AB 946 codifies the Outdoors for All initiative’s priorities as state policy and asks the Governor’s office, state departments, and the Legislature to treat the 30x30 conservation goal and equitable outdoor access as coequal when distributing resources. It lists six priority areas — from land development and tribal partnerships to workforce pathways and funding alignment — aimed at expanding access to parks and nature, especially in underserved urban communities.
The bill matters because it changes how state decisionmakers should evaluate investments: it encourages restoration and reuse of degraded urban lands, embeds tribal consultation and language access into grantmaking, and requires state funding agencies to allow urban nature‑based projects on degraded lands to be eligible and competitive where statutes and funding sources permit. That combination shifts program priorities and grant competition dynamics across multiple Natural Resources programs and conservancies.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 946 adopts the Outdoors for All report’s priorities as guiding policy and directs executive and legislative actors to recognize the coequal goals of the 30x30 initiative and equitable access when distributing resources. It encourages regulatory agencies to partner with communities to restore degraded lands and instructs state funding agencies to make urban nature‑based projects on degraded lands eligible and competitive for state funds, subject to existing authorizations.
Who It Affects
State entities that fund or manage lands — e.g., the Natural Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, conservancies listed in statute, and the Wildlife Conservation Board — plus regulatory agencies (such as DTSC), California Native American tribes, local governments, school districts, conservation corps, and nonprofits operating urban access programs.
Why It Matters
The bill reframes eligibility and priority-setting: projects that rehabilitate degraded urban sites and those that increase access in historically underserved neighborhoods gain explicit policy backing. Agencies that run competitive grant programs will need to reassess scoring, outreach, and eligibility guidance to align with the new priorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 946 does not create a new funding program. Instead, it embeds a detailed set of priorities into state policy to steer investments and grant decisions toward equitable outdoor access and urban conservation.
The bill reproduces six priority clusters from the Outdoors for All report: creating and maintaining outdoor spaces (including tribal land return, cultural easements, trails, and deferred maintenance), fostering belonging through culturally relevant programming and renaming offensive geographic features, improving connections between people and outdoor spaces (including exploring free broadband and lower‑cost coastal accommodations), cocreating with communities through mandatory early and meaningful tribal consultation and streamlined grant processes, building career pathways that link corps and internships to state jobs, and aligning funding via inventories, partnerships, and streamlined decision tools.
Beyond listing priorities, AB 946 places two operational expectations on decisionmakers. First, the Governor’s office, state agencies, and the Legislature are asked to “aspire” to treat the 30x30 conservation target and the Outdoors for All goals as coequal and to maximize investment in historically underserved urban communities where practical.
Second, the bill highlights urban‑specific factors that should inform resource allocation, such as higher per‑acre acquisition costs, rehabilitation of degraded lands, proximity to populations lacking greenspace, health burdens tied to lack of access, and mobility options near proposed conservation sites.The bill also directs regulatory agencies to partner with local communities on degraded land restoration, which signals an expectation that cleanup and site preparation will be part of conservation conversations in dense urban settings. Finally, AB 946 requires state funding entities — explicitly naming the Natural Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, several conservancies, and the Wildlife Conservation Board — to allow urban nature‑based projects on degraded lands to be eligible and competitive for state funds to the extent consistent with each program’s authorizing statute and funding rules.
That language leaves program officers discretion but establishes a clear policy preference toward making such projects viable competitors for state financing.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1004(a)(1)(C) explicitly supports the use of cultural easements for California Native American tribes to protect cultural and sacred sites, signaling an administrative pathway for easement-based protections tied to tribal interests.
Section 1004(b)(1) directs the Governor’s office, state agencies, and the Legislature to aspire to treat the 30x30 conservation goal and the Outdoors for All initiative as coequal when distributing resources, making equity a stated co-priority with land protection.
Section 1004(b)(2) enumerates urban-specific factors (higher per-acre costs, degraded land rehabilitation, proximity to underserved populations, local health needs, potential park loss from infrastructure) that decisionmakers are encouraged to consider when prioritizing investments.
Section 1004(c) encourages regulatory agencies — including the Department of Toxic Substances Control — to work with local communities to restore degraded lands that could serve equity and conservation goals, effectively linking remediation agencies into land-access planning.
Section 1004(d) requires named state funding agencies and conservancies to allow, 'to the extent consistent with the funding source' and authorizing statutes, urban nature-based projects on degraded lands to be eligible and competitive for state funds, shifting eligibility guidance across multiple grant programs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adopts Outdoors for All priorities as state policy
This subsection lists six priority areas and many subgoals drawn verbatim from the 2023 Outdoors for All report: land development and maintenance, belonging and cultural access, connectivity and transportation, cocreation and tribal consultation, workforce development, and funding alignment. Practically, this is a policy roadmap: it gives program managers a checklist of goals they should use when designing, scoring, and implementing projects without creating new statutory authorities or funding streams.
