BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 822


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          822 (Roth)


          As Amended  May 31, 2016


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  38-1


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Agriculture     |9-0  |Dodd, Mathis, Eggman, |                    |
          |                |     |Gray, Grove, Irwin,   |                    |
          |                |     |Jones-Sawyer, Quirk,  |                    |
          |                |     |Salas                 |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow,    |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonilla,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bonta, Calderon,      |                    |
          |                |     |Chang, Daly, Eggman,  |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |
          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Obernolte,     |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Santiago,      |                    |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood,  |                    |
          |                |     |Chau                  |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |








                                                                     SB 822


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Increases the maximum monthly citrus assessment fee  
          from $0.09 to $0.12 cents per 40 pound carton.


          EXISTING LAW:  Establishes the California Citrus Pest and  
          Disease Prevention Committee (CCPDPC) within the California  
          Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to advise the  
          Secretary of CDFA on efforts to prevent and manage citrus pests  
          and diseases.  An assessment is levied on citrus producers and  
          deposited into the Citrus Disease Management Account (Account)  
          for the sole purpose of combating citrus-specific pests and  
          diseases.  The Account may also contain funds from federal and  
          other non-General Fund (GF)  sources.  The current assessment  
          rate is $0.09 per 40 pound carton, which amounts to $15 million  
          annually and represents more than half of the total budget for  
          this program.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, this bill has an estimated revenue increase of up to  
          approximately $5 million annually from increased assessments  
          fees (Special Fund).


          COMMENTS:  Citrus is a $2 billion industry in the State of  
          California.  California produces 82% of the United States' fresh  
          citrus and directly employs more than 14,000 people.  It  
          contributes an additional $1.2 billion in economic value to the  
          state and supports another 10,000 jobs.


          In March of 2012, Huanglongbing (HLB) was found in a Los  
          Angeles-area backyard.  HLB is a bacterial plant disease that  
          destroys the production, appearance and value of citrus trees,  
          ruining the citrus.  HLB is spread mainly by the Asian Citrus  








                                                                     SB 822


                                                                    Page  3





          Psyllid (ACP).  To date there is no known controls for HLB other  
          than removing and destroying infected groves.  After a 2005  
          discovery in Florida, it took only two years for HLB to transmit  
          to all 32 Florida citrus-producing counties and infect over half  
          of the citrus trees in that state.


          The CCPDPC is funded by the California citrus industry and  
          federal grants.  Of the $25 million annual budget, roughly $15  
          million is funded through the $0.09 per carton assessment fee  
          and $10 million through USDA.  However, this year, the federal  
          government approved an additional $2 million in funding that  
          will be used to increase psyllid detection and trapping in the  
          San Joaquin Valley.  The CCPDPC received a one-time $1 million  
          appropriation from the General Fund (GF) in Fiscal Year 2013-14;  
          however, no other monies from California's GF have been  
          appropriated.


          Over half of all citrus trees in California are located in  
          residential backyards.  Currently, $12 million of the  
          industry-assessed fees are being used to detect and trap ACP and  
          remove HLB-infected citrus trees in the Los Angeles Basin, the  
          area of greatest infestation.  None of the assessment fees are  
          currently being used to treat commercial citrus groves.


          According to the author, this bill will provide much needed  
          funding to continue to combat the spread and devastating effects  
          of HLB on California's citrus industry.


          RELATED LEGISLATIONAB 862 (Agriculture), Chapter 374, Statutes  
          of 2015, specified that all expenditures incurred by CDFA be  
          reimbursed by the Citrus Disease Management Account.


          SB 1018 (De León), Chapter 924, Statutes of 2014, required the  
          Secretary of CDFA to notify the CCPDPC for any changes to  








                                                                     SB 822


                                                                    Page  4





          program activities or increases in expenditures, and specified  
          that only reasonable, rather than all, expenditures incurred by  
          CDFA be reimbursed by the program's funding account.


          AB 571 (Gatto) of 2013, would have appropriated $5 million from  
          the GF to the Citrus Disease Management Account within the CDFA  
          Fund for the purposes of combating citrus disease or its  
          vectors.  This bill was vetoed by the Governor. 


          AB 604 (De León), Chapter 17, Statutes of 2010, authorized CDFA  
          to spend any monies it had collected in the Citrus Disease  
          Management Account on citrus specific pest and disease programs  
          through June 30, 2010.


          AB 281 (De León), Chapter 426, Statutes of 2009, established  
          CCPDPC and the Citrus Disease Management Account within CDFA to  
          prevent and manage citrus pests and diseases.  The Account shall  
          consist of money from industry assessment fees but may also  
          include federal and other non-GF sources.




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084  FN:  
          0003976


















                                                                     SB 822


                                                                    Page  5