BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 595 HEARING DATE: March 22, 2011
AUTHOR: Wolk URGENCY: No
VERSION: As Introduced CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: Judiciary FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Tidelands and submerged lands: removal of vessels.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Section 6302.1 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) gives the
State Lands Commission (Commission) authority to remove any
vessel or watercraft from areas under their jurisdiction that is
left unattended, is obstructing waterway traffic, and is
creating a hazard to other vessels, or to the public's safety.
The Commission may also destroy an abandoned vessel or similar
obstruction if the obstruction hinders navigation or creates a
public nuisance. The Commission may recover its costs through
the courts.
Section 525 of the Harbors and Navigation Code (HNC) prohibits a
vessel from being abandoned, except in emergencies, on public
waterways, public land, or private land. Similar to PRC §6302.1,
HNC §523 allows any peace officer, any employee or officer of
the State Lands Commission, or any lifeguard or marine safety
officer employed by a county, city, or district to remove and
store, if necessary, a vessel removed from a public waterway if
the vessel is left unattended in a manner that obstructs a
waterway, creates a hazard, or is a public safety concern. HNC
§526 establishes a process to attempt to notify an owner of an
abandoned vessel that has been moved. If an owner is identified,
the owners have 15 days to recover the property and pay any
costs incurred by the public agency related to salvage and
storage of the property. If no owner is identified, the public
agency that removed the vessel may dispose of the abandoned
property, subject to certain conditions including property value
limits.
PROPOSED LAW
1
This bill would give the Commission an administrative process to
remove a vessel that has been abandoned or placed in areas in
its jurisdiction without permission. Specifically, this bill
would:
Allow the Commission to immediately remove an unattended
vessel that poses a threat to navigation, public safety, or
the environment without notice. After removal of the vessel,
the Commission would be required to attempt to identify and
notify the owner of the vessel. If the vessel remains
unclaimed for 30 days or more, the Commission may dispose of
it. (PRC §6302.1(a))
Allow the Commission to remove a vessel that has been
placed on state lands without permission (PRC §6302.1(b))
after a 30-day notice. If the vessel remains unclaimed, the
Commission may dispose of it
Allow the Commission to dispose of a vessel that remains
unclaimed 30-days after removal. (PRC §6302.1(c))
Require the Commission to return a vessel to an owner,
upon their request, and after payment of any removal and
storage costs.
Defines a vessel as abandoned property if the vessel
remains in an unseaworthy or dilapidated condition in areas
of the Commission's jurisdiction for more than 30 days. The
owner of the vessel, if identified, would have 15 days to
remove the property. Otherwise, the Commission may dispose
of the vessel. (PRC §6302.2)
Allow the Commission to hold a publicly noticed hearing in
order to dispose of a vessel. No disposal actions may take
place until 30 days after the Commission's hearing to allow
additional time for an owner to respond.
Provide that the removal and disposition of abandoned
vessels are not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act or any other law or regulation that governs the
acquisition, disposal, or destruction of property by a state
agency.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author states, "There are a number of boat owners storing
their vessels on state lands without permission. There are also
boat owners dumping or abandoning their old or unseaworthy
vessels on state lands without permission?The Commission's
current recourse against these boat owners is limited to court
action. This is usually a long and costly process that requires
approximately two years and involves the Attorney General's
office...ÝThe administrative process established in SB 595]
would streamline the current lengthy and expensive judicial
process while allowing for a fair and practical approach to the
2
handling the problem of abandoned vessels, trespassing vessels,
and trespassing ground tackle."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
Establishing an administrative process for removal will improve
the Commission's ability to remove problematic vessels: The
Commission estimates that there are thousands of abandoned
vessels across the state, which can cause environmental and
navigation impacts. Oil, gasoline, sewage, and toxic metals can
leak from abandoned vessels and their equipment such as motors
and batteries. Abandoned vessels can also be navigational
hazards. According to the Commission, the down economy has
increased the number of abandoned vessels as owners find
themselves unable to afford the cost of storage and upkeep and
instead elect to illegally leave their vessels on public land.
The Commission currently has authority to remove abandoned
vessels, however it must do so by taking action in court. Vessel
removal can have costs in the tens of thousands of dollars,
partially because of the legal costs. Being that the Commission
has no dedicated funding stream for vessel removal, the cost of
vessel remove has largely prevented the Commission from widely
addressing abandoned vessels. This bill would establish an
administrative process for vessel removal that would both reduce
removal costs and the time that it takes to remove abandoned
vessels.
