BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 408 HEARING DATE: June 22, 2010
AUTHOR: Saldana URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 5, 2010 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Commercial fishing: lobster management enhancement.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Section 8254 of the Fish and Game Code requires permits for the
taking of spiny lobsters for commercial purposes. The base price
for commercial permits is $265 ($336 adjusted for inflation) and
a crew member permit is $125 ($158.75 adjusted for inflation).
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) may limit the number of
commercial lobster permits to prevent overutilization or to
ensure efficient and economic operation of the fishery.
It is illegal under 8253 to pickle, can or otherwise preserve
any spiny lobster except for freezing. Spiny lobsters may be
cooked for consumption in the "fresh state."
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would create a $300 supplemental surcharge on
commercial lobster permits to fund projects and programs that
support the long term sustainability or improved management of
the California spiny lobster fishery. Specifically, this bill
would:
Add an additional $300 fee to the existing lobster commercial
permit fee from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2016. This Lobster
Management Enhancement Supplement fee would be deposited into
the newly created Lobster Management Enhancement Account
(LMEA) in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund and would not be
adjusted for inflation.
Create the Lobster Management Enhancement Advisory Committee
(committee) which would consist of the director of DFG or
his/her designee, three members appointed by the membership of
the California Lobster and Trap Fishermen's Association, and
one member who is either a representative of the state's
commercial lobster fishermen or a biological scientist
1
associated with a California college or university who is
actively involved in lobster research. All five members, or
their alternates, must be present in order for a committee
vote to be valid.
The committee would be limited to one meeting each calendar
year and the California Lobster and Trap Fisherman's
Association would pay the costs associated with providing a
venue for the meeting.
Require that the LMEA only be expended, upon appropriation of
the Legislature, for projects and programs that improve
lobster sustainability and management and are consistent with
a spending plan developed by the committee.
Restrict DFG's administrative overhead of the LMEA to 20% of
the amount collected annually on the account.
Allow the LMEA to also receive grants from the federal
government, private foundations, court settlements, and
donations.
Sunsets these provisions regarding the supplemental fee and
the committee on January 1, 2017.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author states, "There are approximately 140 lobster
fishermen in California. A healthy and sustainable lobster
fishing industry contributes millions of dollars to the state's
economy and generates money and jobs for regional wholesale,
retail, food service, and fishing support and supply industries.
California lobster fishermen are interested in engaging in and
funding projects that will promote the long-term conservation of
the fishery while increasing fishing profitability. A
significant obstacle to doing so is the fishermen's inability to
establish a reliable mechanism for collecting assessments to
fund these projects on their own. To address this problem,
members of the commercial lobster fishermen's trade group - the
California Lobster and Trap Fishermen's Association - voted in
the summer of 2008 to pursue a new, legislatively required stamp
on commercial lobster permits, which would generate a steady
source of funds to be used for programs that support the lobster
fishery."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
DFG, in opposition to the bill, states, "Depending on which
lobster permit holders are subject to the supplemental
assessment, DFG estimates that approximately $61,000 will be
generated annually. That amount, less $15,000 costs to collect
the assessment and administrative costs to implement the bill,
will generate less than $40,000 annually. This amount of funding
is insufficient to accomplish any of the goals of the bill and
2
by enumerating them AB 408 creates an expectation that some of
these tasks may be accomplished. The bill would also limit DFG's
administrative overhead to 20 percent. DFG's overhead rate is
set by the Department of Finance, based on the actual cost of
operations. Programs that cap overhead rates at less than actual
cost force those unfunded costs to shift to other programs, and
ultimately, increase overhead rates."
COMMENTS
Governor vetoed similar previous effort: Last year, this
committee passed AB 571 (Saldana), which was a substantially
similar to this bill with a 7-2 vote. AB 571 went on to be
passed by both houses of the Legislature, but it was ultimately
vetoed by the Governor. His veto message stated, "In additional
to increasing by almost 90 percent the cost of a commercial
lobster permit, thereby potentially driving some permitees out
of the fishery, the bill would also impose new mandates and
obligations upon the Department that still would not be
adequately funded."
A letter from the California Lobster and Trap Fishermen's
Association to the Governor in response to the veto states that
the additional fee represents the worth of 14 lobsters at
current market prices, a price that can be easily absorbed into
the fishermen's costs given that 738,000 lobsters were landed in
2008. The Association contends that not finding the resources to
fund management and sustainability improvements is a greater
threat to their livelihoods and that the $300 is more of an
investment in their futures than a fee.
Increasing need for revenues to protect the lobster fisheries :
Arguably, the revenues generated by this bill are needed even
more so than last year. Under the Marine Life Management Act,
DFG is responsible for creating fishery management plans (FMPs)
for the state's sport and commercial marine fisheries. FMPs are
planning documents that include a description of the fishery,
relevant fishery science and information, fishery conservation
measures, habitat provisions, bycatch and discard provisions,
and overfishing and rebuilding provisions. DFG currently does
not have the resources to prepare a lobster FMP and is currently
seeking outside funding and partners. If sufficient outside help
is not obtained, DFG does not intend to proceed with a lobster
FMP. Additionally, the Governor's proposed budget for FY2010-11
cuts $170,000 from DFG's budget that was meant for the lobster
FMP development. Under this bill, one of the potential uses of
the LMEA is to contribute to the preparation of lobster FMP.
While this surcharge alone will not generate sufficient revenues
3
to fund the FMP development, the committee may wish to consider
whether the surcharge can help mitigate a worsening fiscal
situation.
Administrative Overhead fees : DFG currently has overhead fees of
24% on accounts within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. This
bill would limit the overhead to the LMEA to 20% (note: this is
an increase from AB 571, which limited the overhead to 15%).
According to the author, this limitation is justified because
the bill has taken a number of measures to reduce potential
administrative costs to DFG including limiting the committees
meetings, providing the cost of the meeting venues, and having
the supplemental fee collected at the same time as existing
permit fees. However, even if the committee agrees that a lower
overhead is appropriate for the LMEA, the committee may wish to
consider if this bill's administrative overhead cap sets a
difficult precedent. By most accounts, DFG is significantly
underfunded for its statutory responsibilities. If other DFG
funds start limiting DFG's administrative overhead, DFG's fiscal
situation will be further challenged.
Is one meeting of the committee per year sufficient? This bill
restricts the committee from meeting more than once a year to
reduce DFG's costs in implementing this bill. If this bill was
enacted, the committee would be statutorily prevented from
meeting a second time even if all the committee members,
including the director of DFG, agreed that an additional meeting
would be desirable or necessary. The committee may wish to amend
the bill to make addition meetings permissive but not mandatory.
[see amendment 1]
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 4, line 33, after "only" insert "be required to"
AMENDMENT 2
On page 4, line 33, after "year." insert "The department
may call additional committee meetings as it determines to
be necessary."
SUPPORT
California Lobster and Trap Fishermen's Association (Co-sponsor)
Environmental Defense Fund (Co-sponsor)
Avicena Network, Inc
California Fisheries Fund
The Nature Conservancy
4
Ocean Conservancy
San Diego Coastkeeper
9 individuals
OPPOSITION
Department of Fish and Game
5