agencies, and a new requirement that OHV law be included in police academy curricula starting in 2026. The department said most citations involve no decal, helmet issues, cross-country travel, habitat damage, and reckless driving. Members asked about speeding standards, road use, and a helmet-law conflict involving children in side-by-sides; Game and Fish said it is currently harmonizing the statutes and has treated children in side-by-sides as exempt under the newer provision. ADOT explained the decal and registration process, including the required safety course, the $25 decal, and the new non-resident 30-day permit for certain out-of-state OHVs. Staff also clarified that the course is required for owners, not every occasional operator, and that rental companies are not statutorily required to have each renter take the course, though some do so voluntarily. The committee then heard a legislative overview of recent OHV bills: 2024’s SB 1576 on safety, age, and helmet requirements; 2025’s SB 1517 creating the temporary non-resident permit and extending the study committee; and this year’s SB 1519, which would raise the OHV weight limit from 2,500 to 3,500 pounds and add a proposed new fee class. Members and stakeholders discussed whether the higher weight limit would broaden the OHV category, affect revenue, and better reflect newer, heavier side-by-sides, while some cautioned against blurring the line between OHVs and regular vehicles. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• NEXT LET'S TALK ABOUT HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM. GRANT PROGRAM.
• 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.
• IT >> MY LAST QUESTION IS ON ELEVATIONS AND THE MITIGATION PROJECT.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Customers for wildfire mitigation spending.
• costs, wildfire mitigation plans, and related matters.
• 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.
• So the real answer is: don't let the IOUs pass on wildfire mitigation to ratepayers.

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:

• So we want to make sure that the mitigation is there, law enforcement’s there.
• How can we have less mitigation damage and less long-term impact?
• We're looking at, as far as what the mitigation needs are on the ground.
• One was a law enforcement need, and one was natural resource mitigation need.
• Law enforcement needs to be a large component of mitigation.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Study Committee met with a quorum and heard opening remarks from members and stakeholders representing OHV users, ranching, state agencies, land management, law enforcement, and industry. The committee reviewed Senate Bill 1519, which would raise the OHV/ATV weight threshold from 2,500 to 3,500 pounds, create an OHV Law Enforcement Fund, direct certain vehicle license tax revenue to that fund, and allow some OHV recreation on state trust lands under existing permit rules. Members discussed the fiscal and policy implications of changing the weight threshold and whether to keep the current Highway User Revenue Fund structure intact or redirect revenue for OHV enforcement and mitigation. Industry testimony estimated roughly 11,000 new off-road vehicles were sold in Arizona in 2025, with about 24% over 2,500 pounds, and committee members debated whether a flat sticker fee increase or a revenue-neutral adjustment would be cleaner than shifting VLT revenue. The committee also reviewed Senate Bill 1567, enacted in 2024, which requires OHV owners to complete an online education course before receiving an OHV indicia, with a report due December 1, 2026 and repeal of the requirement in 2027. Game and Fish staff said the education requirement has already appeared to improve behavior, especially helmet use by children. Several witnesses supported expanding education to all operators, not just owners, and suggested a single statewide course for consistency and easier enforcement. A nonprofit representative described plans for an OHV ambassador/education program and said it would support a universal training requirement and self-policing efforts. A major portion of the meeting focused on funding needs for OHV law enforcement and resource mitigation. Based on prior committee direction, outside stakeholders presented estimates that county law enforcement needs could total about $3.5 million annually, while natural resource damage and road decommissioning needs could average about $7.5 million annually over time, for a combined target of roughly $11 million per year. The discussion emphasized that the estimate was intended as a broad target rather than a precise census, and that it did not include all possible costs such as fence repair, tank restoration, or environmental compliance. Members and witnesses discussed soft versus hard road closures, the need to prioritize resource protection areas, and the importance of pairing mitigation projects with enforcement and education so that repaired areas are not quickly damaged again. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided, but the committee appeared to be gathering information to guide future recommendations on fees, funding channels, and education policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• It identifies possible mitigation and provides consistent information.
• impacts, no further mitigation is needed.
• a mitigation plan submitted by a developer.
• Significant impacts are additionally important... ...absent mitigation.
• areas to be able to mitigate on-site and/or off-site.

