BILL ANALYSIS 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 2376 HEARING DATE: June 29, 2010
AUTHOR: Huffman URGENCY: No
VERSION: May 28, 2010 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Fish and wildlife: strategic vision.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is a department of the
State Natural Resources Agency, administered through the
director, with responsibility for managing and conserving the
state's fish and wildlife and their habitat. The California
Fish and Game Code states that the fish and wildlife resources
of the state are held in trust for the people of the state by
and through DFG.
Among its many activities are: conducting biological and field
investigations, operation of fish hatcheries, licensing for
hunting and fishing, wildlife disease investigation, review of
CEQA documents that affect streambed alterations or wildlife
habitat, review of timber harvest plans, land management for
lands under its jurisdiction, habitat planning and management,
enforcement of wildlife protection and hunting and fishing laws,
and oil spill planning, enforcement, and response.
2. The state constitution, Article IV, Section 20, created the
California Fish and Game Commission, (FGC), composed of 5
members appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate
confirmation. Section 200 of the Fish and Game Code delegated
to the FGC powers relating to the protection and propagation of
fish and game. Elsewhere, the Legislature has delegated to the
FGC and to DFG various responsibilities for the protection,
management and regulation of fish and game and their habitats.
For example, the FGC is generally granted the power to regulate
hunting and fishing seasons.
3. State law provides that the FGC shall formulate general
policies for the conduct of DFG, and provides that the DFG
director is to be guided by those policies and responsible to
the FGC for administering DFG in accord with those policies.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill has several components, all related to developing a
strategic vision for DFG and FGC that the author hopes will be
helpful in restoring and refocusing these entities on their work
in protecting California's natural resources. Specifically, the
bill:
1. Directs the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to
convene a committee to develop and submit to the Legislature, by
July 1, 2012, a strategic vision for DFG and FGC.
2. Provides that the committee shall include the Secretary, the
director of DFG, the president of the FGC, the chair of the
California Energy Commission, a representative of the University
of California, and representatives of the U.S Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, should they
choose to participate.
3. Requires that the strategic vision address specified matters
relating to fish and game management, including but not limited
to: biodiversity management and ecosystem functions;
permitting and regulatory functions; recreational and commercial
harvest; scientific capacity; relations with the public,
landowners, nonprofits and other land management agencies;
reforms necessary to address challenges of the 21st Century; use
of technology and data systems; clarification of the roles of
DFG and FGC; and strategies for identifying other stable funding
options to reduce DFG's dependence on the General Fund.
4. Directs the committee to seek input from other entities and
interested parties, and review existing reports and other state
models.
5. Directs the Governor or the committee to appoint a "blue
ribbon" or citizen commission, advisory committee, task force,
or other group or groups to assist in carrying out this task.
6. Requires the committee to seek funding from non-state
entities to minimize the use of General Fund moneys for purposes
of implementing this bill.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
Defenders of Wildlife states that DFG's previous reliance on
hunting and fishing revenues is inadequate for its contemporary
tasks and that the result of a strategic planning process could
help both DFG and FGC again be leaders in natural resource
protection and stewardship.
California Council of Land Trusts notes that California is home
to approximately 110,000 species of plants and animals, of which
more than 350 are threatened or endangered. Additionally, the
state's extensive waterways, wilderness areas, and other public
lands are an integral part of the state's infrastructure and
deserve the best management and oversight that can be provided.
Several conservation groups have agreed to help fund the public
stakeholder process provisions of the bill, including Audubon,
CalTrout, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Monterey Bay
Aquarium, and others.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) believes
that DFG should be supported with increased general fund
revenues and that the search for other DFG funding sources could
result in higher fees paid by its members, which ACWA would
oppose.
COMMENTS
The mission of DFG is to manage CA's fish, wildlife and plants,
and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological
values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. In
addition to its traditional role of managing fish and game
activities, DFG is the state's lead public trustee charged with
conserving and restoring CA's wildlife and ecosystems. DFG's
broad responsibilities have expanded and become increasingly
more complex over time. Today California is both the most
populous and most biologically diverse state in the nation. As a
result of population growth and associated development
pressures, and competing demands for finite natural resources,
CA's environment has experienced unparalleled stressors and
resource conservation challenges. In addition, new challenges
such as the need to adapt to climate change and to site
renewable energy projects, has increased the work load of DFG.
