SB 1135 adds a new Chapter 8.5 (beginning with Section 1810) to Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code that contains a single statement: the Legislature intends to reestablish and enact a statewide program to manage and promote human and wildlife coexistence. The text is purely an expression of legislative intent; it does not create statutory duties, appropriate funds, set deadlines, or provide an implementing structure.
The bill matters because it elevates coexistence as a statewide policy objective and places that objective in the Fish and Game Code where the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has jurisdiction. At the same time, the absence of operational detail means the measure functions as a policy signal rather than a ready-to-implement program, leaving critical questions—authority, funding, metrics, and legal effect—unresolved.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Chapter 8.5 to Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code and inserts Section 1810 stating the Legislature's intent to reestablish a statewide human–wildlife coexistence program. The provision is declarative and contains no operative commands, appropriations, or penalty provisions.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the statutory framework under which the Department of Fish and Wildlife operates and raises expectations for local governments, conservation organizations, and communities that handle human–wildlife conflicts. Because it contains no implementing language, immediate legal obligations for third parties are not created.
Why It Matters
The bill signals a statewide policy priority and creates statutory cover for future implementing legislation or administrative action under DFW. For practitioners, its main effect is to change the legal landscape by embedding coexistence in the Fish and Game Code—while leaving the hard choices about how to design, fund, and enforce a program for later.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1135 is short and narrowly focused: it adds a new chapter to the Fish and Game Code with one section (Section 1810) that declares the Legislature's intent to reestablish and enact a statewide program for human and wildlife coexistence. The text does not define 'coexistence,' does not say which agency must take what steps, and does not provide money, deadlines, reporting requirements, or enforcement mechanisms.
Because the bill is phrased as legislative intent, it does not itself create binding duties on state agencies, local governments, or private actors. In California statutory practice, intent language signals policy direction but generally cannot be enforced on its own.
Practical implementation would require follow‑on steps: authorizing statutes that assign specific responsibilities, appropriations to fund staff and grants, rulemaking or guidance to standardize practices, and performance measures to assess outcomes.The bill places the intent within Division 2 (Fish and Game Code), a logical home given DFW’s existing jurisdiction over wildlife and habitat. That placement means any later implementing legislation or administrative program will likely be framed around DFW as the lead agency, but SB 1135 does not itself expand DFW’s statutory powers or budget.
For stakeholders—tribal governments, local jurisdictions, ranchers, conservation NGOs—the bill is best read as a public-policy announcement that could shape priorities, planning, and requests for future resources.Finally, the measure avoids immediate fiscal consequences: the Legislative Counsel’s digest indicates no appropriation and no fiscal committee referral. Practically, the Legislature will need to return with more detailed bills or appropriations to move from intent to an operational program that provides training, conflict mitigation tools, compensation mechanisms, or monitoring systems.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 1135 inserts a new Chapter 8.5 into Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code and creates Section 1810.
Section 1810 contains only a legislative intent statement to 'reestablish and enact a statewide program to manage and promote human and wildlife coexistence.', The bill includes no implementing language: it does not assign duties, create grant or permit programs, appropriate funds, or establish timelines or reporting requirements.
By placing the statement in the Fish and Game Code, the bill signals that the Department of Fish and Wildlife is the likely institutional home for any future program, but it does not alter the department’s statutory authority.
The Legislative Counsel’s digest flags no appropriation or fiscal committee referral, indicating the measure carries no direct funding or immediate fiscal mandate as drafted.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New chapter inserted into Division 2 (Fish and Game Code)
The bill creates a new, numbered chapter within Division 2, the portion of the Fish and Game Code that governs the Department of Fish and Wildlife and wildlife conservation. That placement is meaningful: it embeds the concept of 'coexistence' in the body of law governing wildlife policy, which can shape how future bills and administrative rules are drafted. However, the chapter itself contains no operative provisions—its primary function is statutory placement and signaling.
Legislative intent to 'reestablish and enact' a statewide program
Section 1810 is a single declarative sentence stating the Legislature's intent to reestablish and enact a statewide program to manage and promote human and wildlife coexistence. As an intent clause, it states policy direction but does not, by itself, create enforceable duties, authorize expenditures, or establish program elements such as grants, training, or liability rules. The phrase 'reestablish and enact' implies a prior program or effort, but SB 1135 does not identify any predecessor statute or mechanism to be revived.
No appropriation or fiscal committee referral included
The Legislative Counsel’s digest and bill header show 'Appropriation: NO' and 'Fiscal Committee: NO.' Practically, that signals the bill authors did not include funding or anticipate direct fiscal impacts in this text. For implementers and budget analysts, that means any operational program would require separate appropriation or budget trailer language—SB 1135 does not create budget authority or spending power.
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
- Conservation and animal‑welfare organizations — The bill elevates coexistence as a statewide priority, giving advocates a statutory foothold to press for implementing programs, grants, or rules in future legislation.
- Communities experiencing human–wildlife conflict — The declaration draws attention to local conflicts (e.g., bears, mountain lions, coyotes) and may accelerate future resource allocation or policy responses targeted at mitigation and prevention.
- Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) — Although not expressly authorized or funded, DFW gains a clearer policy directive embedded in the code that can justify planning, interagency coordination, and requests for resources in the next budget cycle.
- Researchers and universities — A statewide policy priority can spur funding proposals, data‑sharing agreements, and coordinated monitoring programs to study coexistence strategies.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies (DFW and partner agencies) — If agencies act on the intent without additional appropriations, they may face unfunded workload increases for planning, outreach, or pilot programs.
- California taxpayers and the state budget — Any future program that implements training, compensation, or mitigation measures will require appropriations; embedding intent raises likelihood of future fiscal commitments.
- Local governments and special districts — Counties and cities that manage public safety, animal control, and land use may be expected to implement coexistence measures or contribute matching resources when the state acts.
- Private landowners and agricultural operators — Although SB 1135 imposes no immediate regulatory requirements, future implementing legislation guided by this intent could impose conditions, best‑management practices, or restrictions that carry compliance costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between signalling a statewide commitment to human–wildlife coexistence and providing no operational authority, funding, or measurable obligations. The bill advances the policy conversation but stops short of giving practitioners the tools or finance to act, forcing a choice between premature, possibly unfunded agency action and waiting for future, more detailed legislation.
SB 1135 is more a policy signal than a legislative solution. Intent language helps set priorities but does not supply the legal tools—statutory duties, rulemaking authority, enrollment criteria, funding mechanisms, or enforcement provisions—needed to build an operational statewide program.
That gap leaves implementers and stakeholders guessing about who must act, what costs will be covered, and how success will be measured.
Implementation raises several thorny questions the bill does not address: Who will lead coordination among state agencies, local governments, and tribes? How will 'coexistence' be defined in operational terms (prevention, compensation, habitat modification, public education)?
Will the program rely on grants, regulatory changes, or incentive payments? Without answers, there is a risk of fragmented local responses, unfunded mandates, or litigation over liability and property rights once more concrete measures are proposed.
Finally, because the bill carries no appropriation, any real program will require separate funding legislation; absent that, the statutory intent may have symbolic value but limited practical effect.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.