BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AB 166
Assemblymember Lieu
As Introduced
Hearing Date: July 1, 2009
Harbors and Navigation Code
BCP:jd
SUBJECT
Abandoned Vessels - Abatement
DESCRIPTION
This bill would establish a pilot project that would allow a
verified titleholder to surrender a vessel to a public agency
under both of the following conditions: (1) the public agency
has determined that the vessel is in danger of being abandoned;
and (2) the decision by the public agency to accept a vessel is
based solely on the likelihood of the vessel to be abandoned and
cause environmental degradation or become a hazard to
navigation.
This bill would provide that the state shall not assume any
liability for injuries or damages to a person or entity
connected to or resulting from the processing or disposal of a
surrendered vessel.
This bill would sunset the pilot program on January 1, 2013.
BACKGROUND
The Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) administers the
Abandoned Watercraft Removal Program to provide grants to local
agencies to help pay the costs of abatement, removal, storage,
and disposal of abandoned, wrecked, and dismantled vessels or
parts of those vessels that pose navigational hazards on the
public waterways. That program is funded by the Abandoned
Watercraft Abatement Fund (AWAF).
In 2003, AB 1014 (Canciamilla, Chapter 357, Statutes of 2003)
(more)
AB 166 (Lieu)
Page 2 of ?
required the Director of DBW to submit recommendations on
strategies to prevent recreational vessels from being abandoned,
and to facilitate the ability of owners to turn in their
recreational vessels in lieu of abandonment. That resulting
report stated:
A pilot program would provide the Department a baseline to
estimate the extent of a vessel turn in program statewide.
The pilot program would also allow local agencies and the
Department to determine best practices for such a program,
including the amount of rebate to offer vessel owners to
turn in their vessels, where best to establish a site for
vessel owners to turn in their vessels (landfills or
marinas), and what environmental, economic, safety, and
practical problems exist with operating a vessel turn in
program. The Department would collect and analyze
performance measures to determine the effectiveness of the
pilot program and report back to the legislature as to
whether such a program would be beneficial statewide.
Consistent with the above suggestion, this bill would establish
a pilot project for the surrender of vessels to a local public
agency, and immunize the state for injuries or damages as a
result of the processing or disposal of surrendered vessels.
This bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Natural
Resources and Water on June 23, 2009.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law prohibits a person from abandoning a vessel on a
public waterway or property without the consent of the owner or
person in lawful possession or control of the property. That
prohibition does not apply when there is an urgent and immediate
concern for the safety of those aboard the vessel. (Harb. & Nav.
Code Sec. 525(a).)
Existing law provides that a violation of the above prohibition
is an infraction punishable by a fine not less than $500, nor
more than $3,000. (Harb. & Nav. Code Sec. 525(c).) Existing law
provides that the abandonment of a vessel is prima facie
evidence that the last owner of record is responsible for
abandonment and is liable for the cost of the removal and
disposition of the vessel. (Harb. & Nav. Code Sec. 525(b).)
Existing law provides that any wrecked property that is an
AB 166 (Lieu)
Page 3 of ?
unseaworthy derelict or a hulk, abandoned property, or property
removed from a navigable waterway, as specified, may be sold or
otherwise disposed of under the specified conditions, including:
(1) the property has been appraised at less than $2,000; (2)
there is no discernable registration, as specified; (3) a notice
attached to the property not less than 72 hours prior to
removal; and (4) a notice of removal was sent, as specified.
(Harb. & Nav. Code Sec. 526.)
This bill would create a pilot project that would permit the
immediate disposal of surrendered vessels, as specified, that
would sunset on January 1, 2013.
This bill would define "surrendered vessel" as a vessel that the
verified titleholder has willingly surrendered to a willing
public agency under both of the following conditions: (1) the
public agency has determined, in its sole discretion, that the
vessel is in danger of being abandoned, and therefore has a
likelihood of causing environmental degradation or becoming a
hazard to navigation; and (2) the decision by a public agency to
accept a vessel is based solely on the potential of the vessel
to be abandoned and cause environmental degradation or become a
hazard to navigation.
This bill would increase the above minimum fine amount for
vessel abandonment from $500 to $1,000, and authorize local
agencies to use grant funds from the existing Abandoned
Watercraft Abatement Fund to dispose of surrendered vessels.
This bill would require the Department of Boating and Waterways
to track the number of surrendered vessels accepted by a public
agency that disposes of surrendered vessels using grant funds
from the Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund between January 1,
2010, and January 1, 2012. DBW must also track the total
expenditure from the fund for surrendered vessel abatement
during that same period, and submit a specified report to the
Senate and Assembly Committees on Transportation by July 1,
2012.
This bill would additionally provide that the state shall not
assume liability for any injuries or damages to a person or
entity, public or private, connected to or resulting from the
processing or disposal of a surrendered vessel.
COMMENT
AB 166 (Lieu)
Page 4 of ?
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
There is an overwhelming problem with abandoned vessels in
California and this bill will have a significant impact on
that problem by allowing more vessels to be disposed of with
fewer dollars by truncating the process and by allowing
vessels to be destroyed before they are abandoned. Existing
law states that a vessel must be abandoned before it can be
taken for disposal, which is too late in the process.
Abandoned vessels are usually doing harm to the environment
due to the leakage of oil and fuel into the water and can
become a hazard to navigation, making them a safety hazard.
Furthermore, once a vessel is abandoned, it is very
[expensive] to remove because they can be sunk or in some
other difficult circumstance.
