BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2013-2014 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 896 HEARING DATE: June 10, 2014
AUTHOR: Eggman URGENCY: No
VERSION: March 11, 2014 CONSULTANT: Katharine Moore
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Wildlife management areas: mosquito abatement.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law provides for the formation of local mosquito
abatement and vector control districts (local districts) and
authorizes the districts to conduct programs for the
surveillance, prevention, abatement and control of mosquitoes
and other vectors.
2.Existing law further states legislative intent that the local
districts cooperate with other public agencies to protect the
public health, safety and welfare from vectors and pathogens
and to adapt their powers and procedures to local
circumstances and responsibilities.
3.Existing law also authorizes the Department of Fish and
Wildlife (department) to protect, restore, rehabilitate, and
improve fish and wildlife habitats, and to manage wetlands and
other wildlife management areas under the department's
jurisdiction.
4.According to the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of
California, approximately half the land area and 85% of
California's population are within the current boundaries of a
mosquito control program. Local districts may include the
boundaries of wildlife management areas and managed wetland
habitat within their jurisdiction. The local district's
jurisdiction extends to areas that are sources for vectors and
vector-borne diseases entering the local district.
5.Mosquitos in the United States routinely transmit at least six
types of viruses, including West Nile virus which is an
increasing public health threat. The Department of Public
1
Health reported 476 human cases of West Nile virus in
California in 2012 of which 19 were fatal. This is higher
than 2011 when there were 158 confirmed human cases and nine
fatalities. West Nile virus was first detected in California
in 2003 and has spread throughout the state.
6.AB 1982 (Wolk, c. 553, Statutes of 2004) required the
development and implementation of ecological controls - known
as best management practices (BMPs) - in wildlife management
areas in order to reduce the need for chemical treatment while
also controlling mosquito populations below established
thresholds. Consultation between the local districts, the
department, and others, as specified, was required to develop
the BMPs. The BMPs developed pursuant to this chapter include
management strategies that rely more on the timing of
flooding, vegetation control work, and other established
habitat practices, instead of on spraying alone. Monitoring,
reporting requirements and other specified actions were
required of the department, local districts and certain
others.
7.AB 1982 (2004) sunset in 2010. According to information
received from the department, there continue to be contracts
in place between the department and individual local districts
for mosquito abatement and vector control.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would re-establish certain provisions of AB 1982
(2004) and would further make those provisions applicable to a
local district subject to vectors and vector-borne diseases from
a wildlife management area. Among other provisions, this bill
would specifically:
express legislative intent to control mosquito production on
the department's managed wetland habitat while minimizing the
use of chemical control measures and costs, maintaining or
enhancing the wildlife values of the habitat and protection
from vector-borne diseases and increasing coordination and
communication between the department, local districts and the
Department of Public Health.
make legislative findings that best management practices for
mosquito prevention on managed wetland habitat are critical to
the department's efforts to reduce mosquito production
define BMPs as management strategies jointly developed by the
department, the Department of Public Health, local districts
and others, as specified, for the ecological control of
mosquitoes on managed wetland habitats.
require certain local districts to at least semiannually
notify the department of those areas that exceed locally
2
established mosquito population thresholds and associated
mosquito control costs, as specified, that are both subject to
review.
require the department, in consultation with local districts,
to prioritize funding for those wildlife management areas
having the highest need for mosquito reduction by taking into
account:
o the implementation of the BMPs established by AB
1982 (2004) that result in reducing the mosquito
population while maintaining and enhancing waterfowl and
other wildlife values,
o the mosquito control plan developed pursuant to AB
1982 (2004) that applies the BMPs and other management
practices in the applicable wildlife management areas,
and
o the existing resources of the department to
implement BMPs in the applicable areas.
require a local district to:
o develop standardized monitoring procedures for each
managed wetland habitat at each wildlife management area
and provide a copy of the procedures to the department,
as specified,
o continue posttreatment monitoring and develop
performance effectiveness criteria, and
o provide annual reporting to the department to the
department.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California states
that the bill requires that the habitat management work plans
for state wildlife areas incorporate BMPs to minimize mosquito
production using existing resources. Additionally, the bill
"simply recognizes the need to prioritize BMPs based on
appropriate criteria. The department already uses BMPs in some
of its wildlife management areas. [?] If BMPs are not used and a
mosquito control district is forced to abate the mosquito
production, the department is legally required to reimburse the
costs of abatements. This why AB 896 makes sense; it reduces
the need for abatement, enhances wetland habitat and ultimately
saves the department reimbursement costs while enhancing the
ability to protect public and wildlife health from mosquito
borne diseases."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Waterfowl Association states, "While [they]
recognize the need to control mosquitos on [state wildlife
areas], this should neither interfere with the wildlife
3
conservation purposes for which those areas were acquired nor be
inconsistent with any applicable wildlife management plans."
They continue that provisions in AB 1892 (2004) that took into
consideration wetland management needs are omitted from the
bill, there have been no peer-reviewed relevant studies,
mosquito abatement costs have remained high in many state
wildlife areas, and the bill provides no funding to the
department.
COMMENTS
This bill incorporates specific provisions of AB 1892 (2004) by
reference that describe the development of mosquito control
plans, specific coordination activities, and the unanticipated
modifications to wetland management necessitated by flood and
other factors, among others.
This bill uses the existing recognized jurisdiction of local
districts . A local district has jurisdiction within its
physical boundaries as well as over any area where vectors and
vector-borne diseases within its boundaries originate (see
Health and Safety Code §2040). AB 1892 (2004) applied to the
former only. This bill also includes a specific provision
noting that the existing authority of local districts is not
affected by this bill.
Peer-reviewed studies . The sponsor cites two apparently
peer-reviewed studies that appear to include evaluations of
practices to reduce mosquito populations while enhancing
waterfowl habitat and the invertebrate species that waterfowl
feed on.
Rising costs . Department staff have indicated that abatement
costs have risen substantially over the past several years. The
example provided was an existing $32,000 per year contract for
abatement in effect from FY 2010/2011 to FY 2012/2013 that will
increase to $53,000 per year in FY 2013/2014 to FY 2015/2016.
SUPPORT
Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California (sponsor)
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Burney Basin Mosquito Abatement District
Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District
California Special Districts Association
City of Alturas
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Colusa Mosquito Abatement District
Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District
4
Delta Vector Control District
Fresno Mosquito and Vector Control District
Fresno Westside Mosquito Abatement District
Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District
Lake County Vector Control District
Kern Mosquito and Vector Control District
Madera County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District
Merced County Mosquito Abatement District
Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District
Orange County Vector Control District
Pine Grove Mosquito Abatement District
Placer Mosquito & Vector Control District
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District
San Gabriel Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District
San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Santa Cruz County Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control
Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District
Solano County Mosquito Abatement District
Sutter-Yuba Mosquito & Vector Control District
Tehama County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Turlock Mosquito Abatement District
OPPOSITION
California Waterfowl Association
5