Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forestry Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Humboldt supervisors back bill to modernize state demonstration forests with research caveat
Summary
After hours of public comment and debate, the board voted 3–2 to send a letter supporting the overarching principles of AB 24 94 while requesting changes to ensure ongoing forestry research is not impaired and attaching the county forester’s suggested amendments.
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 to express conditional support for Assembly Bill 24 94, a proposal to modernize how California’s demonstration state forests are managed, while asking that amendments preserve ongoing research.
Assembly staff described AB 24 94 as an effort to update statutory priorities for the demonstration forest system — elevating wildfire resiliency, tribal co‑management, and biodiversity alongside research. Scott Alonzo, district director for the bill’s author, said funding language remained under discussion in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and that staff were open to amendments to protect research and funding.
The board considered competing evidence: university researchers, registered professional foresters and industry representatives warned that the bill’s current language could restrict the diversity of research experiments on demonstration forests and unsettle local timber‑related economies; environmental groups, tribes and EPIC urged modernization to better support resilience and co‑management.
Supervisor Arroyo proposed revised language to the county’s draft letter: instead of an unconditional request to back the bill, the county would "support the overarching principles of AB 24 94 and request that modifications to the language focus on supporting and not interfering with important ongoing forestry research," and attach the county forester’s recommended amendments. The substitute motion carried 3–2 (Arroyo, Madrone and Chair Wilson in favor; Supervisors Bone/Bohm and Bushnell opposed).
County Forester Jana Balakovic had submitted suggested edits in writing and asked for careful local technical review; supporters and opponents urged the board to consult the county’s Forestry Review Committee and academic researchers before finalizing language.
What’s next: County staff will transmit the amended letter and county forester comments to the Assembly Appropriations Committee; Supervisors said the county could withdraw support later if amendments did not preserve research or funding safeguards.