The Commission estimates that under the process established in
this bill, it would take approximately 90 to 120 days from the
time that an abandoned vessel is reported to when the vessel is
disposed, compared to a court process which takes approximately
two years. The administrative process would additionally save
$50,000 to $100,000 per incident in costs.
Should derelict vessels and illegally stored vessels be treated
differently? This bill establishes similar, but different,
requirements for notification and disposal of derelict vessels
and illegally stored vessels. While these requirements are not
conflicting, it is unclear why there should be different
procedures based on the vessels' condition. According to the
Commission, any differences are unintentional. The author may
wish to consider working with committee staff to consolidate the
language in PRC §6302.1(b) and §6302.2 so that there is no
distinction drawn between derelict vessels and illegally stored
vessels.
3
Other clarification amendments : Should the Commission remove a
vessel into storage, this bill seems to require an additional
30-day notice before a vessel is disposed of. According to the
Commission, this is unintentional. The author intends to require
only one 30-day notice to be given before the Commission
declares a vessel abandoned and holds a hearing to decide on the
fate of the vessel. If the abandoned vessel poses an urgent
danger, the Commission may remove the vessel immediately, and
then issue a 30-day public notice. The committee may wish to
delete PRC §6302.1(c) to make this intended process more clear.
(See amendment 1)
Overlap with HNC language regarding abandoned vessels : This bill
declares that if there are any conflicts with the abandoned
vessel language in the HNC, the language in this bill should
govern. The committee may wish to find that it would be more
clear and direct to remove the Commission's authority to remove
abandoned vessels in HNC §523. In doing so, the abandoned vessel
language in the PRC would govern the Commission's
responsibilities and abilities and the HNC language would only
govern local government responsibilities. (See amendment 2)
Appropriate environmental review for vessel removal and
disposal: This bill exempts the removal or disposal action of
the Commission from CEQA or any other law or regulation that
governs the acquisition, disposal, or destruction of property by
a state agency, such as those established by DGS. While removal
and disposal of a vessel might be constructed as a "project" for
the purposes of CEQA, this action may qualify for a categorical
exemption or be eligible for a negative declaration. Thus, the
exemption may not be necessary especially since removing an
abandoned vessel most likely will result in environmental
benefits.
However, the Commission is concerned that if a categorical
exemption cannot be used in a particular removal, the cost of
CEQA review may become cost prohibitive. The Commission has no
dedicated fund for these removal activities and there is a
significant likelihood that they will not be able to recover all
their costs either because an owner cannot be identified or the
value of the vessel is very low. The Commission feels that their
use of a CEQA categorical exemption is most likely to be
challenged in the removal of large commercial vessels, which
have the largest impact on the environment should they not be
removed.
4
The Committee may wish to strike the CEQA exemption from this
bill. (See amendment 3)
Previous legislation : This bill is very similar to SB 459 (Wolk,
2009), which passed this Committee with an 8-1 vote. While SB
459 was eventually passed by both houses of the Legislature, it
was ultimately vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In his veto
message, the Governor stated:
I recognize that, to the extent that unattended and
abandoned property can be removed from public lands and
waterways more quickly, state and local agencies could
experience potentially significant savings in court costs
and environmental cleanup costs. However, there are also
potentially significant costs that the state would incur
under this bill since it would enhance the Commission's
ability to remove and dispose of abandoned vessels. These
implementation costs cannot be overlooked, especially given
the state's current
fiscal condition and the fact that no source of funding is
identified in this bill.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 3, beginning with line 18, delete subdivision (c)
of Section 6302.1.
AMENDMENT 2
Add to the bill, an amendment to Section 523 of the HCN as
follows:
523. (a) Any peace officer, as described in Section 663, any
employee or officer of the State Lands Commission designated by
the State Lands Commission, or any lifeguard or marine safety
officer employed by a county, city, or district while engaged in
the performance of official duties, may remove, and, if
necessary, store a vessel removed from a public waterway under
any of the following circumstances:
?
AMENDMENT 3
On page 5, starting on line 30, delete "the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000)), and from"
SUPPORT
5
California State Lands Commission
OPPOSITION
None Received
6