BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER Senator Fran Pavley, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 718 Hearing Date: April 14, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Leno | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Version: |April 7, 2015 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|Katharine Moore | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Hazardous Materials Response and Restoration Subaccount. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW 1.In response to concern following significant oil spills, the Legislature passed the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Act) (SB 2040, c. 1248, Statutes of 1990) (Government Code (GOV) §§8670.1 et seq., and others). The act created the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) in the Department of Fish and Wildlife (department). OSPR's mission is to provide the best achievable protection (GOV §8670.3) of California's natural resources and the public health and safety by preventing, preparing for, and responding to spills of oil and other related deleterious materials; and to restore and enhance affected resources. 2.The act establishes the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (OSPAF) which finances oil spill prevention and planning programs and the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund (OSRTF) which is used to provide the cash flow for the response to and clean-up of California's oil spills and for certain wildlife care and spill-related damages. 3.OSRTF is funded by a $0.25 per barrel fee. This fee is assessed on distributors, pipeline operators, refiners, and marine terminal operators until the fund balance reaches its statutory target of $54.8 million. Fee collection resumes only SB 718 (Leno) Page 2 of ? when the fund contains less than 95% of this designated funding level. This automatic replenishment is designed to prevent any oil spill response from being limited by available funds. 4.The Oiled Wildlife Care Network (OWCN) rescues and rehabilitates wildlife affected by coastal oil spills and has more than 30 member organizations and affiliated agencies. It maintains more than 12 specialized facilities in a constant state of readiness, and has saved more than 14,000 oiled birds and mammals affected by more than 80 oil spills since 1995. It was formed pursuant to the act in collaboration with the department in order to provide the most proactive response in the world to oiled wildlife. OWCN response to an oil spill is funded through the OSRTF. 5.In mid-January 2015, a spill of a sticky "mystery goo" in San Francisco Bay coated more than 600 waterfowl and killed over half of them. OSPR responded to the spill. However, when it was determined that the mystery goo was not petroleum-based, the funding for the department's response was shifted away from OSPR monies. Additionally, OSPR funds were not available through the OWCN to support wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. According to news reports, a local wildlife rescue and rehabilitation organization, the International Bird Rescue, has spent over $150,000 to respond to the spill. This organization has released over 100 waterfowl back to the wild following rescue and rehabilitation. PROPOSED LAW This bill would allow the OSPR administrator to borrow up to $500,000 annually from the OSTRF and move it to the Hazardous Materials Response and Restoration Subaccount in order to reimburse wildlife rescue and rehabilitation organizations for their response to spills of non-petroleum materials that harm wildlife, as specified. The loan would be repaid with interest no later than 10 years after it is issued either from funds recovered from the responsible party or from the general fund. The administrator would be required to notify the Legislature of the loan. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to Audobon California, "It is essential that the [department] and OSPR have the necessary tools and funding to SB 718 (Leno) Page 3 of ? adequately respond to wildlife emergencies during all significant spills, including those that are not petroleum-based." They continue, "SB 718 will allow OSPR to protect wildlife that come into harm by way of non-petroleum based substances, like the mysterious grey goo that was spilled in San Francisco Bay. The bill would close the hole in California law that hinders wildlife response during non-petroleum based spills." The author notes that "without a party to hold responsible, non-profit organizations have had to spend scarce resources (up to $300,000 by some estimates) on wildlife cleanup and rehabilitation without state assistance." Senator Leno adds, "had the substance been found to be petroleum-based OSRTF resources would have been available for cleanup purposes." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION None received COMMENTS OSTRF funds been used for non-oil spill response activities in the past . In 2011, $40 million was transferred from the OSTRF and loaned to the general fund. This loan is still outstanding. OSTRF funds must be repaid for non-OSPR-related activities as funding is through a dedicated fee. A mechanism exists for the department to fund its own hazardous material spill response . According to the department, when it became evident that the mystery goo was not petroleum-based, it funded its response from the Fish and Wildlife Pollution Account. This account has no dedicated funding source and is typically over-subscribed. Whether wildlife rescue and rehabilitation organizations would be reimbursed for costs associated with rescuing and rehabilitating wildlife from these spills would depend upon the situation and available funding. It is not clear that these organizations have been regularly reimbursed in the past for non-OWCN response. Does the department always recover funds from responsible parties ? It depends. Depending upon how charges are brought and by whom the department may or may not recover any funds - even in a successful prosecution or settlement negotiation. SB 718 (Leno) Page 4 of ? Mystery goo update . Efforts continue to identify the mystery goo and determine the identity of the responsible party. According to news reports several laboratories are involved in the effort to determine the chemical composition of the goo. Double-referral pending . The Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Water and Environmental Quality share jurisdiction over OSPR. Therefore, if this bill passes this committee, it will be referred to the Committee on Rules which will consider the re-referral request of the Committee on Environmental Quality. SUPPORT Audobon California (co-sponsor) San Francisco Baykeeper (co-sponsor) Buena Vista Audubon Society California Coastkeeper Alliance California Environmental Health Initiative Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Clean Water Action Defenders of Wildlife Ducks Unlimited Environment California Five Creeks The Fund for Animals Wildlife Center Golden Gate Audubon Society The Humane Society of the United States International Bird Rescue Madrone Audubon Society Morro Coast Audubon Society The Nature Conservancy Ohlone Audubon Society San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Save the Bay Sierra Club California West Marin Environmental Action Committee OPPOSITION None Received -- END -- SB 718 (Leno) Page 5 of ?