SB 1108 creates the Grassland Ecological Area Conservancy as a state agency within the Natural Resources Agency with a landscape mandate over the Grassland Ecological Area and an adjacent Grassland Focus Area. The conservancy’s statutory purposes include protecting and restoring wildlife habitat (notably wetlands important to the Pacific Flyway), supporting compatible working landscapes, expanding recreation and education opportunities, and advancing climate resilience and equity.
The bill sets up a governing board, authorizes the conservancy to make grants and loans, acquire interests in real property from willing parties, enter contracts and management agreements, and hold or transfer property consistent with its purposes. It also creates a dedicated state treasury fund for conservancy income and requires that all proceeds and donations be deposited there for expenditure only upon legislative appropriation — a structure that centralizes funding but depends on the state budget process.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a state conservancy with a governing board to coordinate conservation, restoration, and recreational use of a defined Grassland Ecological Area and adjacent Focus Area; authorizes grants, loans, technical assistance, land interest acquisition from willing sellers, contracting, and property transfers; and establishes a dedicated conservancy fund.
Who It Affects
Local and regional actors in and around Merced County — including the Grassland Water District, county government, private landowners and agricultural operators inside the mapped area, conservation nonprofits, tribal governments, and state and federal wildlife and water agencies — plus recreation and tourism interests that rely on wetlands and grasslands.
Why It Matters
This bill creates an institutional vehicle for landscape-scale, place-based conservation in a Ramsar-recognized wetland complex that spans multiple ownerships and jurisdictions. For practitioners, it centralizes grantmaking and project prioritization for the Grassland complex while leaving land-use and water-right authority with existing local and state bodies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1108 establishes a new state conservancy focused on conserving the Grassland Ecological Area and a surrounding Focus Area of working landscapes. The statute gives the conservancy a suite of practical tools: it may award grants and loans to public agencies, nonprofits, and tribes (subject to written agreements and possible repayment terms), offer technical and planning assistance, enter contracts for services, and collaborate on construction, management, or maintenance of on-the-ground projects.
These authorities are designed to let the conservancy move money and expertise into restoration, habitat improvements, public access projects, and compatible agricultural stewardship.
On the land-management side, the conservancy can acquire interests in real property from willing sellers or transferors and take actions incidental to managing lands it owns or controls, including planning, restoration, and facility management. It may also rent, lease, sell, exchange, or otherwise transfer interests in property — and requires that proceeds and other income flow into a dedicated state fund for the conservancy’s use.
The statute expressly frames these powers to be exercised in cooperation with local governments, water and irrigation districts, groundwater sustainability agencies, and other relevant entities.The bill layers in ordinary government accountability and public-access rules: the board must follow the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, hold meetings within or near the region, post agendas via the Natural Resources Agency, and may form advisory committees and do public outreach using modern technology. The board is empowered to hire an executive officer and staff, enter into contracts, and establish a regional headquarters to administer projects.Practically, the conservancy is structured as a coordinating financier and land manager rather than a land-use regulator; its authorities are focused on voluntary transactions, grants, project management, technical assistance, and partnership-driven implementation.
That design anticipates working with a patchwork of public, private, and nonprofit landowners rather than imposing top-down land-use controls.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The board is composed of nine voting members and two nonvoting liaison advisers; voting seats include the Secretary of Natural Resources (or designee), the Director of Fish and Wildlife (or designee), two public appointees (Speaker and Senate Committee on Rules), the General Manager of the Grassland Water District (or designee), a Merced County supervisor (or designee), and three governor appointees representing a habitat-only landowner, an agricultural landowner/operator, and an employee of a Central Valley Joint Venture NGO.
Two named nonvoting liaisons represent federal and state expertise: the Regional Director for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 (or designee) and the Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board (or designee).
Members of the board who are not state employees receive $100 per scheduled meeting day and are reimbursed for actual and necessary expenses; the board must elect officers every two years and needs five affirmative votes (a quorum of five) to take binding action.
The conservancy must submit an annual report beginning January 1, 2028, to the Legislature and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency detailing activities, expenditures, land management costs, and administrative costs, and must post the report publicly in compliance with state reporting rules.
The geographic scope is fixed by a map (titled “Grassland Ecological Area Conservancy,” dated 2026) filed with the Secretary of State and posted online; the mapped area is located in Merced County and references named wildlife areas and state park lands within the Grassland complex.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and statutory purpose
The statute opens with findings that identify the Grassland complex as a statewide conservation priority — noting its Ramsar designation and role on the Pacific Flyway — and enumerates a broad portfolio of public benefits (habitat, recreation, carbon management, economic contributions). That boilerplate does two things in practice: it gives the conservancy an explicitly multiuse charter (conservation, recreation, working landscapes, climate resilience) and creates statutory cover for projects combining ecological and economic goals.
