BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 2443 HEARING DATE: June 26, 2012
AUTHOR: Williams URGENCY: No
VERSION: June 19, 2012 CONSULTANT: Alena Pribyl
DUAL REFERRAL: Transportation and HousingFISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Vessels: registration fee: Quagga and Zebra Mussel
Infestation Prevention Program.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Dreissenid mussels
Two species of dreissenid mussels currently exist in California
and the U.S., the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha and the
quagga mussel, Dreissena rostriformis bugensis. The zebra and
quagga mussels are native to Eastern Europe and Western Asia and
were first discovered in the Great Lakes in the late 1980s. They
were likely introduced from the release of ballast water of
transoceanic ships. Since their first introduction, both species
have spread to lakes and rivers in 27 states and have caused
billions of dollars in damage.
Dreissenid mussels pose a threat because once established in
freshwater, they can latch onto pipes, valves, screens,
irrigation canals, and gates in quantities that can severely
impede the movement of water and operation of critical water
management infrastructure. Ecological balance of a water body
can also be impacted because the mussels feed by filtering large
quantities of microscopic plants (phytoplankton) and animals
(zooplankton) from the water. These phytoplankton and
zooplankton form the base of aquatic food webs, and removing
their availability will eliminate food for other species and
disrupt the entire food web. This would impact fish populations.
Zebra and quagga mussels are prolific breeders, can spread
rapidly, and can adapt to a wide variety of aquatic
environments. The mussels can move downstream with the flow of
water, and attach to any hard object. Transport by people is the
primary method the mussels are spread to unconnected waters;
mussels can attach to recreational equipment such as boats and
1
can survive for a week or longer out of water. Currently
dreissenid mussels have been identified in 25 bodies of
freshwater in California, primarily in Southern California. It
is suspected the mussels were brought to the western U.S. on the
hull of a recreational boat. According to the Department of
Fish and Game, eradication of dreissenid mussels is possible if
they are in low density, but it is very expensive. Eradication
of an established population of mussels is not currently
possible and controlling an established population is also very
expensive. The Metropolitan Water District has spent $30 million
in the last 5 years on staffing costs to wash and scrape mussels
from pipes and water grates. Preventing the further spread of
dreissenid mussels in California is much more cost effective
than controlling an established population.
Existing law
Commencing with FGC§ 2301:
1) A person is not allowed to possess, import, ship,
transport, place, plant, or cause to be placed or planted,
dreissenid mussels in any water within the state.
2) Authorizes DFG to conduct inspections, temporarily stop
conveyances that may carry or contain adult or larval
dreissenid mussels on any roadway or waterway, order
conveyances to be decontaminated, and impound or quarantine
conveyances.
3) Authorizes DFG to conduct inspections of state waters
and facilities located within state waters that may contain
dreissenid mussels. If mussels are detected, authorizes DFG
with the concurrence of the Secretary of Natural Resources,
to close or restrict access to the waters, areas, or
facilities.
4) Requires DFG to develop procedures for notifying
affected local, state, and federal agencies and requires
DFG to consult with the entity in charge of the affected
area.
5) Requires water supply system operators to cooperate with
DFG to implement measures to prevent introduction of
dreissenid mussel, and to develop and implement a plan to
2
control and eradicate the mussels if they are detected.
6) Grants immunity to water delivery and storage facilities
from criminal and civil liability for mussel infestations
if they have developed, implemented, and kept up to date a
plan approved by DFG for the control and eradication of
mussels.
7) Any entity that discovers dreissenid mussels within the
state shall immediately report the discovery to DFG.
8) Sunsets the provisions in #1 - #7 on January 1, 2017.
9) Requires water reservoir operators where recreational
activities are allowed, to assess vulnerability of the
reservoir for the introduction of dreissenid mussels and
develop and implement a program to prevent introduction of
dreissenid mussels. If the reservoir does not allow
recreational activities, the operator shall include visual
monitoring for mussels as part of its routine field
activities.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill will increase vessel registration fees by no more than
$10 per year to provide funding for a statewide grant program to
prevent infestation by dreissenid mussels. Specifically this
bill:
1) Adds legislative findings and declarations regarding the
threat of nonnative, invasive quagga and zebra mussels to
California's water supply, flood control, power generation,
and aquatic resource infrastructure. Makes statements about
the financial burden mussel infestations pose on local
governments and economies and the current threats to water
management in California from the invasive mussels.
2) Adds the "quagga and zebra mussel infestation prevention
fee" to vessel registration fees in the amount of no more than
$10/year (because vessel registration fees are for two years,
this may amount to $20). The fee will not apply to vessels
used exclusively in marine waters.
3) Requires the Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) to
establish and consult with a technical advisory group
appointed by the director to determine the amount of the fee.
The advisory group will consist of interested persons
including recreational boating and reservoir operation
3
representatives.
4) Requires all revenue from the fees be placed in the Harbors
and Watercraft Revolving Fund (HWRF).