Summary: The committee held a work session on state environmental policy act (SEPA) implementation and carryout bags. Ecology staff Diane Buterak described the Clean Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statements (PEISs) completed for utility-scale solar, onshore wind, and green hydrogen, plus a new PEIS underway for sustainable aviation fuel. She explained that PEISs provide broad planning-level analysis to help developers and agencies avoid or mitigate impacts, but do not replace project-level review. Members asked about permitting timelines, greenhouse gas emissions from different hydrogen production methods, water use, agricultural land conversion, battery fire risk, and tribal consultation. Buterak said the PEISs identify potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures, including fire response planning, early tribal outreach, and agrovoltaics as an option for solar projects. EFSEC’s Amy Hofkimer then presented the transmission-facility programmatic EIS required by SB 5165 for 230 kV and higher transmission projects. She said the statewide review covers new lines and certain upgrades/modifications, analyzes impacts to water, cultural and tribal resources, habitat, and other areas, and uses general measures, design considerations, avoidance criteria, and sensitivity maps to guide siting and corridor planning. She said the final document would be issued in early October. Questions focused on reconductoring, tribal lands, scenic areas, and whether the review could affect existing lines crossing tribal lands. A Grant County planning director, Jim Anderson Cook, said Ecology’s PEIS would help with cumulative impacts for clustered solar projects, but noted tight local review timelines and the need for strong pre-application coordination, especially on cultural resource studies and decommissioning plans. Yakama Nation attorney Shona Leverett argued SEPA is only an assessment tool and said tribes face barriers from short comment periods, limited confidential tribal input, weak cumulative impact analysis, and challenges in the FSEC process; she urged better upfront developer diligence and more effective tribal coordination. Puget Sound Energy’s Sarah Leverett said the utility needs efficient and predictable permitting to meet clean energy mandates while maintaining reliable service and aging infrastructure. She described the scale of needed clean energy and transmission buildout, including a 10-year process for the Energize Eastside transmission rebuild, and said more consistent SEPA and PEIS processes could help. Members asked about future generation sources, reliability, and hydropower as a firming resource; she said PSE is pursuing an “all of the above” approach and would welcome more firm, dispatchable clean energy options. The committee then shifted to carryout bags. Staff Jacob Lipson and Tracy Taylor reviewed Washington’s bag law, its preemption of local ordinances, the current 8-cent charge, the scheduled increase to 12 cents, and the 2025 change delaying the 4-mil thickness requirement until 2028 while adding a temporary 4-cent penalty for thicker bags. Ecology’s Peter Lyon said the agency emphasizes education and complaint-based enforcement, has received 872 reports, and has not yet imposed any fines. Commerce’s Kirk Esmond summarized a WSU study finding fewer plastic bags distributed but more plastic by weight, and said Commerce and Ecology support keeping the 2.25-mil standard and not allowing thinner single-use bags again. Retail industry testimony from Brandon Housekeeper said grocers comply with the law but oppose the added 4-cent penalty and thicker-bag requirement, citing higher costs and confusion in the policy changes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Reductions to hazard mitigation projects across the state whenever you're ready.
• My name is Robin Finning, and I'm our State Hazard Mitigation Officer.
• My name is Robin Fenning, and I'm our state hazard mitigation officer.
• I am the mitigation director of the California Residential Mitigation Program.
• I am the mitigation director of the California Residential Mitigation Program, which was established

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Emergency Management met to consider Assembly Joint Resolution 11, which urges the President and Congress to restore funding for FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. Chair Rhodesia Ransom and Assembly Member Lisa Calderon described the resolution as a bipartisan effort to preserve funding for hazard mitigation projects that help communities prevent disasters rather than simply recover from them. They cited major California impacts from the program’s cancellation, including losses for wildfire mitigation, seismic retrofits, and dam safety projects in several counties and districts. Support testimony came from Catherine Freeman of the California State Association of Counties and Robin Finning of Cal OES. Freeman said counties rely on BRIC for flexible, proactive disaster-prevention funding and warned that canceling the program would set back years of resilience work. Finning said 49 communities had contacted Cal OES after the cancellation announcement and that the agency had been working closely with them on next steps. Stephanie Stevens of the California Residential Mitigation Program also testified in support, noting the loss of more than $40 million for earthquake soft-story retrofit grants. Members expressed support and noted the importance of the affected district projects. There was no opposition testimony. The committee then voted unanimously to adopt AJR 11 and refer it to third reading, with all members present voting aye. The meeting was then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• What is sure to insufficient mitigation remaining.
• It depends on the mitigation bank, et cetera.
• Chris Lyon, Florida Association of Mitigation Bankers Waiving in support.
• There's new mitigation banks were going to need.
• We certainly don't want to have mitigation taking place.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that going to trickle down into local mitigation and prevention plans?
• We've got the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans.
• We've got the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans.
• Other communities to best mitigate risk from future wildfires.
• Please support whatever you can to mitigate that.

