2026-27 Governor's Budget Breakdown
The following summaries highlight key programmatic investments and policy directions in the governor’s 2026-27 budget that are most relevant to California agriculture. Across water, wildfire, climate, nutrition and pesticide regulation, the budget reflects a continued shift toward bond funds, special funds and federally driven programs, with varying implications for long-term program stability and agricultural stakeholders. These sections focus on where funding levels, funding sources and policy emphasis may affect farmers, ranchers and rural communities.
Forestry and Wildfire
Staff Contact: Peter Ansel, pansel@cfbf.com
The 2026-27 governor’s budget reflects a partial rebound in wildfire funding following a sharp reduction in 2025-26, driven largely by the timing of emergency suppression costs and bond-funded wildfire resilience investments. While total Cal Fire funding increases year over year, the budget continues a shift away from one-time general fund wildfire expenditures toward Climate Bond (Proposition 4), Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, or GGRF, and special fund support.
Operational wildfire response capacity grows modestly, while local assistance and forest health grants decline, signaling a transition from peak emergency and mitigation spending toward sustained baseline operations. Cal Fire grows overall, but with a notable contraction in grants and local assistance, offset by higher operational and staffing costs.
Fire Suppression - Drivers of Increase:
- Emergency fire suppression rises sharply from $265 million to $496 million (plus $231 million), reflecting anticipated wildfire severity and suppression demand.
- Fire control grows from $1.91 billion to $2.12 billion, supported largely by GGRF and Climate Bond funding.
- Continued expansion of cooperative fire protection contracts with counties.
General Fund Comparison:
- Fire protection general fund support increases from $1.81 billion to $2.08 billion but remains well below 2024-25 peak levels, underscoring reliance on non-general fund sources.
While state operations increase modestly, grant funding declines, especially programs funded through the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air fund.
This represents one of the largest year-over-year reductions in wildfire-related spending:
- Significant declines in forest health grants, fuels reduction and landscape resilience programs.
- Reduced reliance on one-time wildfire and climate resilience funds.
- GGRF support remains substantial but tapers compared to prior years.
Climate Bond (Proposition 4) Wildfire Investments
The 2026-27 budget incorporates new Climate Bond allocations, funding:
- Local fire prevention grants.
- Forest health and fuels reduction.
- Urban forestry.
- Fire ignition detection technology.
- Fire training centers.
- Utility wildfire risk reduction.
These investments are largely reflected in other fund increases rather than general fund growth, reinforcing the administration’s strategy of bond-financed wildfire resilience rather than ongoing general fund commitments.
Board of Forestry Positions
- Funding remains stable and modest, with no major expansion of regulatory or policy capacity.
- Board activities continue to be supported primarily by timber regulation and forest restoration fund and GGRF.
- No material new wildfire policy initiatives are funded through the board in 2026-27.
Key Policy Implications
- Suppression over mitigation: The budget prioritizes fire suppression readiness over expanded prevention and forest health investments.
- Shift away from local grants: Counties, landowners and NGOs face reduced wildfire resilience funding, particularly for fuels treatment and forest health projects.
- Bond-driven strategy: Wildfire prevention increasingly depends on voter-approved bond funding, raising long-term sustainability and delivery concerns.
- Regulatory capacity flat: Despite growing wildfire risk, Board of Forestry resources remain unchanged, potentially constraining policy modernization.
Investments in Water Resources and Infrastructure
Staff Contact: Alex Biering, abiering@cfbf.com
As with other budget issue areas, water-related investments in the governor’s budget for 2026-27 have increased relative to the 2025-26 budget due to available funding from the Safe Drinking Water, Drought, Flood and Water Resilience (Proposition 4) bond passed by California voters in 2024. Proposed expenditures from Proposition 4 include:
- $232 million for flood control projects in the Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These investments in levees, weirs and other flood management structures or projects are largely focused on the State Plan of Flood Control, which is the official name for the flood control system along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers that was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is operated and managed by the California Department of Water Resources and local levee districts. Additionally, some of this funding can be used for flood projects in the delta.
- $173 million for clean drinking water projects and wastewater treatment projects. This includes funding for interconnecting small water systems and fixing private wells at risk of failure in rural areas.
- $68.8 million for fixing canals and other water conveyance infrastructure. For example, this funding could be used to repair portions of the California Aqueduct, Delta-Mendota Canal and Friant-Kern Canal that have been damaged by subsidence, reducing their ability to deliver water to agricultural water districts and irrigation districts.
