SB 765 adds Section 422.6 to the California Government Code to designate the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) as the official state snake. The bill includes legislative findings summarizing the species’ natural history, its loss of historic wetlands in the Central Valley, and its threatened status under state and federal law.
The change is declarative: it names a state symbol, does not appropriate funds, and does not amend the California or federal Endangered Species Acts. The practical significance is mostly symbolic — the designation can be used for education, outreach, and to raise the profile of habitat and species protection efforts, but it creates no direct regulatory obligations or new conservation funding streams.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a single new code section declaring the giant garter snake the official state snake and includes findings describing the species’ biology, habitat, threats, and legal status. It contains no funding provisions and does not change existing environmental law.
Who It Affects
State agencies that produce educational materials or manage state symbols, conservation and environmental organizations, educators and museums, and agricultural and water managers working in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. It may also influence public messaging by agencies and NGOs.
Why It Matters
Although symbolic, the designation elevates a species endemic to California and underscores habitat-loss issues in the Central Valley. For professionals, it matters because symbolic acts often precede or accompany policy attention, public outreach campaigns, and potential shifts in stakeholder expectations about conservation priorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 765 makes a short, explicit change to state law: it adds Section 422.6 to the Government Code to declare the giant garter snake California’s official state snake. The bill is accompanied by a findings clause that explains why the Legislature chose this species and lays out basic biological and conservation facts the Legislature wanted on the record.
The findings list five points: that the giant garter snake is endemic to California and now limited to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys; that it is the largest garter snake with adults documented up to 64 inches; that it historically lived in shallow marshes and now occupies agricultural waterways such as rice-field canals; that habitat loss and degradation (including conversion of wetlands, water diversions, dams, and pesticides) are the principal threats; and that the snake was listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act in 1971 and under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1993. The findings also note continued population concerns and climate-change risks.Practically speaking, the statute is declarative and narrow.
It does not give state agencies new regulatory authorities, it does not appropriate money, and it does not alter any existing permitting or listing regimes at the state or federal level. What changes is legal recognition: agencies, schools, parks, and nonprofits can now cite the giant garter snake as a state symbol in outreach, signage, curriculum, and promotional materials.That symbolic role can matter in policy terms without changing statutes: heightened public visibility can drive philanthropic giving, influence agency priorities, or shape local land-use conversations.
But none of those downstream effects are mandated by the bill; they depend on how public- and private-sector actors respond to the new designation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 765 adds Section 422.6 to the California Government Code declaring Thamnophis gigas (giant garter snake) the official state snake.
The bill’s findings state the species is endemic to California, now confined to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, and historically occupied marshes that have been reduced by more than 90 percent.
The Legislature records that adult giant garter snakes have been documented up to 64 inches in length and that the species uses agricultural irrigation features where suitable marsh habitat remains.
The findings note the species was listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act in 1971 and under the federal Endangered Species Act in 1993; SB 765 does not change those listings.
The statute is symbolic only: the enrolled bill shows no appropriation, and the act became effective upon the Governor’s approval on October 9, 2025.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on biology, habitat, and threats
This section compiles the Legislature’s factual statements about the giant garter snake: where it is found, its size, its aquatic and marsh-associated life history, and the human-driven causes of habitat loss (wetland conversion, water projects, pesticides). The findings also note nonnative predators and vehicle mortality as direct threats and cite the species’ listing history under state and federal endangered species laws. Practically, these findings establish the policy rationale for the symbolic designation and create a public record the Legislature can point to in future communications or policy debates.
Official state snake declared in the Government Code
This single operative provision inserts a line into the Government Code naming the giant garter snake as California’s official state snake. The language is declaratory and prescriptive only in the narrow sense of naming a state symbol. It does not instruct agencies to take regulatory action, nor does it set performance standards or create permitting requirements. The provision is concise and intentionally limited to symbolic recognition.
No appropriation and limited administrative footprint
The enrolled bill and legislative digest record that SB 765 contains no appropriation and raises no fiscal committee concerns. That means the state did not allocate new funds to implement the designation; any administrative costs (updating educational materials, websites, or signage) would be absorbed within existing agency budgets. For agencies and local governments, the statute creates no mandated program or reporting duties, only an optional new label they may adopt in outreach.
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 organizations: The designation gives NGOs a state-level symbol to center outreach, fundraising, and education campaigns focused on the giant garter snake and Central Valley wetlands.
- Environmental educators and museums: Schools, nature centers, and museums gain an authoritative reference point for curriculum and exhibits about California endemics and wetland ecosystems.
- Wetland restoration projects and habitat managers: Elevated public awareness can make it easier to build political and philanthropic support for restoration and irrigation-management practices that benefit the species.
- State wildlife agencies and park systems: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and state parks can leverage the new symbol in interpretive programs, potentially increasing public engagement with species protection initiatives.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies (modest administrative costs): Agencies that choose to update materials, signage, or websites to reflect the new state symbol will face one-time production and design costs absorbed from existing budgets.
- Local governments and educational institutions (optional updates): Schools and local jurisdictions that adopt the symbol in curricula or parks may incur small updating costs; these are discretionary rather than mandated.
- Agricultural and water managers (increased public scrutiny): Farm, water districts, and infrastructure operators in the Central Valley may face increased advocacy pressure and public scrutiny tied to heightened visibility of the species and its habitat needs.
- Taxpayers (indirect): Because the bill declares a symbol but provides no funding, any future conservation actions inspired by the designation could require appropriations or local spending, creating potential fiscal demands down the line.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances symbolic recognition against a lack of material commitment: it elevates a threatened, endemic species to a state-symbol status that can drive attention and political pressure, but it provides no funding or regulatory changes to address the very habitat loss the findings identify — creating heightened expectations without a built-in path to deliver conservation outcomes.
SB 765 creates a clear symbolic outcome but stops short of committing resources or altering legal protections. That gap is the central implementation question: naming a species raises public expectations for conservation, but the statute contains no mechanism to respond to those expectations.
Agencies may face pressure to expand outreach or accelerate habitat projects without statutory authority or dedicated funding, creating potential mismatch between public demand and administrative capacity. Another practical issue is how stakeholders will interpret the findings: the bill collects scientific-sounding facts (for example, the 64-inch maximum length and the “over 90 percent” historic wetland loss), but those claims are not accompanied by citations or required updates as scientific knowledge evolves.
The designation also sits near, but does not overlap, existing legal frameworks for species protection. SB 765 does not change the giant garter snake’s listing status or permitting rules under state or federal endangered species law, but the new visibility could influence future regulatory conversations or litigation by shifting political support or public sentiment.
Finally, because the statute is symbolic, its ultimate impact depends on downstream actors — agencies, NGOs, funders, and local communities — making deliberate choices about outreach, restoration priorities, and resource allocation. That diffusion of responsibility creates opportunities for advocacy but also risks of unfulfilled public expectations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.