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:

• We had a mitigation bank in the San Luis Rey. It's all spent out now.
• We can also be more creative in terms of the mitigation.
• where we mitigate.
• where we mitigate.
• On the mitigation side, I think we're doing our best, at least at the poor, to reduce, Mitigation side

Summary: The hearing of the Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy focused on infrastructure, pollution, climate resilience, public health, access, and economic impacts of sea level rise in California, with an emphasis on San Diego and the Bay Area. Chair Tasha Boerner Horvath opened by describing the committee’s purpose, the state’s sea level rise action planning, and the need for better monitoring and early warning systems. She also referenced her prior bills AB 66 and AB 72, which supported Scripps research on coastal bluff collapse warning capabilities. Assembly Members David Alvarez and Jessica Caloza later joined and emphasized that sea level rise affects not only coastal communities but inland areas as well, and that the issue should inform future legislative and budget decisions. In the first panel, Dr. Mark Merrifield of Scripps Institution of Oceanography described observed sea level rise of roughly 0.8 to 0.9 feet since the early 1900s, with acceleration expected by mid-century and potentially much greater rise by 2100 depending on emissions. He highlighted flooding, groundwater rise, beach and cliff erosion, salinization, and risks to transportation, sewage, ports, and national security. Dave Gibson of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board discussed how sea level rise affects wastewater systems, stormwater, contaminated sites, wetlands, and coastal groundwater basins, and said the board is requiring climate adaptation planning, updating stormwater permits, and seeking more flexible state permitting and mitigation tools. Members and witnesses also discussed the need for better mapping, more monitoring, and more state funding, especially if federal support from NOAA and other agencies declines. The second panel addressed public health, equitable access, and local economies. Ramon Chiras of Un Mar de Colores described how sea level rise, pollution, and access barriers threaten the Tijuana River Valley and Imperial Beach, especially for underserved communities and youth programs that rely on safe, welcoming access to the ocean. He stressed the cultural and spiritual importance of coastal access and the need for water safety and environmental education. Jessica Fane of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission explained that the Bay Area faces major economic exposure from sea level rise, citing a regional estimate of $96 billion in adaptation costs versus $230 billion in potential losses from inaction, and said BCDC is working with local governments under SB 272 on shoreline adaptation planning, funding, and regulatory innovation. Members discussed the tension between environmental permitting and the need to move projects faster, including the possibility of planned retreat in some areas and the use of simultaneous permitting and longer-term state authority to streamline adaptation work. In the final panel, Philip Gibbons of the Port of San Diego described the port’s climate adaptation efforts and its vulnerability assessments under AB 691. He said the port manages state tidelands, supports maritime commerce and recreation, and is already seeing flooding at king tides and during El Niño events, including storm-drain backflow and damage to bikeways and parks. He explained that future sea level rise could inundate major port areas and disrupt operations, underscoring the need for continued planning, mitigation, and infrastructure investment. The hearing did not take formal votes, but it concluded with a clear call for more science, funding, coordination, and regulatory streamlining to prepare California’s coast and nearby communities for worsening sea level rise impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, the fund then uses those monies to go out and do projects which provide compensatory mitigation
• <00:53:52.720> um specific purpose of mitigating um specific purpose of mitigating um problems
• <00:54:33.760> program<00:54:34.200> first the in lieu mitigation program first the
• They had to mitigate this wetland.
• These funds are somewhat restricted and they are for stream and wetland mitigation only.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:26 Approval of Minutes 00:02:27 LIHEAP Presentation and Public Hearing 00:02:42 Conservation Opportunities in Kentucky 00:29:52, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up a public hearing and presentation on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Shannon Hall of the Department for Community Based Services and Rick Baker of Community Action Kentucky explained that LIHEAP is a 100% federally funded block grant that helps low-income households pay heating and cooling bills, avoid utility disconnects, and support weatherization. They outlined the program’s components, eligibility limits, seasonal application periods, and recent participation figures, including tens of thousands of households served through the summer cooling, fall subsidy, winter crisis, and spring subsidy components. They also described weatherization priorities, the partnership with Kentucky Housing Corporation, and the role of Community Action agencies in administering the program statewide. Members asked about Assurance 16, the balance between need and available funding, summer cooling assistance, weatherization measurement, renter versus homeowner participation, and whether federal changes could affect LIHEAP. Hall and Baker said Assurance 16 supports energy-burden reduction through education, case management, and conservation strategies; that funding has generally been sufficient in recent years but crisis funds have sometimes been exhausted quickly in the past; and that summer assistance is primarily electric utility support. They also said weatherization uses return-on-investment testing and that Kentucky still has a large backlog of homes needing service. On federal funding, they said the recently passed federal bill did not directly cut LIHEAP, but future appropriations could still affect it, and any major reduction could leave a gap the state might need to consider filling. The committee approved the minutes and later approved the LIHEAP finding of fact; no members of the public signed up to testify. After concluding LIHEAP, the committee heard a presentation from Heather Jeff of The Nature Conservancy on conservation opportunities in Kentucky. She described the organization’s voluntary land-protection work and highlighted the Cumberland Forest project, a conservation easement on about 55,000 acres in Bell, Knox, and Leslie counties supported in part by a $3.875 million state appropriation. She also reported on mine-land reforestation, elk habitat work, and the rapid allocation of a $2 million appropriation for the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund. Jeff emphasized the economic value of conservation for tourism, hunting and fishing, agriculture, forestry, bourbon, and flood protection, and said the group is finalizing a Kentucky conservation needs assessment and related feasibility research.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, you have to work with sensors and computer vision and drones and all of those kinds of things
• safety training they do with their staff, leadership engagement, and then hazard identification and mitigation
• 56.840> and and then hazard identification and and and then hazard identification and and mitigation
• . mitigation. mitigation.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that going to trickle down into local mitigation and prevention plans?
• We've got the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans.
• You know, I feel like it's interesting from a mitigating the future risk.
• We've got the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plans.
• Please support whatever you can to mitigate that.

