BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1886 HEARING DATE: June 12, 2012
AUTHOR: Chesbro URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 11, 2012 CONSULTANT: Alena Pribyl
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Aquaculture.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
"Aquaculture" is defined as a form of agriculture devoted to the
propagation, cultivation, maintenance, and harvesting of aquatic
plants and animals in marine, brackish, and fresh water.
"Aquaculture" does not include species of ornamental marine or
freshwater plants and animals not utilized for human consumption
or bait purposes that are maintained in closed systems for
personal, pet industry, or hobby purposes (FGC §17).
Existing Law
Commencing with FGC §15100:
1) Requires that aquaculture facilities owners register their
operations annually with the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and provide their name, the
species grown, and the location of each operation.
2) Authorizes DFG to review the registration information to
ensure the aquaculture operation will not be detrimental to
native wildlife, and requires DFG to impose fees for the costs
of reviewing registrations. The base registration fees
(established in 2003) are as follows:
a) New registration: $549
b) Renewal of registration: $275
The registration fees are adjusted annually for inflation by the
Implicit Price Deflator for state and local government purchases
of goods and services, as published by the U.S. Dept of
Commerce.
3) Authorizes DFG to prohibit an aquaculture operation at any
location where it is determined it would be detrimental to
native wildlife.
1
4) Requires the owner of an aquaculture facility to pay a
surcharge base fee of $412 if the sale of aquaculture products
grossed over $25,000 during the previous year. The surcharge fee
is adjusted annually for inflation as described above.
5) Requires DFG to impose a penalty fee if a person engages in
the aquaculture business without having paid the registration
fee or surcharge fee within one calendar month of the start of
business, or the date of renewal. The penalty base fee is $50
and is adjusted annually for inflation as described above.
6) Establishes the position at DFG of "aquaculture coordinator"
whose job is to promote the understanding of aquaculture among
public agencies and the general public, propose methods of
reducing the negative impact of public regulation on the
aquaculture industry, provide information on regulatory
compliance to various sectors of the aquaculture industry, and
provide advice to aquaculturists on project siting and facility
design to meet regulatory requirements.
FGC §15004.
1) Commencing in 1992, the department shall, at least once every
five years, analyze the fees and taxes authorized by this
division to ensure that the amount of the appropriate fee or tax
is sufficient to fully fund the aquaculture program.
2) The department shall, as appropriate, recommend fee or tax
changes to the Legislature or the commission.
Aquaculture Development Committee (FGC §15700)
In 1995, AB 1636 (Cortese) combined the Interagency Committee
for Aquaculture Development and the Aquaculture Industry
Advisory Committee into a single committee, the Aquaculture
Development Committee. The purpose of the committee is to
advise the director of DFG on all matters pertaining to
aquaculture, coordinate activities among public entities, and
assist the director of DFG in the following:
1) Developing and implementing a state aquaculture plan
2) Identify opportunities for regulatory relief
3) Development of research priorities
4) Development of criteria to assure that publicly financed
pilot programs are compatible with industry needs
5) Identify other opportunities for industrial development
The committee is made up of at least 12 members representing all
sectors of the fresh and saltwater aquaculture industry. One
2
member represents DFG, two members are chosen by the University
of California, and one member is chosen by each of the following
agencies: Dept of Food and Ag, Coastal Commission, State Lands
Commission, State Water Resources Control Board, Dept of Health
Services, and the Joint Legislative Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture. The committee meets at the call of the director,
but not less than twice a year.
Aquaculture coordinator
The aquaculture coordinator acts as a liaison between industry
and DFG. The aquaculture coordinator position has been vacant
for the last year. Since then, the duties of the aquaculture
coordinator have been spread among existing staff. A search for
a new aquaculture coordinator is currently underway.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill increases aquaculture base fees for a period of 5
years, expands the duties of the aquaculture coordinator
position within the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), and adds
reporting requirements. Specifically, this bill:
1)Expands the duties of the aquaculture coordinator within DFG
to include coordinating with the Aquaculture Development
Committee.
2)Increases the registration, renewal, surcharge and penalty
base fees for aquaculture facilities, effective 2013, as
follows:
a) Increases the base registration fee from $549
(currently $736 after inflation adjustment) to $800;
b) Increases the base registration renewal fee from
$250 (currently $372.25 after inflation adjustment) to
$500;
c) Increases the base registration surcharge for
facilities with gross annual sales of over $25,000 from
$412 (currently $554.25 after inflation adjustment) to
$600;
d) Increases the base penalty for engaging in
aquaculture without paying registration fees from $50
(currently $67.47 after inflation adjustment) to $150.
