As climate change intensifies, nature’s role in building climate resilience is moving from the margins to the center of public policy. In California, home to vibrant ecosystems and mounting climate threats, leaders are working to integrate land stewardship, conservation, and ecological restoration into the state’s broader climate strategy. With federal commitments in flux, California’s bold approach offers a vital template for others to follow.

In this conversation, three changemakers working at the intersection of policy, land, and climate share their perspectives on what it takes to scale nature-based solutions: Clesi Bennett, Senior Environmental Scientist at the California Natural Resources Agency; Torri Estrada, Executive Director of the Carbon Cycle Institute; and Juan Altamirano, Director of Government Affairs at the Trust for Public Land. Together, they explore the progress being made, the roadblocks still ahead, and why putting land first is essential to securing a just, livable future.

This article is excerpted and edited from the transcript of a panel discussion held at the 2025 Bioneers Conference, moderated by Ellie Cohen, CEO of The Climate Center.

---

Ellie Cohen, CEO of The Climate Center: Let’s start with a broad question. What does the new administration in Washington mean for your work? How is it impacting you?

Torri Estrada, Executive Director of the Carbon Cycle Institute: Part of the Carbon Cycle Institute’s theory of change is working through existing agricultural conservation infrastructure, specifically resource conservation districts, or RCDs. These were originally established as federal agencies in the 1930s, but after some pushback, they became local agencies. They’re now local government entities, but they remain closely tied to the USDA and are often even co-located with federal offices.

To put it bluntly, in the past three months, we’ve experienced funding freezes and staff reductions within an already weakened federal agency. And I’ll just say it, because I’m an advocate: the USDA has been privatizing much of this work. Government staffing at the local level has been declining for years, which has forced local partners to pick up the slack. A lot of the work has shifted to cooperative agreements funded by the federal government.

This isn’t just happening in California; it’s happening across the U.S. These cuts are detrimental to our work, and we’ll need to rethink where funding and staffing come from, possibly exploring shared staffing models or new funding streams to fill the gap.

Now, with both the funding freeze and reduced staffing, even for administering grants, many of the core staff who provide day-to-day support to farmers are being impacted. And this isn’t just happening in California; it’s happening across the U.S. These cuts are detrimental to our work, and we’ll need to rethink where funding and staffing come from, possibly exploring shared staffing models or new funding streams to fill the gap.

Unfortunately, I don’t see much of an upside, except that in states where climate leadership is strong, where they’re actually funding agriculture as part of climate work, there’s at least a silver lining. I do some work in New York, where RCDs receive core operational funding. That provides a much-needed baseline for the work to continue. In other states that don’t have that, it’s going to be really challenging.

We’re just beginning to feel the effects, and I do think we’ll find ways to recover, but these kinds of cuts are hard to come back from.

Ellie: Torri, is it true that California is one of only two states in the country that doesn’t provide state funding for resource conservation districts?

Torri: Yes, that’s right. It’s ironic—California is the largest agricultural state in the country, yet some of our water and resource conservation districts receive no state funding. That means they have to rely almost entirely on project-by-project grants. Some do get support from local county tax bases, and there are a few encouraging examples like Marin County, which is now putting a significant amount of local Proposition funding toward agriculture and climate work. So that’s a bright spot.

In contrast, in New York, where I live, I can call my local resource conservation district anytime, and they’ll send someone out. Their lights, buildings, and staffing are all covered by core operational funding. California doesn’t have that, and we’re working to change it.

And I should add that it’s not just about RCDs. While they’re our primary partners, there’s a whole ecosystem of organizations—nonprofits, Conservation Corps, and others—that do this work on the ground. Still, RCDs and water conservation districts are a critical part of the infrastructure we need to invest in.

Ellie: Juan, how is the new administration affecting your work at the Trust for Public Land, especially given your focus on urban areas?

Juan Altamirano, Director of Government Affairs at the Trust for Public Land: The biggest challenge we’re facing is the strain on state and local budgets. The federal government plays a major role in funding social services, and as that funding diminishes, local and state budgets feel the impact. Unfortunately, environmental services such as open space and green space aren’t typically seen as constitutionally protected core services. So when budgets shrink, those areas often take the hit.

That means less money is going toward maintaining parks and open spaces, just as demand for them is likely to grow. It’s not just local residents who rely on these places. When national parks are forced to close or cut back due to federal budget issues, we see an influx of visitors to state and local parks. But if those areas don’t have the funding to keep up with basic maintenance and services, the whole system starts to break down. It’s a really damaging trickle-down effect.

We’re also seeing this play out in land conservation work. Land acquisition is complex, and many of the people who’ve been doing this work for decades are starting to leave the field. When that expertise disappears, it’s a serious loss; these deals are difficult to navigate, and losing institutional knowledge makes it even harder to move conservation projects forward.

Ellie: Clesi, as someone working inside state government, you’re in a unique position to see how California is navigating this moment, from political shifts to implementation on the ground. What’s your perspective on how these changes are affecting your agency’s work and the broader climate landscape?

Clesi Bennett, Senior Environmental Scientist at the California Natural Resources Agency: I really appreciate everything Torri and Juan shared. I’ll add that there’s still a lot of uncertainty. We’re trying to fully understand how staff reductions and budget cuts will affect our programs.

That said, California remains firmly committed to achieving our climate goals, even as the federal administration begins the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and other national climate commitments. We’re staying the course on the targets we’ve set.

California voters passed a $10 billion climate bond last fall. That means we now have the privilege, and the responsibility, of putting those funds to work on real, on-the-ground projects across the state.

