BILL ANALYSIS
AB 979
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 979 (Tom Berryhill) - As Amended: April 30, 2009
Policy Committee: WPW Vote:7-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a city or county from adopting an ordinance
or regulation that affects fishing and hunting within its
jurisdiction unless the action is consistent with the California
Constitution and state laws that preempt local actions, is
needed to protect public health and safety, and has only an
incidental effect on fishing and hunting. The bill specifies
that it does not preclude a city or county from adopting an
ordinance that is both necessary for public health and safety
and only incidentally affects the state preempted field of
hunting and fishing.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible costs to the Fish and Game Commission and the
Department of Fish and Game to review local ordinances and
regulations that may violate these provisions. (Fish and Game
Preservation Fund)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author believes FGC's authority to regulate
fishing and hunting in California is being usurped by some
cities and counties that adopt local ordinances restricting
fishing and hunting activities.
2)The California Constitution (Section 20, Article I) creates
the FGC and allows the Legislature to vest the commission with
the responsibility to regulate fishing and hunting activities
in the state, an authority the Legislature has exercised since
early in the 20th Century. The California Constitution
(Section 25, Article I) guarantees the right to fish on the
AB 979
Page 2
public lands and waters of the state and prohibits laws to
impede access to these lands and waters for the purpose of
fishing. The California Supreme Court in re Makings (1927)
determined that local governments are prohibited from
regulating, or interfering with, the taking of fish and game
and places this responsibility with the Legislature.
3)Prior Legislation .
a) AB 815 (T. Berryhill) of 2008, which received a generic
veto applied to many bills, was nearly identical to this
bill. AB 815 passed this committee 15-0.
b) AB 2146 (Canciamilla) of 2006, similar to this bill, was
held in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
after proponents and opponents agreed to negotiate a
compromise during the fall interim. AB 979, like AB 815
before it, is broader than AB 2146 in terms of prohibiting
cities and counties from taking certain actions. However,
this bill includes provisions not found in AB 2146 that
would allow a city or county to adopt an ordinance or
regulation under certain circumstances.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081