BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2148
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2148 (Holden)
As Amended May 12, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Privacy |10-0 |Chau, Wilk, Baker, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Cooper, Dababneh, | |
| | |Gatto, Gordon, Low | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Water |10-3 |Levine, Dodd, Eggman, |Gallagher, Harper, |
| | |Cristina Garcia, |Mathis |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Lopez, Medina, | |
| | |Salas, Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |15-5 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Gallagher, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Jones, Obernolte, |
| | |Calderon, Chang, |Wagner |
| | |McCarty, Eggman, | |
| | | | |
AB 2148
Page 2
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, Chau, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Department of Parks and Recreation to develop regulations
governing the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) from
or on the public lands and waters managed by the Departments.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Department of Parks and Recreation (Departments) to develop
regulations governing the launching, landing or ground-based
operation of UAS from or on the public lands and waters
managed by the Departments.
2)Requires the Departments to address the following in
developing regulations:
a) Protecting wildlife from unnecessary harassment or
disturbance;
b) Protecting sensitive species, including those listed as
threatened or endangered, or that have other protected
status;
c) Protecting wildlife at times of the year where incidents
may have disproportionate effects, including, but not
limited to, during nesting, breeding, gestation, and
AB 2148
Page 3
migration seasons;
d) Protecting the natural, cultural, and historic values of
state lands;
e) Permitting the appropriate use of UAS for conservation
and scientific research purposes; and
f) Ensuring UAS are not operated in a careless or reckless
manner, including ensuring operators adhere to visual
line-of-sight practices.
3)Requires the Departments to allow de minimis access by
adjacent landowners for agricultural purposes.
4)Specifies that this bill does not apply to commercial UAS
operations authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), as long as the operation is in compliance with FAA
authorization.
5)Specifies that the provisions of the bill are severable, so
that if a single provision is held invalid, the invalidity
does not affect the other provisions of the bill.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, no additional cost to Department of Parks and
Recreation, which is currently developing a regulation
consistent with the requirements of this bill. Department of
Fish and Wildlife may incur minor costs (under $50,000) to
modify an existing regulation that generally encompasses use of
aircraft over department lands.
AB 2148
Page 4
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of this bill. This bill is intended to protect the
ecosystem and promote clear rules for the use of drones by
instructing the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Department of Parks and Recreation to develop guidelines
governing the operation of UAS on public lands and in state
parks. This bill is sponsored by Audubon California.
2)Hunting, Fishing and?Droning? A 2014 Field & Stream article
described predator drones outfitted with thermal-imaging
cameras that run missions over 1,000 to 3,000 acres at a time
and can spot and radio the position of wildlife to hunters on
the ground. Even if UAS are simply used to observe wildlife,
scientific studies suggest UAS can negatively impact animals.
A University of Minnesota study found that bears' heart rates
increase dramatically in the presence of UAS, even if the
bears appear to be unfazed. Earlier this year, the Los
Angeles Times reported state park visitors had observed drones
agitating pregnant seals.
3)State and national parks and UAS. Current law prohibits
planes, parachutes, hang gliders, parasails and hot air
balloons below 500 feet over a state park. In 2014, the
National Park System (NPS) banned, by regulation, the use of
UAS within all national parks, including Yosemite National
Park. Yosemite advises visitors that the use of UAS is
prohibited within park boundaries. The NPS's action is based
on negative experiences with recreational UAS users
approaching climbers ascending mountains, hovering over hiking
paths, disturbing sensitive wildlife preserves, and generally
interfering with park visitors' quiet enjoyment of nature.
While current law authorizes state park district
superintendents to limit certain games and recreational
activities (including UAS activity), the author contends this
has resulted in an inconsistent patchwork of UAS rules in
California.
AB 2148
Page 5
4)The federal preemption issue. Because the FAA has
jurisdiction over United States airspace, a court may find
that federal regulations preempt certain state laws - such as
this one, if passed - but this remains uncertain. According
to a December 2015 FAA white paper, state law related to state
and local police power, including land use, zoning, privacy,
trespass, and law enforcement operations, generally are not
subject to federal regulation. The FAA cited restrictions on
UAS in hunting and fishing as a good example of state laws
that would likely not be preempted.
Analysis Prepared by:
Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916)
319-2200
FN: 0002990