This bill solves the environmental, safety and cost problems
by getting at dilapidated vessels before they are abandoned.
With this approach the leakage of dangerous chemicals into
the water is prevented and the cost to dispose of these
vessels is radically reduce[d] due to the elimination of the
recovery costs.
2. Immunity provision
In addition to creating a pilot project for the disposal of
surrendered vessels, this bill would provide that the state
shall not assume liability for any injuries or damages to a
person or entity, public or private, connected to or resulting
from the processing of a surrendered vessel. The vessels at
issue may contain toxic materials, such as oil, fuel, or other
hazardous materials that may pose a risk both to the environment
and those involved in the disposal of the surrendered vessel.
Earlier this year, this committee approved a related bill, SB
459 (Wolk), which authorized the State Lands Commission to take
specified actions with regards to abandoned vessels. While that
bill contained a related immunity, this committee's analysis
stated:
The public policy question raised by this provision is
AB 166 (Lieu)
Page 5 of ?
whether the State should be immune from suit by individuals
who are injured as a result of the actions of the State
Lands Commission in connection with abandoned property, as
defined. (Existing law limits the liability of the state
under specified circumstances.) . . .
The [State Lands Commission, sponsor,] notes that this
immunity was intended to encourage the removal of badly
deteriorating vessels in circumstances where they may be
reluctant to take on liability for that removal (including
the likelihood of encountering pollutants and toxic
materials). Given both the risks of removal, and the risks
of allowing those vessels to remain, the Committee should
consider whether it is appropriate to include that immunity,
or whether the phrase "without liability" should be stricken
from the bill. If the Committee determines that immunity
from liability is appropriate in these cases, it may wish to
consider a five year sunset to allow for appropriate
legislative review.
While the author of that bill elected to remove the immunity
provision instead of adding a sunset, this bill takes the
alternate approach of granting immunity but including a sunset.
Considering the potential benefits of disposing of these
soon-to-be abandoned vessels, and that the Legislature has the
opportunity to examine any issues relating to this provision in
three years, the immunity granted by this bill appears
appropriate.
3. No conflict with SB 459 (Wolk)
Although the bill would include an immunity similar to the one
removed in SB 459 (Wolk), the immunity proposed by this bill
would be limited to the surrender of abandoned vessels and would
not apply in the situations addressed by SB 459 (Wolk) involving
the State Lands Commission.
4. Technical and clarifying amendments
While this bill would sunset the section of the bill which
contains the definition of "surrendered vessels," the other two
sections which reference that definition would not sunset. To
remove any future confusion should the sunset not be extended,
the changes reflected in Sections 1 and 2 of the bill should
AB 166 (Lieu)
Page 6 of ?
also sunset on January 1, 2013.
Suggested amendment:
Amend the bill to sunset the changes in Sections 1 and 2 of
the bill on January 1, 2013.
This bill would also require the DBW to track the number of
surrendered vessels accepted by a public agency that disposes of
surrendered vessels using grant funds between January 1, 2010,
and January 1, 2012, and the total expenditure of grant funds
during that time period. Considering that the program does not
sunset until January 1, 2013, and that information gathered
between 2012 and 2013 may be useful should the sunset be
extended, the following amendments are suggested to, instead,
have the DBW track information until January 1, 2013.
Suggested amendments:
1) On page 6, line 38, strike "2012" and insert "2013"
2) On page 7, line 1, strike "this information" and insert:
on the information gathered between January 1, 2010 and
January 1, 2012
5. Author's amendment
The following amendments were accepted in the Senate Committee
on Natural Resources and Water but are to be taken in this
committee due to procedural timing requirements. The amendments
add co-authors and require the report to be provided to the
Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, instead of the
Committee on Transportation and Housing.
Amendments :
1) In line 2 of the heading, after "Members" insert:
Jones,
2) In line 4 of the heading, strike out "Coauthor: Senator
DeSaulnier" and insert:
Coauthors: Senators DeSaulnier and Wiggins
AB 166 (Lieu)
Page 7 of ?
3) On page 7, line 3, delete "Transportation and Housing"
and insert "Natural Resources and Water"
6. Veto of AB 1950 (Lieu)
This bill is substantially similar to AB 1950 (Lieu, 2008),
which was vetoed by the Governor last year. In vetoing that
bill, the Governor stated:
The historic delay in passing the 2008-2009 State Budget has
forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk at the end
of the year's legislative session. Given the delay, I am
only signing bills that are the highest priority for
California. This bill does not meet that standard and I
cannot sign it at this time.
Support : State Lands Commission; San Francisco Baykeeper; City
of Newport Beach; Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce;
Marin County Board of Supervisors; Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission; Sacramento County Sheriff's Department; California
Peace Officers' Association; City of Newport Beach; California
State Sheriffs' Association; Recreational Boaters of California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Sources : California Association of Harbor Masters and Port
Captains; California Marine Parks and Harbors Association;
California Yacht Brokers Association; Marina Recreation
Association; Northern California Marine Association; Western
Boaters Safety Group
Related Pending Legislation : SB 459 (Wolk), would allow the
State Lands Commissions to immediately remove vessels, as
specified, and allow the commission to take title and dispose of
abandoned vessels through specified procedures. This bill is in
the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Prior Legislation : AB 1950 (Lieu, 2008), See Comment 6.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Transportation Committee (Ayes 14, Noes 0)
AB 166 (Lieu)
Page 8 of ?
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 79, Noes 0)
Senate Natural Resources and Water (Ayes 11, Noes 0)
**************