BILL ANALYSIS
AB 804
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 804 (Hall) - As Amended: May 4, 2009
Policy Committee: WPW Vote:13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill provides protections for an operator of a water
delivery system and storage facility that has prepared and
implemented a plan to control and eradicate dreissenid mussels.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that an operator of water delivery and storage
facilities who has prepared and implemented a plan to control
and eradicate dreissenid mussels in accordance with existing
law is immune from civil or criminal liability for
introduction of mussels as a result of operation of those
facilities.
2)Requires DFG, in conjunction with the Department of Water
Resources (DWR), to conduct a study on quagga mussels and
report to the Legislature by January 1, 2010.
3)Sunsets the provisions of this bill as of June 30, 2012.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs of $350,000 to DFG to complete the study
required by this bill, which will require contracting with
external experts. (Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF))
2)One-time costs to DFG to develop and adopt regulations
specifying the requirements of prevention and control or
eradication plans necessary to implement the bill. (FGPF)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. According to the Association of California Water
AB 804
Page 2
Agencies (ACWA), the sponsors of this bill, eradication of
quagga mussels is unlikely. A water system operator who
implements a scientifically sound plan to prevent the spread
of quagga mussels may, nonetheless, spread mussels through
water deliveries, thereby exposing the water system operator
and its employees to criminal and civil penalties. The author
and the sponsor contend that such treatment of law-abiding
individuals is unfair and unwarranted.
2)Background. Dreissenid mussels, which include quagga and
zebra mussels, are highly invasive species that were first
discovered in the United States in the Great Lakes region in
1988, where they have caused billions of dollars in damage
control costs to public agencies and private industry. These
mussels spread by clinging to the outer surfaces of boats and
other aquatic equipment or by drifting to downstream water
bodies as microscopic mussel larva.
Since these invasive species reproduce rapidly and in large
numbers, they can severely hinder water delivery systems by
clogging pipes, pumps and other water intake structures. They
are also harmful to aquatic ecosystems by consuming plankton
and other nutrients that form the primary base of the food
chain. As a result, these invasive species could seriously
threaten California's entire irrigation network, and the canal
system that transports drinking water for millions of Southern
California residents. According to the state's Aquatic
Invasive Species plan, if a mussel invasion is not prevented,
the economic and social consequences to California may be
incalculable. In addition to the state's natural ecosystems
and water conveyance systems, a mussel invasion threatens
other valuable state resources, including commercial and sport
fisheries.
3)Related Legislation.
a) AB 1683 (Wolk, Chapter 419, Statutes of 2007) authorized
DFG to conduct inspections and to order quarantines,
closures and decontaminations as required to control
dreissenid mussels. The bill also required water supply
system operators to cooperate with DFG to implement
measures to avoid, control or eradicate infestations, and
required water system operators to prepare and implement a
control plan if mussels were detected.
AB 804
Page 3
b) AB 2065 (Hancock, Chapter 667, Statutes of 2008)
requires any person, or federal, state or local agency,
district or authority that owns or manages a reservoir
where recreational, boating or fishing activities are
permitted to assess the vulnerability of the reservoir to
nonnative mussels and develop and implement a program
designed to prevent the introduction of nonnative mussels.
Violation of this section is subject only to an
administrative civil penalty of $1000, and not subject to
the criminal penalties or criminal enforcement otherwise
applicable to violations of the Fish and Game Code.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081