BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1929
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1929 (Hall) - As Introduced: February 17, 2010
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill provides protections for an operator of a water
delivery system and storage facility that has prepared and
implemented a plan to control and eradicate dreissenid mussels.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that an operator of a water delivery and storage
facility who has prepared and implemented a plan, approved by
the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) or its designee, to
control and eradicate dreissenid mussels in accordance with
existing law is immune from civil or criminal liability for
introduction of mussels as a result of operation of those
facilities.
2)Requires the plan to specify that an operator will allow DFG
to inspect the water delivery system and/or storage facility.
3)Provides that neither DFG nor any other state agency
exercising authority under this law shall be liable with
regard to any determination or authorization made pursuant to
this law.
4)Sunsets the provisions of this bill as of January 1, 2012.
FISCAL EFFECT
Absorbable ongoing costs to DFG to the extent this bill results
in increased DFG inspection of water delivery systems and
storage operations. (FGPF)
AB 1929
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. According to the Association of California Water
Agencies (ACWA), the sponsor of this bill, eradication of
mussels is unlikely. A water system operator who implements a
scientifically sound plan to prevent the spread of quagga
mussels may, nonetheless, spread mussels through water
deliveries, thereby exposing the water system operator and its
employees to criminal and civil penalties. The author and the
sponsor contend that such treatment of law-abiding individuals
is unfair and unwarranted.
2)Background. Dreissenid mussels, which include quagga and
zebra mussels, are highly invasive species that were first
discovered in the United States in the Great Lakes region in
1988, where they have caused billions of dollars in damage
control costs to public agencies and private industry. These
mussels spread by clinging to the outer surfaces of boats and
other aquatic equipment or by drifting to downstream water
bodies as microscopic mussel larva.
Since these invasive species reproduce rapidly and in large
numbers, they can severely hinder water delivery systems by
clogging pipes, pumps and other water intake structures. They
are also harmful to aquatic ecosystems by consuming plankton
and other nutrients that form the primary base of the food
chain. As a result, these invasive species threaten
California's irrigation network and the canal system that
transports drinking water for millions of Southern California
residents. In addition to the state's natural ecosystems and
water conveyance systems, a mussel invasion threatens other
valuable state resources, including commercial and sport
fisheries.
3)Related Legislation.
a) AB 804 (Hall) was nearly identical to this bill. AB 804
passed both houses of the Legislature without a single
floor "no" vote. The bill was subsequently vetoed by the
governor, however, who expressed concerns that "the effect
of this bill would be to relieve water operators from
having to continue to act responsibly once they initially
have an approved response plan in place, thereby shifting
liability to the state for any ensuing damage." This bill
seeks to address the governor's concerns by providing
AB 1929
Page 3
immunity from liability to any state agency exercising
authority under the bill's provisions.
b) AB 1683 (Wolk, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2007) authorized
DFG to conduct inspections and to order quarantines,
closures and decontaminations to control dreissenid
mussels. The bill also required water supply system
operators to cooperate with DFG to implement measures to
avoid, control or eradicate infestations, and required
water system operators to prepare and implement a control
plan if mussels were detected.
c) AB 2065 (Hancock, Chapter 667, Statutes of 2008)
requires any person, or federal, state or local agency,
district or authority that owns or manages a reservoir
where recreational, boating or fishing activities are
permitted to assess the vulnerability of the reservoir to
nonnative mussels and develop and implement a program
designed to prevent the introduction of nonnative mussels.
Violation of this section is subject only to an
administrative civil penalty of $1000.
4)Supporters , including ACWA and several other water and utility
agencies, argue that water system operators and their
employees who observe all legal requirements to control and
eradicate quagga muscles should not be liable for continued
spread of those mussels that may nonetheless occur.
5)There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081