BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1101
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
AB 1101 (Duvall) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUBJECT : Streambed Alteration Agreements
SUMMARY : Allows streambed alteration agreements to be extended
for more than five years by mutual agreement, without having to
meet the conditions otherwise required for an extension.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Allows the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to extend a
streambed alteration agreement for more than five years by
mutual agreement.
2)Authorizes DFG to issue a streambed alteration agreement for a
term longer than five years either by mutual agreement or if
specified conditions set out in existing law are met.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Makes it unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the
natural flow, or substantially change or use any material from
the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream or lake,
without first obtaining a streambed alteration agreement from
DFG.
2)Requires that the term of an agreement not exceed five years,
but authorizes DFG to issue an agreement for longer than five
years if certain specified conditions are met.
3)Allows an entity to request an extension of a
previously-approved agreement prior to expiration of the
original term. Requires DFG to grant the extension unless DFG
determines that the agreement requires modification to protect
fish and wildlife resources. Prohibits DFG from extending an
agreement for more than five years.
4)Provides that any time period prescribed in the chapter may be
extended by mutual agreement.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 1101
Page 2
COMMENTS : The author states that this bill is intended to
clarify an inconsistency in existing law between Fish and Game
Code Sections 1605 and 1607 regarding the allowable term of
Streambed Alteration Agreements and to add flexibility to the
terms and extensions of these agreements. The author notes
that Section 1605 limits the agreements to a term of five years,
but that Section 1607 allows the five year time period to be
extended by mutual agreement. The author believes this does not
provide clear flexibility in negotiating the terms of the
agreements. The author also notes that Section 1605 (b) only
permits an entity to request one extension.
The author cites examples from Orange County Flood Control
District where agreements of longer than five years were needed
for projects involving multiple phases, and asserts that this
bill will support current practice by clarifying DFG's authority
to issue more than one extension. The examples cited include
Huntington Beach and Talbert channel projects involving
installation of corrosion protection systems in channels and
repairs of sheet piling for flood protection. The initial
permit term for each project was from 1992 to 1998. Permits
were subsequently extended twelve times for one year each, and
the latest extension expires January 31, 2010.
It is unclear whether this bill is necessary, or whether it
addresses the problem identified by the author. While Section
1605 does provide that the term of an agreement shall generally
not exceed 5 years, that Section also allows for an agreement to
be issued for a term longer than five years if certain
conditions are met, including, among other things, that the
applicant has provided specific information on the project and
activity proposed, and has agreed to provide a status report to
DFG every four years. That Section also authorizes DFG to
extend an agreement for up to five years. This bill also would
not change the provision in existing law allowing an entity to
request one extension. The committee may wish to consider
whether the existing law already provides adequate provisions
for issuance or extension of streambed alteration agreements.
Opposition Arguments : The Defenders of Wildlife opposes this
bill because it would undermine carefully negotiated standards
for extending a streambed alteration agreement now specified in
Section 1605 of the Fish and Game Code. Parties to those
negotiations agreed to allow for the extension of an agreement
beyond the original five year period as long as minimal
AB 1101
Page 3
standards, including evaluation of the original agreement and
on-site review to ensure site conditions continue to support the
agreement, are met. This bill, opponents assert, would moot out
those conditions by allowing for an extension of the agreement
without any parameters as to the conditions required for an
extension.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
Defenders of Wildlife
Sierra Club California
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096