The budget proposes additional investments from the general fund to support water management and water quality, including:
- $9.5 million for the California Department of Water Resources’ snow measurement activities, 24-hour river forecasting and runoff forecasting. These investments will inform state and federal water allocations and support “forecast-informed reservoir operations” that help water managers reduce unnecessary releases of stored water, for example, in advance of a flood or atmospheric river.
- $2.6 million and 12 new positions for the State Water Resources Control Board for water quality permitting. This increase in funding is in anticipation of potential reductions in federal water quality/wetlands protection following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency and recently revised federal definitions of “waters of the United States.”
Since 2020, the Safe & Affordable Drinking Water Program, or SAFER, has been funded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, or GGRF, to the tune of more than $200 million. SAFER funds projects to address water supply and water quality problems, including nitrate-contaminated groundwater supplies, typically for rural or disadvantaged communities and often in agricultural communities. The budget proposes spending $92 million from the GGRF on SAFER for 2026-27. This is a reduction from the $130 million in GGRF funds that was expected to support SAFER this year.
Climate Change Program
Staff Contact: Richard Filgas, rfilgas@cfbf.com
The Climate Change Program works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as follows:
- Enforcing laws and developing, implementing and enforcing regulations to achieve the required greenhouse gas emission reductions and other requirements of Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 1279.
- Developing, implementing and overseeing programs to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions, including grant, loan and other incentive programs.
Last year, the state allocated $17.77 million from the general fund and $25 million from the greenhouse gas reduction fund for local assistance.
For 2026, the state zeroed out general fund dollars for the Climate Change Program and instead will allocate $85 million from the air pollution control fund and $115 million from the greenhouse gas reduction fund for local assistance.
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Staff Contact: Isabella Quinonez, iquinonez@cfbf.com
In 2026 and 2027 the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s budget priorities will continue to be the implementation of sustainable pest management initiatives, expanding data transparency and notification tools on their website and advancing several regulatory actions. The 2026-27 budget is the first full year operating under the updated mill assessment, making it important to monitor:
- How new funding capacity is being used, whether resources are directed toward core regulatory functions versus policy expansion, the absence of legislative or fiscal oversight as programs mature.
The governor’s budget treats DPR funding as stable and ongoing with no new general fund augmentations proposed. Core funding relies primarily on special funds generated through the mill assessment. The administration frames the mill assessment update as providing long-term, reliable funding and reducing annual budget uncertainty for DPR operations.
Modest ongoing augmentations are proposed for specific initiatives:
- $809,000 ongoing (special funds) for continued operation, maintenance and outreach of Spray Days, the restricted material pesticide notification system.
- $394,000 ongoing (special funds) and two positions to expand fumigant exposure evaluation, mitigation and regulatory activities. This isnot a usual line in the budget. California Farm Bureau is looking into what to anticipate from this priority.
These investments are characterized as extensions of existing programs.
Nutrition Programs and Food-Related Spending
Staff Contact: Isabella Quinonez, iquinonez@cfbf.com
While nutrition programs are not traditionally relevant to California Farm Bureau, there is an increasing legislative and public focus on nutrition policy, food quality and the role of agriculture in supporting healthy diets. Recent policy discussions—driven in part by the national Make America Healthy Again movement and state-level proposals such as legislation addressing ultra-processed foods—have elevated scrutiny of how public funds are used to support nutrition outcomes.
School Nutrition Programs (K–12)
The governor’s budget maintains universal school meals but proposes an ongoing reduction of approximately $67.9 million (Proposition 98 general fund). The reduction is attributed to: changes in participation estimates and higher per-meal reimbursement rates. The administration characterizes this as a technical adjustment, not a policy rollback.
- $100 million one-time Proposition 98 funding for kitchen infrastructure, equipment, training to support freshly prepared meals using locally grown ingredients.
CalFresh and Other Nutrition Assistance Programs
The budget includes:
- $3.2 billion total for CalFresh and nutrition programs.
- $1.6 billion general fund.
- $12.8 billion in federally funded food benefits.
State costs are set to increase significantly in 2026-27 due to federal policy changes under H.R. 1 and the reduction in the federal share of administrative costs. As a result, the budget includes $382.9 million for the general fund to cover higher state and county cost shares.
.svg.png?cacheid=0.9616018850896426)