Access, cultural protections, and connections
These paragraphs spell out on-the-ground measures the state should support: tribal ancestral land return; cultural easements; multibenefit projects; deferred maintenance to expand visitor access; green schoolyards and trail connectivity; renaming offensive geographic features; and exploration of free broadband on state recreation lands. For grant programs, these are concrete scoring priorities—projects that embed cultural protections, reduce barriers to access, or leverage schoolyards and trails will align closely with the bill’s stated aims.
Cocreated governance, workforce pathways, and funding alignment
Cocreation measures require early and meaningful tribal consultation and embedding engagement into grant processes. Workforce provisions direct agencies to bridge conservation corps and internships to state careers and revisit hiring practices. Funding alignment calls for inventories of equitable investments, partnerships with philanthropy and private sectors, and streamlined decision tools—language that pushes agencies to change internal processes and outreach to lower barriers for underserved applicants.
Operational directives: aspirational prioritization, remediation, and eligibility
Subsection (b) imposes an aspirational duty on the Governor, agencies, and Legislature to recognize coequal goals of 30x30 and Outdoors for All and lists urban-specific factors to consider. Subsection (c) encourages regulatory agencies to cooperate on restoring degraded lands. Subsection (d) instructs a set of named state funding agencies and conservancies to allow urban nature-based projects on degraded lands to be eligible and competitive for state funds to the extent consistent with funding rules—placing eligibility pressure on program administrators without overriding statutory constraints.
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
- Residents of historically underserved urban communities: They gain explicit policy support for projects that create nearby greenspace, rehabilitate degraded lots, and prioritize park access in neighborhoods with documented deficits and health burdens.
- California Native American tribes: The bill names tribal ancestral land return, cultural easements, and mandatory early consultation as priorities, strengthening administrative support for tribal partnerships and protective instruments.
- Local school districts and community organizations: The bill encourages green schoolyards and sharing schoolyards outside school hours, which opens doors to joint-use projects and grant applications tied to education and recreation outcomes.
- Conservation corps, interns, and early-career workers: The workforce provisions direct agencies to bridge corps and internships into state careers and reassess hiring and classifications, improving pathways into paid public-land employment.
- Nonprofits and local governments that restore degraded urban parcels: AB 946 makes urban restoration projects explicitly competitive for state funds—where allowable—giving these actors stronger standing in grant competitions.
Who Bears the Cost
- State funding agencies and conservancies (Natural Resources Agency, DPR, Wildlife Conservation Board, named conservancies): They must revisit eligibility guidance, outreach, scoring criteria, and possibly create new program standards without additional appropriations for staff or technical assistance.
- Regulatory cleanup agencies (e.g., DTSC): The bill encourages them to partner on degraded-land restoration, potentially increasing requests for site assessments, remediation planning, and community engagement without dedicated cleanup funding.
- Local governments and landowners: Accepting cultural easements, co-management agreements, or site rehabilitation can impose maintenance obligations, require land-use changes, or trigger remediation costs that local budgets must absorb or negotiate.
- Grant applicants across sectors: As scoring priorities shift toward urban, multibenefit, and co-created projects, projects that focus solely on remote or high-biodiversity conservation sites may face tougher competition for the same pool of funds.
- State fiscal resources and philanthropic partners: Aligning funding and prioritizing urban restoration may redirect limited conservation dollars and increase dependence on matching funds or private partnerships to cover higher per-acre urban costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is a trade-off between conservation goals measured in land area (the 30x30 target) and equitable access in dense urban settings where parcels are small, expensive, and often degraded: prioritizing urban restoration and public access advances equity but can be less efficient at maximizing protected acreage and may require substantial remediation resources—forcing decisionmakers to choose between ecological metrics and distributive justice.
AB 946 is largely directive and aspirational rather than prescriptive: it sets priorities and encouragements but stops short of changing statutory entitlements or creating new funding. That framing yields two implementation challenges.
First, the bill tells program officers to make urban nature‑based projects on degraded lands eligible 'to the extent consistent with the funding source'—a carveout that preserves legal constraints but creates discretionary ambiguity. Agencies will need to translate preference language into scoring criteria, eligibility definitions, and outreach strategies, and different programs may interpret 'to the extent consistent' inconsistently.
Second, rehabilitating degraded urban lands often requires costly assessments and remediation before ecological or recreational benefits accrue. The bill encourages regulatory agencies to engage in restoration partnerships, but it includes no dedicated remediation funding or clarifying language about liability, cleanup standards, or long‑term stewardship.
This gap raises questions about who pays for cleanup, how agencies prioritize contamination risks versus access goals, and whether cleanup timelines will delay or deter otherwise high‑priority urban projects.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.