3)Sunsets all fee, surcharge and penalty base increases on
January 1, 2018, at which point the fees will revert back to
the existing base fees.
4)Requires that revenues received from the payment of
aquaculture registration fees and surcharges be used only for
3
costs incurred in the administration and enforcement of the
aquaculture program.
5)Requires DFG to provide an accounting of the aquaculture
program account balance and expenditures upon request of the
Aquaculture Development Committee or the Joint Committee on
Fisheries and Aquaculture, and requires DFG to provide a
report to the Legislature by February 1, 2017, regarding the
aquaculture program.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
This bill is sponsored by the California Aquaculture Association
(CAA). According to the CAA, they requested these legislative
changes to address their increasing need for service from DFG.
CAA believes this bill will improve DFG efficiency to address
industry needs, create jobs and resolve issues with DFG that
affect their livelihood, including but not limited to: the
programmatic environmental impact report for coastal marine
aquaculture, state land leases for aquaculture, private stocking
permits, the Aquaculture Development Committee, and the typical
aquaculture issues that arise. The aquaculture industry desires
a self-imposed fee increase to offset DFG cost for services of
the aquaculture program and to ensure the funds are efficiently
spent and accounted for. Additionally, there is a need for
adequate program reporting, that currently does not exist, to
aid legislative oversight of the aquaculture program.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
Fee increase
The Assembly Committee on Appropriations estimates the increase
in fees would result in an annual revenue increase of
approximately $25,000. While DFG views the increased revenue as
beneficial, it concludes the amount will still be insufficient
to provide adequate funding for the aquaculture program. Until a
new aquaculture coordinator is hired however, DFG is unclear on
how much they would need to fully fund the aquaculture program.
Related legislation
AB 2402 (Huffman): Among other things, this bill would require
the Fish and Game Commission (FGC), instead of the Legislature,
to adjust the amount of the fees for lifetime hunting licenses,
guide licenses, abalone report cards, kelp harvester licenses,
and marine aquaria collector's permits, as necessary, to fully
recover, but not exceed, all reasonable administrative and
4
implementation costs of DFG and the FGC relating to those
licenses or permits. The bill would also require DFG to adjust
the amount of the fees for scientific collecting permits as
necessary, to fully recover, but not exceed, all reasonable
administrative and implementation costs of DFG and the FGC
relating to those permits.
Fish for thought
The committee considers the proposed fee increase by the
aquaculture industry as intended to raise money that will be
contributed for the aquaculture coordinator position, who when
once hired, should be able to work with the aquaculture industry
and identify needs for services from DFG. This contribution to
the aquaculture coordinator leaves open the question of whether
other existing aquaculture-related regulatory permit fees are or
are not adequate.
In other contexts, the Legislature is considering shifting
various hunting and fishing permit fees from statute to either
DFG or FGC. These shifts are part of the DFG strategic planning
process that has resulted in several recommendations that are
under consideration.
The Committee is not recommending a shift of fees from the
statute to either DFG or FGC at this time mainly because the
increase in registration fees is intended to help with the costs
associated with an aquaculture coordinator, and therefore it
could reasonably be concluded that these registration fees are
not regulatory in the usual sense of that term, even though they
are a precondition to engaging in aquaculture.
It is also an open question whether this increase satisfies the
existing requirement of section 15003 which requires aquaculture
fees to be set at amounts necessary to defray the costs of the
commission and the department. An equivalent and parallel
outcome is what the Legislature is considering in the context of
the other hunting and fishing programs in California mentioned
above.
It should be noted that existing law already requires DFG to
review their fee structure for the aquaculture program at least
once every 5 years to ensure that the amount is sufficient to
fund the aquaculture program. It is the staff's view that this
is a 5 year proposal, at which time it should be determined if
the fees paid are adequate to fund the aquaculture program. Even
before that deadline, the industry and DFG should consider
offering recommendations to these statutes that reflect
5
agreements between the department and the industry.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Page 6, line 18: Change "Notwithstanding Section 13004?" to
"Notwithstanding Section 13220?"
SUPPORT
California Aquaculture Association
Coast Seafoods Company
OPPOSITION
None Received
6