5) Requires DBW to adopt emergency regulations for the
collection and use of the quagga and zebra mussel infestation
prevention fee. The regulations are to include rules for
administering grants awarded to local governments from the
fees.
6) Revenue placed in the HWRF from the quagga and zebra mussel
fee will be appropriated as follows:
Not more than 3% of total revenues to the Department of
Motor Vehicles (DMV) for
reasonable costs associated with collection and
administration of the fee.
Not more than 3% of total revenues to DBW for reasonable
costs associated with
determining the fee, adopting emergency regulations,
and administering grants.
Not more than 15% of remaining revenues to the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
Not less than 85% of the remaining revenues will be made
available for grants to
entities required to evaluate, develop and implement
programs to stop the spread of
dreissenid mussels (#9 above under existing law).
7) Requires DBW to give priority for grant funding to prevention
plans that are consistent with current code and DFG's Invasive
Mussels Guidebook for Recreational Water Managers and Users or
the Natural Resource Agency's Aquatic Invasive Species
Management Plan or subsequently adopted management plans. Also
requires DBW to take into consideration the benefits of
regional-scale dreissenid mussel prevention plans and the
unique economic, ecological, and recreational impacts to rural
and urban reservoirs from mussel infestation.
8) Requires an entity receiving grant funding to report data to
DBW regarding mussel prevention and inspection programs
implemented with the funding
9) Specifies that this bill does not preempt a special district,
city, county, or joint powers authority from adopting local
regulations for the prevention and eradication of invasive
species.
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, a severe lack of funding for the
implementation of prevention efforts against the spread of
quagga and zebra mussels threatens local water supply, flood
control, and aquatic recreation facilities across the state.
This bill would help offset local government and state agency
costs by establishing a new source of revenue to help protect
California's vulnerable waters from quagga and zebra mussel
infestation.
Supporters emphasize the need for continued monitoring and
inspection to prevent the spread of zebra and quagga mussels.
The lack of a statewide revenue source has impeded the ability
of California to develop a comprehensive approach to protecting
water bodies and hydropower facilities from the mussels.
Supporters also state that current funding is sporadic and
subject to cancellation as agencies undergo budget cuts. This
bill is a practical, cost-reasonable solution that can help
protect California's lakes and rivers.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Opponents state that boaters already pay their "fair share"
through boater gas tax dollars, vessel registration fees, and
interest paid on loans for boating infrastructure. They say that
other sources of revenue should be sought. They also believe
boater-funded grants should not go to local governments for the
purpose of preventing the spread of dreissenid mussels and that
local resources should be expended instead. Opponents also
state that a new, comprehensive statewide approach should not be
undertaken without an examination of the effectiveness of the
current programs and fees should not be imposed on boaters
throughout the state regardless of whether they boat in affected
areas.
COMMENTS
Current status of monitoring/inspection programs
State and federal agencies have initiated a unified response to
quagga/zebra mussels in California by increasing watercraft
inspections at Food and Agriculture border protection stations,
developing and implementing monitoring plans for high risk water
bodies, training state, federal and local agency staff to
conduct watercraft inspections and monitoring, and conducting
public outreach and education.
The problem is that many water bodies are managed by local
governments or authorities who are covering the cost of
5
inspection and monitoring programs on their own. These local
entities don't have a stable funding source and often spend more
time soliciting grants than managing invasive species. For
example, Monterey County Parks Department implemented a mussel
prevention program in 2010 from an initial grant of $100,000
from DFG. This money was used to hire vessel screeners at all of
the public boat ramps at two different lakes. The initial
funding was depleted quickly, but luckily the Parks Department
was able to obtain additional funds from a one-time revenue
allotment from the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner's
Office to continue the program for a while longer. According to
the Parks Department however, with several years of budget cuts
they have no way of sustaining the mussel prevention program
once the revenue allotment runs out, unless a long-term funding
solution is found.
What if we do nothing?
The cost of doing nothing to prevent the spread of quagga and
zebra mussels could end up costing California hundreds of
millions of dollars. Between 2000 and 2010, zebra mussel
infestations cost the Great Lakes over $5 billion in economic
impacts. In California, the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California expects to spend between $10 million and $15
million a year to address quagga mussel infestations in its
242-mile Colorado River aqueduct and reservoirs. The Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency estimates a mussel invasion could mean
an economic loss of $22 million per year.
SUPPORT
Monterey County Board of Supervisors (co-sponsor)
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors (co-sponsor)
Santa Barbara County (co-sponsor)
Association of California Water Agencies
Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board
California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association
California Municipal Utilities Association
California State Association of Counties
Contra Costa Water District
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Goleta Water District
Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Redwood Valley County Water District
San Diego County Water Authority
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Valley Water District
6
Sonoma County Water Agency
OPPOSITION
California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains
California Marine Parks and Harbors Association
California Yacht Brokers Association
Marina Recreation Association
Northern California Marine Association
Recreational Boaters of California
Western Boaters Safety Group
7