Definitions, creation, and jurisdiction
This chapter defines the conservancy’s legal identity, the two mapped geographic layers (the core Grassland Ecological Area and a surrounding Focus Area), and the term “nonprofit organization.” Because the boundaries are set by a map to be filed with the Secretary of State and posted online, the conservancy’s jurisdiction is fixed and publicly ascertainable — an important detail for grant eligibility, project siting, and stakeholder outreach.
Governing board structure and public process
The board structure mixes state agency representation, legislative appointees, local/regional representatives, and governor appointees selected for local ties or sector expertise. The statute authorizes legislative members to participate (to the extent compatible with legislative office), requires officer elections, and specifies Bagley-Keene compliance and regional meeting locations. Practically, this design builds multi-jurisdictional representation into decisionmaking but also distributes appointment authority across branches — a setup that will shape political dynamics around hiring, grant priorities, and project approvals.
Powers, limits, and operational authorities
This chapter is the operational core: the conservancy can make grants and loans, provide technical assistance, sue and be sued, acquire interests in land from willing sellers, plan and implement improvements, and contract with other entities for construction and management. The statute explicitly circumscribes authority: it does not grant land-use regulatory powers, it does not displace other conservancies’ jurisdictions, and it requires coordination with cities, counties, water districts, and other agencies. That mix signals a partnership-first model — active on land management and funding, constrained on regulatory reach.
Financial controls and accountability
The bill creates the Grassland Ecological Area Conservancy Fund in the State Treasury and mandates deposit of all conservancy income into that fund; expenditures are available only upon legislative appropriation. It also sets an explicit reporting regime — annual public reports to the Legislature and the Secretary of Natural Resources, with specified content requirements — and ties those reports to existing Government Code reporting rules, which will shape compliance timelines and public transparency.
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
- Migratory birds and habitat — the conservancy’s focused restoration and habitat-improvement authorities aim to enhance habitats in a Ramsar-recognized complex, improving conditions along the Pacific Flyway.
- Regional conservation nonprofits and project partners — they gain a local, place-based funder and coordinator for multi-property projects, technical assistance, and grantmaking tailored to the Grassland complex.
- Local recreation and tourism operators — increased public access and investment in park and refuge facilities could expand recreational visitation and related economic activity.
- Working-land owners and agricultural operators in the Focus Area — the conservancy explicitly supports preservation of compatible agricultural landscapes and can provide technical assistance, grants, or negotiated conservation arrangements that help maintain working lands.
- State and local agencies — county governments and water/irrigation districts obtain a partner for coordinated water and land management projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
Who Bears the Cost
- The State Treasury and Legislature — the conservancy’s projects, staff, and grants depend on appropriations from the conservancy fund, so state budget choices determine program scale and sustainability.
- Local agencies and districts — the statute creates consultation and coordination duties (and a potential state-mandated local program), which may require staff time and local matching or administrative support unless reimbursed.
- Private landowners seeking to sell conservation interests — transactions will be voluntary, but landowners may face long-term restrictions under conservation agreements and transaction-related negotiation costs.
- Small nonprofits — while eligible for grants, they may face administrative burdens complying with grant agreements, repayment provisions, and reporting requirements tied to conservancy funding.
- Conservancy administration — setting up headquarters, hiring exempt staff, and meeting public-reporting obligations creates operational overhead that must be funded, potentially diverting funds from on-the-ground projects if appropriations are limited.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma: how to achieve contiguous, landscape-scale protection of internationally important wetlands while relying on voluntary acquisitions, partnership coordination, and state appropriations — balancing the ecological need for connected habitat against private property rights, local land-use authority, and the conservancy’s limited independent funding and regulatory power.
SB 1108 creates a regional delivery mechanism but leaves its financial and enforcement levers intentionally limited. All income must flow into a state treasury fund and is spendable only by appropriation, which means the conservancy’s ability to deliver projects will depend on annual budget cycles and legislative priorities — not just on donations or property-sale proceeds.
That funding design increases public accountability but reduces the conservancy’s ability to act quickly or autonomously when market opportunities arise.
The bill emphasizes voluntary transactions and partnership, which protects private property rights and local land-use control but also means key parcels may remain out of conservation reach if owners decline agreements. Coordination requirements (with cities, counties, water districts, groundwater sustainability agencies, and tribes) reinforce legitimacy but create multiple potential veto points and administrative friction.
The conservancy must operate transparently under Bagley-Keene, which promotes public oversight but can slow consensus-driven action on time-sensitive restoration opportunities. Finally, the statute directs tribal consultation via executive offices and commissions but stops short of granting tribes decisionmaking authority, leaving unresolved how competing cultural, ecological, and economic priorities will be reconciled in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.