This bill establishes the Monterey Bay Area Stewardship Authority as a regional district covering Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties to support long‑term stewardship of natural and working lands and shoreline. The authority is authorized to raise and manage public and private funds, run a grant program for projects that restore or maintain habitats and working lands, and coordinate cross‑sector stewardship efforts.
The measure aims to fill a regional gap: create a standing mechanism to align funding and partnerships across tribal governments, local jurisdictions, landowners, conservation organizations, and community groups so the region can deliver durable restoration, nature‑based resilience, and equitable access to outdoors while supporting local stewardship jobs.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a nine‑member governing board for a new regional authority, authorizes multiple finance tools (assessments, special taxes, property‑related fees, revenue and general obligation bonds) consistent with state constitutional rules, and establishes a competitive grant program for eligible projects on public and private lands.
Who It Affects
Local elected officials and county governments in the three counties, landowners (especially farms, rangelands, and timber operations), California Native American tribes and tribal organizations, conservation nonprofits, and community groups that apply for or receive grants or participate on advisory bodies.
Why It Matters
If implemented, the authority centralizes a funding pipeline for climate resilience, biodiversity, and stewardship workforce development in a single regional entity—shifting how projects are financed and coordinated across public, private, and tribal partners and creating new avenues (and constraints) for local revenue generation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a new regional district whose mission is to generate and allocate resources for restoration, enhancement, stewardship, and public access across the Monterey Bay region (Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties). The statute sets out broad powers to raise money—by levying assessments, special taxes, and fees consistent with California’s constitutional rules—and to accept grants, gifts, and revenue bonds.
It also allows the authority to incur bonded indebtedness but leaves the maximum total borrowing amount unspecified in the text.
Governance is by a nine‑member board: three county supervisors (one per county), three city elected officials selected by each county’s city selection committee, and three public members appointed for specific expertise (tribal/underserved engagement; working lands; and biodiversity/habitat protection). The law prescribes appointment sources for the initial members, staggers terms for continuity, caps board member per‑diems, subjects meetings to California’s open‑meeting law, and requires members to comply with the Political Reform Act.An advisory committee of up to 12 members must be convened within six months of the board’s first meeting to inform grant evaluation and program design; the statute requires procedures to pay per diems for committee members who lack resources.
The board must adopt transparent grant evaluation criteria and give priority to projects that demonstrate measurable benefits to climate resilience, biodiversity, water and soil resilience, agricultural viability, equitable access, ancestral land return, and stewardship workforce development.Operational restrictions and fiscal housekeeping are notable. The authority may not acquire or own real property, and grantees are barred from using eminent domain to meet project goals.
Election and voter‑approval mechanics for revenue measures are tightly specified: the authority is treated as a district under the Elections Code, measures must be submitted by special election consolidated with the next statewide election at least 88 days after calling the election, and the authority must reimburse counties for certain incremental election costs for its first revenue measure. The statute also requires annual financial reports, audits, and public records compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The board has nine voting seats: three county supervisors, three city officials (appointed by city selection committees), and three public members with prescribed expertise; initial appointments must be made by April 1, 2027.
The authority may levy benefit assessments, special taxes, or property‑related fees under Articles XIII A, XIII C, and XIII D of the California Constitution and may use statutory assessment authorities (e.g.
the Improvement Acts and Landscaping and Lighting Act).
The authority is explicitly prohibited from acquiring or owning real property; however, it can award grants that grantees may use to acquire lands, subject to board determination of long‑term public benefit.
Grants cannot rely on eminent domain, and the board must prioritize projects that show measurable climate resilience, biodiversity gains, meaningful tribal and underserved community engagement, and stewardship workforce development.
For the first revenue measure the authority places on the ballot, it must consolidate with a statewide election at least 88 days after calling it, the authority must cover incremental county election costs, and voters in the district may use initiative petition power to adopt or amend a special tax.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and policy purpose
This chapter frames the authority in terms of regional ecology, agriculture, tribal stewardship, and climate resilience. The findings justify a new regional vehicle to align funding, partnerships, and long‑term stewardship work across three counties and emphasize equitable access and workforce development as legislative priorities.
Establishment and intent
These provisions establish the authority as a regional entity and clarify it is intended to complement—rather than supersede—local, state, and federal efforts. Notably, the jurisdiction is carved to the three counties and the authority is exempted from the Cortese‑Knox‑Hertzberg local government reorganization rules, which affects how it interacts with local government boundaries and processes.
