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 ?