BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 215 HEARING DATE: April 12, 2011
AUTHOR: Huff URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Newsha Ajami
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Invasive aquatic species: mussels.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Dressenid mussels including both quagga mussel and zebra mussel
are destructive aquatic species. They attached themselves to
exposed surfaces and rapidly reproduce to form colonies with
densities in excess of 70,000 mussels per square foot. Once
established, eradication is extremely difficult and mitigation
is very costly. Infestation has substantial direct and indirect
environmental, ecosystem and economic impacts to the state by:
Negatively impacting aquatic biodiversity by reducing
food sources for native aquatic species.
Clogging water intake and delivery pipes and aqueducts
subsequently impacting public water delivery systems, fire
protection, irrigation systems and power plant operation.
Effecting recreational activities as they accumulate on
boat hulls, piers and buoys.
In January 2007 authorities discovered quagga mussels in the
Colorado River system. Any facility, reservoir lake or stream
receiving raw water from the Colorado River has been exposed to
quagga mussels. Dreissenid mussels have been identified in
approximately 25 water bodies since 2007.
Subsequent to the discovery of the dreissenid mussels in
Southern California waters, §2301 and §2302 were added to the
Fish and Game Code by the Legislature to protect the state from
negative impacts of invasive mussels. The existing law:
Prohibits a person from possessing, importing, shipping,
or transporting and planting dreissenid mussels in
California waters.
Authorizes the director of the Department of Fish and
1
Game (DFG) or her/his designee to:
Stop and inspect any conveyance that may
contain or carry dreissenid mussels.
Close, quarantine and decontaminate areas
found or suspected to be infested in order to control
the spread of mussels.
Requires water supply agencies to cooperate with DFG to
control or eradicate mussel infestation. If the mussels are
detected in a water delivery or operation system the
operational agency is expected to prepare and implement a
plan to control and eradicate the mussels. Upon approval of
the plan by DFG, their water delivery system is exempt from
quarantine. Water system operators who are in compliance
with an approved control plan are exempt from any civil and
criminal liability due to the introduction of mussels that
may occur as a result of their system operations.
Subjects violators of these provisions to an
administrative penalty of up to $1000.
Protects the state and water agencies against liability
for their efforts to control dreissenid mussels.
Sunsets these provisions on January 1, 2012.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill removes the sunset on these provisions, hence
extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author argues that removing the sunset on these provisions
will, "prevent future outbreaks of dreissenid mussels and
ultimately save California businesses and taxpayers from
shouldering the massive coast of an invasive mussel
infestation."
According to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
"it is important that the legal authority for the Department of
Fish and Game be extended so the Department can continue its
inspection programs and work with water supply operators to
control infestation." California Municipal Utilities Association
reasons that "without SB 215, DFG's dreissenid enforcement
program would expire on January 1, 2012. These mussels pose such
a major threat to California's aquatic food web. They are a
destructive invasive species that reproduce and spread quickly.
Their establishment in California waters, including the already
stressed California Bay-Delta, could result in an environmental
disaster. For these reasons, California reservoir operators and
DFG will continue to need this eradication program for the
foreseeable future." East Bay Municipal Utility District raises
2
the point that "SB 215 would enable DFG to retain its authority
and continue its efforts to stop the further spread of these
invasive mussels to other water bodies in the state."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
It appears we are making preliminary progress in slowing the
spread of dreissenid mussels
Under the authority of §2301, in 2008 DFG launched an aggressive
educational and monitoring program to eradicate and prevent
spread of the dreissenid mussels. In a boat inspection program,
from 2008 to 2010, the percentage of boats that required
cleaning dropped 5.6%. Infested boats that needed quarantine
dropped 3%. It is hard to speculate the exact reason for the
decline since the program has only been implemented for three
years and there is limited data available. However DFG's
educational efforts can be considered as one of the reasons for
this decline.
Despite this positive trend, the threat of dreissenid mussel
spread is still imminent. Last year, DFG found two new infested
bodies of water in the state and there may still be more
unidentified bodies of water. The available data is inadequate
to draw a definite conclusion on their possible success in
preventing the spread of these invasive species to other parts
of the state. The program is still in its infancy therefore
requires more time to show reliable and consistent results.
Liability provisions are untested
Last year, AB 1929 (Hall, Chapter 152, Statutes of 2010) amended
the §2301 of the Fish and Game Code to exempt the state and
public and private water agencies from civil and criminal
liability associated with the infestation of dressineid mussels.
This provision came into effect only on January 1, 2011 and it
is unclear as the infestation spreads how this provision is
going to unfold in practice.
Is eliminating the sunset date premature?
While implementation of the program shows promising results,
there is limited hard data to support indefinite extension of
the program. Additionally, the liability provisions have yet to
be tested. The committee may wish to consider extending the
sunset date till January 1, 2017. See Amendment 1.
3
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Restore sunset provision with new date of Jan 1, 2017.
SUPPORT
Association of California Water Agencies (Sponsor)
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Irvine Ranch Water District
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Western Municipal Water District
OPPOSITION
None received
4