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:

• Flood Hazard Mitigation Program managed by<00:26:37.840> the<00:26:37.920> DNR.
• I respectfully ask that you support appropriating additional funding for the Flood Hazard Mitigation
• . mitigation. mitigation.
• for Minnesota projects to mitigate for Minnesota projects to mitigate flooding<00:31:48.280>
• <00:32:28.120> that mitigation that mitigation that it<00:32:30.040> the<00:32:30.160><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is that it's also a mitigation issue. is that it's also a mitigation issue.
• And here's an example of a mitigation is of value, never mind mitigation is of value, never mind whether
• uh mitigation adequately? uh mitigation adequately?
• I think that's of mitigation risk.
• on uh on things like uh mitigation on uh on things like uh mitigation um<00:32:46.000> and

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The interim task force on disaster prevention and resiliency met for its fourth meeting and focused heavily on insurance markets, affordability, and mitigation. Cochairs noted they are working toward recommendations for a later fall meeting. The main presentation came from David Snyder of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, who said the insurance industry sees itself as part of the problem and part of the solution because it ultimately pays for losses created by natural conditions, development choices, and construction practices. Snyder described rising losses from natural catastrophes, inflation-driven increases in rebuilding and repair costs, more development in disaster-prone areas, wildfire exposure, severe convective storms, hail, and roof damage. He argued that Kentucky should avoid the mistakes he attributed to California, where regulatory responses contributed to a strained insurance market and greater reliance on the FAIR Plan. He said Kentucky’s private market appears to be functioning better, with relatively few FAIR Plan policies, and urged lawmakers to preserve that market through risk-based rates and policies that do not worsen availability. He recommended a broad mitigation strategy involving stronger building codes, land-use decisions, stormwater infrastructure, public access to risk data, and incentives for resilient construction. He highlighted programs such as the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, fortified-home standards, wildfire-prepared community practices, and examples from Alabama, Louisiana, and Florida showing that mitigation can produce quick returns and insurance discounts. He also suggested catastrophe savings accounts, flexible coverage options, and a whole-of-government approach that includes the insurance department, building-code agencies, first responders, FEMA, NFIP, and NOAA. In questions, a legislator asked about the prognosis if carriers continue exiting markets and if nothing is done to address affordability and accessibility. Snyder said he could not predict market exits but stressed that regulators should monitor the market closely, use available data, and focus on loss prevention and mitigation. He said insurers want to do business in Kentucky and that the long-term solution is coordinated action among public and private stakeholders to reduce risk and keep coverage available.