And I have to say, I’m feeling fortunate right now. As Juan mentioned, California voters passed a $10 billion climate bond last fall. That means we now have the privilege, and the responsibility, of putting those funds to work on real, on-the-ground projects across the state. So despite the challenges, there’s a lot of hope in this moment.

Ellie: Let’s talk about scaling up nature-based solutions. We know climate change is accelerating; 2024 was the first full calendar year with global average temperatures 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. California, as a major food producer, faces enormous challenges around water, land use, and resilience. How do we scale solutions quickly and effectively in this context? Juan, let’s start with you.

Juan: One thing that gives me hope is what we’re seeing at the ballot box. In November, there were 23 conservation-related ballot initiatives across the country, including here in California, and all 23 passed. That includes several in deeply conservative areas where the Republican presidential candidate won the majority of votes.

People are still willing to invest in their communities. They may not always identify their support as “climate” work, but with the right messaging, they’re voting for land, water, and wildfire resilience.

People are still willing to invest in their communities. They may not always identify their support as “climate” work, but with the right messaging, they’re voting for land, water, and wildfire resilience. One interesting trend is that wildfire has now overtaken clean water as the top environmental concern in public opinion. That’s a major shift from just ten years ago and reflects the growing urgency people feel.

At the Trust for Public Land, we really value ballot measures because they result in tangible outcomes: parks and green spaces people can see and use. While large-scale conservation is important, we can’t neglect urban areas. If people in cities don’t see or feel the benefits, they’re less likely to support broader conservation efforts. Reaching the urban core is essential to building public will and voter support.

Ellie: Torri, could you talk about how you’re working to scale nature-based solutions on agricultural lands in California and beyond?

Torri: Working in agriculture, I try to stay practical about how scale actually happens. We’re involved in state funding and bond measures, but at the end of the day, success depends on reaching individual farmers and land managers and getting them to act.

There’s already a strong groundswell of engagement, but the missing piece is democratizing the climate process. At the county level, we’ve done detailed mapping to assess the climate potential of working lands, then brought that data back to farmers to help them visualize what’s possible. For example, we might identify every denuded stream in a county and propose reforesting it. But then we have to ask: What does that mean for your stretch of land?

The key is empowering farmers to define what will work for their operation, family, and region.

The key is empowering farmers to define what will work for their operation, family, and region. That kind of work is already underway in many counties—from the Bay Area to San Diego—and when farmers are engaged early, they do show up and participate.

We also need to ask not just what we want farmers to do, but what they need in order to do it. For many, it’s access to equipment and financing. We recently helped pass an equipment-sharing program—something simple, but it removes a real barrier. Once a farmer can try a new practice and see its benefits, they’re more likely to innovate further.

Technical assistance is another major need, especially for small and medium-sized farms and farmers of color. If you’re a building owner installing solar, you don’t figure it all out alone; you get an energy audit. Farmers deserve that same level of support. Right now, California lacks robust infrastructure for providing farm-scale baseline information, financing analysis, and implementation support. But that infrastructure is beginning to grow.

A lot of funding is out there, it just hasn’t been organized around climate. We need smarter, countywide business planning that brings farmers together around shared practices and helps attract both public and private investment. I’m hopeful the USDA will continue to offer low-interest loans for on-farm improvements, many of which support climate outcomes. California’s opportunity is to get those projects aggregated and ready.

Not every farmer will join in. But enough will. Our job now is to invest in planning and pre-planning so we’re ready to meet this moment.

Ellie: Can you describe the RCD hub concept? That seems like a key part of scaling.

Torri: California has strong RCDs in about 60 counties. We’ve now organized them into seven regional hubs across the state. These hubs are designed to provide farmers with reliable, on-the-ground support: pre-planning, permitting, and project implementation. The idea is that when a farmer picks up the phone, someone’s there to help.

Just as importantly, these hubs give us a way to test and pilot different approaches. California is incredibly diverse, with over 160 agricultural products across a wide range of ecological and economic conditions. Cookie-cutter programs won’t work here. The hubs help us figure out what does work, share lessons learned, and adapt programs accordingly.

They also offer a feedback loop to the state: what’s effective, what’s not, and how programs can evolve. That kind of adaptive management is critical. We need to stay nimble, and we need the state to listen.

I’m also hopeful the hubs can help bridge political divides. Sometimes people assume farmers in more conservative areas won’t engage in climate solutions. But if they see the benefits—economic, ecological, practical—I think we’ll bring more people into the fold.

Ellie: Clesi, can you talk about what the state is doing to scale up nature-based solutions at a pace that matches the urgency of the climate crisis?

Clesi: A lot is happening across different fronts: funding and financing, policy development, capacity building, technical assistance, and improving science and data. We’re approaching this work from many angles, but I want to highlight three overarching strategies.

We need to stop thinking of nature and green spaces as “nice to have” and start recognizing them as essential infrastructure.

First is a mindset shift. We need to stop thinking of nature and green spaces as “nice to have” and start recognizing them as essential infrastructure. Just like sidewalks, curbs, and drainage systems have baseline public funding, urban trees and green spaces should too. They provide real, measurable benefits and need to be treated as core infrastructure in our communities.

Second is what we call a “big tent” approach. We’re working to integrate nature-based solutions across all sectors—not just natural resources, but education, transportation, energy, housing, public health, and more. Agencies and sectors that haven’t traditionally been part of the climate and conservation conversation are now coming to the table. For example, we’re working with the Department of Education on green schoolyards and with transportation and housing agencies on climate resilience. It’s about creating broad collaboration across government and beyond.

The third piece is workforce development. We’re going to need a much larger workforce to implement this work at scale—planners, designers, field crews, technical assistance providers. That means investing in programs that build the restoration and climate resilience workforce of the future. We’re supporting youth programs, local corps, and community college training to help build that pipeline now.