BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SJR 18 HEARING DATE: March 23, 2010
AUTHOR: Simitian URGENCY: No
VERSION: August 25, 2009 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: No
SUBJECT: Marine aquaculture
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
SB 201 (Simitian, Statutes of 2006), also known as the
Sustainable Oceans Act, requires a person to obtain a lease from
the Fish and Game Commission in order to practice marine finfish
aquaculture. Prior to issuing leases, the act requires the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to prepare a programmatic
environmental impact reports (PEIR) for existing and potential
commercial aquaculture in the state's costal and inland areas.
Section 15008 required DFG, in the PEIR, to consider a number of
factors including the effects of escaped fish on wild stocks,
the effects on sensitive ocean and coastal habitats, the effects
of feed and fish meal on marine ecosystem, and the appropriate
design of facilities and farming practices to avoid adverse
environmental impacts. The intent of the requirement for the
PEIR was to examine the impact of marine finfish aquaculture on
a statewide, rather than piecemeal, basis. DFG is currently in
the process of developing the required PEIR.
Lessees are required to establish best management practices
including practices for monitoring, reporting, and inspection.
The Sustainable Oceans Act also established related fees and
penalties.
PROPOSED LAW
This resolution would request that Congress develop a
comprehensive federal regulatory framework for marine
aquaculture that would be at least protective as that codified
in California's Sustainable Oceans Act. The resolution also
states that the Legislature opposes the expansion of marine
aquaculture off the Pacific Coast without a federal regulatory
1
framework as well as any attempts to weaken California's
regulations. In making this request, the resolution makes a
number of findings including, the value of California's coast
and ocean waters, the risk that marine aquaculture poses to the
ocean environment without strict protections, and the need for
strict and enforceable standards to protect the environment and
consumers.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author states, "A comprehensive federal framework to address
fish farming adjacent to state waters is of special interest to
California because of the risks that marine aquaculture poses to
the state's ocean ecosystems. Despite real and
scientifically-documented risks, the United States does not have
a framework in place to ensure safe aquaculture. If decisive
action is not taken by Congress soon, marine aquaculture in
federal waters off California's coast could be subject to weak,
piecemeal standards. Federal agencies, entities, and fishery
management councils have recently begun to develop various
aquaculture permitting guidelines, precedents, and policies for
U.S. waters near California - all outside of a strong,
coordinated and comprehensive framework that matches
California's standards. SJR 18 encourages Congress to adopt a
framework and standards that are at least as robust as
California's to ensure the health of the state's ocean
ecosystem."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
Environmental Review of Aquaculture : A key component of SB 201
was to require a programmatic EIR so that environmental review
could be done on a statewide, rather than a piecemeal, basis.
This requirement ensured that aquaculture projects would receive
complete environmental review. The committee may find it
desirable to also request that any federal aquaculture
regulations also undergo complete environmental review. [see
amendment 1 & 2]
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 2, line 20, after "standards" insert "and requiring
complete environmental review"
AMENDMENT 2
2
On page 2, line 40, after "that" insert "undergoes
complete environmental review and"
SUPPORT
Ocean Conservancy (sponsor)
OPPOSITION
None Received
3