Board composition, appointment mechanics, and meeting rules
The statute prescribes who appoints each of the nine board seats, sets initial‑appointment deadlines, and staggers terms for continuity. It mandates compliance with the Political Reform Act and the Brown Act, authorizes modest per‑diem compensation, requires a quorum of five and recorded majority votes of the full board on actions, and establishes an advisory committee with a capped membership and per diem support for under‑resourced participants.
Fiscal powers and electoral procedures
This section lists the authority’s finance tools, including assessment statutes and bond issuance under state law, authorizes a dedicated revenue source, and allows use of county or state staff on an interim basis. It also provides detailed ballot mechanics: consolidation requirements, translation coordination among counties, initiative power for special taxes, and limited county reimbursement rules for incremental election costs associated with the authority’s first revenue measure.
Grant program parameters and priorities
The grant program may fund projects on public and private lands for restoration, nature‑based climate practices, collaborative conservation, stewardship, monitoring, and community outreach. The board must adopt transparent evaluation criteria, consult the advisory committee, give statutory priority to projects with measurable community and ecological benefits, and withhold grants that rely on eminent domain. Grants may cover design through long‑term stewardship activities unless source restrictions apply.
Funding sources and administrative logistics
Funding may come from assessments, taxes, fees, grants, philanthropy, and other lawful sources. The text contemplates initial funding advances from counties or grants that can be repaid from initial revenues, allows counties to provide administrative services under contract, and makes any direct state funding subject to future legislative appropriation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California Native American tribes and indigenous organizations — the statute prioritizes tribal engagement, supports cultural and ecological restoration, and creates advisory and grant opportunities tailored to ancestral land return and tribal stewardship practice.
- Farmers, ranchers, and working‑lands managers — the authority’s grant priorities and working‑lands public member seat aim to support voluntary conservation, soil health, beneficial grazing/vegetation management, and projects that strengthen agricultural viability and resilience.
- Conservation and restoration nonprofits — a regional grant source and centralized funding pipeline could expand project funding, enable multi‑stakeholder partnerships, and underwrite long‑term stewardship and monitoring obligations.
- Rural, underserved, and frontline communities — the law explicitly prioritizes projects that demonstrate measurable benefits to disadvantaged and tribal communities and authorizes advance payments to under‑resourced grantees to increase participation.
- Local stewardship workforce and training programs — statutory emphasis on apprenticeships, internships, and career pathways channels grant dollars toward local job development in restoration and land management.
Who Bears the Cost
- Property owners and landholders within the three counties — the authority’s power to levy assessments, special taxes, or fees could impose new local charges if voters approve revenue measures or assessments.
- County election offices and taxpayers — the authority must reimburse incremental costs for its first revenue measure and may impose election administration costs; subsequent measures could carry broader county expenses depending on consolidation rules.
- Local governments that provide staff or services — counties may elect to supply administrative, fiscal, or legal services under contract and could bear upfront costs that the authority repays later, creating short‑term budget pressures.
- Grant applicants and recipients — compliance with reporting, long‑term stewardship requirements, and public‑interest tests may create administrative burdens and ongoing maintenance obligations for grantees.
- Regional agencies with overlapping missions — existing conservation districts, land trusts, and state programs may face new competition for limited funding and a need to adapt to coordinated regional priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is funding permanence versus local control and property protections: the bill creates a vehicle to secure sustained regional funding for climate, biodiversity, and equitable stewardship, but doing so requires new taxing and assessment authorities and a governance structure that could affect working‑lands economics, local autonomy, and political balance—forcing a trade‑off between stable pooled resources and the risk of imposing costs or constraints on local landowners and jurisdictions.
The bill collects a broad toolkit for regional conservation but leaves several practical limits and implementation questions open. It authorizes bonded indebtedness but omits the numeric cap for total outstanding general obligation bonds; that blank creates uncertainty about the authority’s ultimate borrowing capacity and how voters and local governments will evaluate proposed measures.
The statute references constitutional constraints for levies (Articles XIII A, C, and D) and multiple historic assessment acts, which invites legal scrutiny over voter‑approval thresholds, notice requirements, and Prop‑218/Prop‑13‑era constraints when the authority designs revenue measures.
Governance and equity goals are explicit, yet the appointment method centralizes initial control with county boards of supervisors and city selection committees, which could politicize appointments and affect perceived neutrality. The authority cannot own land and grantees are barred from using eminent domain, which resolves property‑taking concerns but also limits the authority’s ability to assemble parcels for large landscape‑scale projects.
Finally, the statute tasks the board with prioritizing meaningful tribal and underserved community engagement and supporting workforce development, but it leaves operational questions—like how the board will measure “meaningful engagement,” allocate advance payments, and staff long‑term stewardship obligations—largely to future policies and procedures.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.