BILL NUMBER: SB 557 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 7, 2004
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 5, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 29, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 7, 2003
INTRODUCED BY Senator Kuehl
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
An act to add Article 10 (commencing with Section 4629)
to Chapter 8 of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Public Resources Code,
relating to forest An act relating to forest
practices.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 557, as amended, Kuehl. Forest practices: timber products
user forest restoration fee .
Existing law provides for the regulation of forest practices.
Under existing law, money in the Forest Resources Improvement
Fund may be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for
specified purposes relating to forest resources and to reimburse the
General Fund for the costs of operation of state forests administered
by the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to establish a
timber products use fee for timber restoration and fire risk
reduction and to fund the review of timber harvesting plan
applications, the removal of dead and diseased trees in southern
California, and the Forest Resources Improvement Fund.
This bill would also require the Legislative Analyst's Office to
report on and recommend to the Legislature options to collect, at the
point of purchase, a timber user fee imposed on consumers of sawn
lumber and unsawn wood products, as specified.
This bill would establish a timber products user forest
restoration fee on timber products sold for consumption in California
by levying an excise tax in the amount of 1
per board foot or board foot equivalent on specified timber
products. The bill would create the Timber Products User Forest
Restoration Fund in the State Treasury. Moneys in the fund would be
available for appropriation for, among other things, restoration of
the environment and habitat related to the effects of timber
harvesting, protection of forested watersheds, and assistance to
timber industry workers. f This bill would result in a change in
state taxes for the purpose of increasing state revenues within the
meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California
Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of2/3
of the membership of each house of the Legislature.
Vote: 2/3 majority .
Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes
no . State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) Forested lands in California provide significant environmental
benefits, including serving as the source of more than half the
state's supply of drinking water, habitat for numerous wildlife and
plant species, some of which are rare, threatened, or endangered, the
source of raw materials for the timber products industry, and a
source of jobs for those who are employed in that industry.
(b) Regulation of timber harvesting practices, including timber
harvesting plans, nonindustrial timber management plans, exemptions,
and emergency notices has become increasingly complex and expensive,
even given the fact that some reviewing agencies review less than 20
percent of the proposed timber harvesting plans presented to them.
(c) The current budget crisis presents an opportunity to
reevaluate financing of the timber harvesting plan review process
that currently draws approximately twenty-one million dollars
($21,000,000) annually from the General Fund.
(d) It is appropriate to support the timber harvesting plan review
process through user fees.
(e) The economic pressures faced by the timber industry, caused by
globalization and imported timber products, is likely to mean a
protracted period of low prices that have already reduced the margin
of profitability of timber companies and the harvests of private
landowners in California.
(f) Under those conditions, it is inequitable to add twenty
million dollars ($20,000,000) or more in timber harvesting plan
review costs to applicants, many of whom are individual landowners.
If the approximately twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) were evenly
divided among the approximately 1,000 timber harvesting plans
applied for annually, the increase in review costs would be twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000) per timber harvesting plan application,
which is too onerous a burden.
(g) It is fair and equitable to require purchasers of timber
products to contribute to the public cost of reviewing timber
harvesting plan applications and further to contribute to the
watershed and habitat restoration that are vital public trust
resources that will also serve to rehabilitate California's
forestlands, as well as assist in the development of new and creative
techniques to protect those forestlands now and in the future.
(h) It is also fair and equitable that purchasers of timber
products be directly linked to the restoration of the stability of
the lives of workers and working families whose lives have been
disrupted by economic fluctuations within the timber products
industry. Restoring jobs, retraining workers, and providing new
opportunities for workers are legitimate objectives for the use of
funds obtained by a user fee on timber products. It is fair and
equitable that purchasers of timber products recognize that a small
fraction of their timber product purchases will contribute to the
stability of the timber products industry for the benefit of the
entire state.
(i) The Legislature has concluded that a user fee on timber
products is an equitable way to fund watershed and wildlife
restoration projects and economic development projects that are
closely associated with timber harvesting activities in California.
(j) As an alternative to a direct fee on landowners and industrial
timberland owners who apply for timber harvest plan permits,
an excise tax in the amount of one cent ($0.01) per board
foot or board foot equivalent on timber products could generate
sufficient funds a timber products user fee for timber
restoration and fire risk reduction could generate sufficient funds
to adequately review timber harvesting plan applications, fund the
removal of dead and diseased trees that pose significant fire risks
in southern California, and fund the Forest Resources Improvement
Fund. These funds might also be used to replace the general
fund outlay for timber harvest plan review, and generate additional
funds to help restore the forest practices industry in California,
mitigate the effects of historic logging practices on watersheds and
wildlife, and protect drinking water supplies for millions of
Californians.
SEC. 2. (a) The Legislative Analyst's Office shall report on and
recommend to the Legislature one or more options to collect, at the
point of purchase, a timber products user fee imposed on consumers of
sawn lumber and unsawn wood products. Unsawn wood products that
would be subject to the fee shall be specifically identified in the
report. The State Board of Equalization would collect and administer
the fee.
(b) Based on best available revenue estimates and an assessment of
other relevant information, the report may recommend the termination
of the fee at a date certain.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that a timber products
user fee, as described in subdivision (a), shall be deposited in a
special fund and shall be appropriated only for the following
purposes:
(1) To fund the complete administrative review of timber
harvesting plans and other harvesting procedures by the appropriate
departments within the Resources Agency and the appropriate regional
water board as measured by the appropriations dedicated to these
purposes in the 2000-01 fiscal year.
(2) To reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire in southern
California by measures that include, but are not limited to, the
removal and disposition of dead, diseased, or hazardous trees in
high- or very high fire severity zones in the Counties of Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, San Diego, or Ventura.
(3) Expenditures authorized by the Forest Resources Improvement
Fund as set forth in Section 4799.13 of the Public Resources Code.
_____________________________________ All matter deleted in
this version of the bill appears in the bill as amended in the
Senate, May 5, 2003 (JR 11) ____________________________________