The author has introduced this bill with the long term goal of
improving and enhancing DFG's capacity and effectiveness in
fulfilling its public trust responsibilities for protection and
management of the state's fish and wildlife, for their
ecological values and for the benefit of the people of the
state. Numerous past reports and studies, including reports by
the Legislative Analyst's Office, the State Auditor, the Little
Hoover Commission and others have highlighted the need for
reform of DFG. Earlier this year, the Assembly Water Parks and
Wildlife Committee held a day-long informational oversight
hearing on DFG in which the committee reviewed DFG's many
mandates and emerging challenges, identified areas where
improvements are needed, and received recommendations on ways
that DFG's capacity, effectiveness and accountability could be
enhanced. A number of common themes emerged from the hearing,
including the following:
Need for a dedicated, stable funding source.
Need for new management models to manage wildlife
in an era of scarcity and multiple threats.
That the importance of ensuring DFG has capacity to
fulfill its mission is heightened by the state's legal public
trust responsibility under the constitution to protect fish and
wildlife.
Need for greater conservation planning efforts
statewide, including for monitoring and data collection.
Need for greater clarity between roles of DFG and
FGC.
Need to expedite, prioritize and create incentives
in the permitting process for voluntary habitat restoration
projects on private lands.
Need for increased on the ground game warden
enforcement capacity.
Need to strengthen DFG's in-house science capacity
and partnerships with other academic institutions, like UC and
CSU.
Database system modernization, standardization,
management, coordination and public access should be high
priority.
While these and other common themes emerged from the hearing, it
was clear given the complexities, that a comprehensive review
and strategic analysis is needed. This bill provides a pathway
for developing that strategic vision, through creation of a
state agency-level committee that can look in depth at the
issues, with assistance of a blue ribbon or citizen commission
and other advisory groups. A process similar to this approach
was used to develop the Delta Vision and strategic plan.
In addition to the specific topics included in the bill, the
gubernatorial committee or task force may also raise topics that
are not included in the bill but that are considered important
or desirable. A non-exclusive list of both major and minor
topics that have been considered by stakeholders over the past
several years would include: (1) possible restructuring of the
department or a merger with other resource protection entities
in state government-several proposals have been developed, but
none has ever been endorsed by the administration or introduced
as legislation; (2) establishing qualifications or continuing
education requirements for the FGC commissioners, (3) comparing
methods by which other states choose a director; (4) enhancing
the FGC budget by creating a separate line item so that it is no
longer part of the DFG budget, (5) continued steps to help
reform the budgeting practices at the DFG, and (6) considering
other funding mechanisms to help DFG with its well-known budget
shortfall.
It is interesting to note that the Legislature has three times
codified its awareness of the DFG budgeting problems, beginning
in 1978.
Another important factor in considering DFG and FGC is that,
especially for DFG, its conservation and resource planning
mandates have increased while its funding has decreased as
hunting and fishing license revenues have decreased. The number
of sportfishing licenses decreased nearly 14% from 2000 to 2008.
The number of hunting licenses has decreased 8% from 2000-2008
and nearly 25% since 1990.
DFG is supposed to pay for its hunting and fishing programs
through these fees while the department's non-game activities
are supposed to be paid for from the General Fund. It has not
worked that way for a long time.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
1. Staff is suggesting, in the first amendment, that the
cabinet-level task force also recommend improvements to the role
of the commission.
2. While this bill represents an important step in focusing on
ways to improve the work of the DFG and FGC, the work of the
citizen commission should be undertaken as a project of the
state and directed by the secretary. The important role of the
stakeholder committee should not be dependent on private
funding, although the offer to help provide funding is clearly
well-intentioned. The state costs are admittedly minor, but the
stakeholder process, which is a required component of the bill,
should not be dependent on the identification of non-state
funds, as currently provided.
To that end, the language on page 4, lines 12-16, should be
deleted. That said, nothing would prohibit the stakeholder
advisory group members from paying its own costs or sharing the
costs of the advisory group (for example, a facilitator) in an
arrangement such as a memorandum of agreement approved by the
secretary. The key point is that the process should be directed
by the secretary.
AMENDMENT 1
Page 2, line 8, after "department's" add "and commission's"
AMENDMENT 2
Page 4, lines 12-16, delete.
SUPPORT
Green California
California Fish and Game Commission
Audubon California
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Council of Land Trusts
California Trout
Defenders of Wildlife
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen's Associations
The Nature Conservancy
The Sportfishing Conservancy
Trout Unlimited
Trust for Public Land
OPPOSITION
Association of California Water Agencies