BILL ANALYSIS
AB 571
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 571 (Saldana) - As Amended: April 15, 2009
Policy Committee: Water, Parks, and
Wildlife Vote: 10-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
Imposes, for five years, a $300 surcharge on the price of a
lobster permit to fund long-term conservation and management of
the California spiny lobster fishery. Specifically, this bill:
1)Imposes, from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2015, a $300
surcharge on the price of a lobster permit, bringing the total
base permit price to $565.
2)Directs that revenues from the surcharge be deposited into the
yet-to-be-created Lobster Management Enhancement Account
(LMEA), a subaccount of the California Ocean Protection Trust
Fund.
3)Specifies that revenue in the LMEA be continuously
appropriated to the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to fund
projects to improve lobster conservation and management.
4)Allows LMEA funds to be used, among other things, for repaying
of California Fisheries Fund loans, conducting research, and
developing a lobster fishery management plan.
5)Directs OPC to appoint a five-member Lobster Management
Enhancement Advisory Committee, with membership to include a
representative of the state's commercial lobster fishermen and
women, two members of the California Lobster and Trap
Fishermen's Association, and the secretary and the director of
OPC.
6) Directs the committee to recommend projects to OPC and allows
expenditures for projects only with approval of OPC and a
AB 571
Page 2
majority of the committee members.
7)Limits administrative overhead to implement the bill to 1%
each for DFG and OPC.
8)Requires OPC to report annually to the committee and to the
Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual revenue of approximately $60,000, from 2010-11 through
2014-15 (LMEA)
2)Continuously appropriates LMEA funds to the OPC, bypassing
legislative oversight.
3)Minor costs to DFG to administer surcharge and to OPC to
support committee.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The bill's sponsors contend that it provides a
stable source to fund projects that help ensure the viability
of California's commercial lobster fishing industry.
2)Background.
a) Lobster Fishing in California . Current law prohibits
taking lobster for commercial purposes without a valid annual
lobster permit, issued by DFG. The current base price of a
lobster permit is $265, which, adjusted for inflation, would
be $333.25. In 2007, DFG issued 214 lobster operator permits.
According to the California Lobster and Trap Fishermen's
Association-a cosponsor of this bill-the average commercial
weight of lobsters caught in California is down from a range
of around 3.5-4 pounds to 1.25-2 pounds, indicating a stressed
lobster fishery. The Association voted to pursue legislation
to require that all commercial lobster fishermen pay a fee to
generate funds to support lobster fishery conservation and
management. It is unclear what percentage of the state's
commercial lobster fishermen and women are members of the
association or support the surcharge described in the bill.
b) OPC . The Ocean Protection Act of 2004 created OPC to
AB 571
Page 3
coordinate the state's efforts to protect its ocean and
coastal resources. Currently, OPC members include the
Secretary for Natural Resources, the Secretary for
Environmental Protection, the Lieutenant Governor, a member
each of the Assembly and the Senate, and two public members.
The OPC is staffed by the California Coastal Conservancy. The
Ocean Protection Trust Fund is OPC's main administrative fund
and, to date has received the proceeds of bond sales.
c) California Fisheries Fund : This bill specifies that
LMEA funds may repay loans from the California Fisheries Fund.
The California Fisheries Fund is a newly created,
public/private revolving loan fund that supports fishing
communities working to improve the sustainability of their
fisheries and is not defined in statute. However, loans made
from the fund are not limited to lobster fishery management
and improvement projects. Rather, loans made from the fund go
to fisheries management generally, infrastructure investments,
and individual business finance. It is questionable whether
it would be appropriate to allow LMEA funds-proceeds of a
surcharge on commercial lobster fishermen and women-to repay
loans made for general fisheries management and other
non-lobster fishery specific projects.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081