BILL ANALYSIS
SB 670
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 670 (Wiggins) - As Amended: June 26, 2009
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 11-0
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill places a statewide temporary moratorium on the use of
any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream or
lake until the director of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
completes a court-ordered environmental review of its existing
suction dredge regulations and updates the regulations. As most
recently amended, the bill explicitly does not apply to suction
dredging for purposes other than instream mining.
FISCAL EFFECT
Loss of approximately $175,000 in annual revenue each year the
moratorium is in effect, resulting from the loss of suction
dredge permit fees. (Fish and Game Preservation Fund.) This
fee revenue currently pays for suction dredge permit enforcement
at a cost of approximately $50,000 a year, activity that will
presumably continue during the suction dredge moratorium.
COMMENTS
1)Background .
a) Suction dredging of a river, stream or lake usually
involves use of a large hose attached to a vacuum mounted
on board a vessel or on a vehicle at the water's edge. The
hose, either remotely controlled or manually controlled by
a diver, sucks up sediment and other small or light pebbles
on the bottom. Suction dredging is used to remove sediment
from channels boarded by levees, to maintain a river as
navigable for larger vessels, and as part of a small-scale
gold mining operation. It is the latter use of suction
SB 670
Page 2
dredging that is the focus of this bill. Several recent
studies indicate suction dredging may harm several aquatic
species, particularly in regard to spawning, breeding,
rearing, and general habitat disruption.
b) Recent Lawsuit Settlement . In December 2006, DFG
settled with the Karuk Tribe in a case the tribe brought
challenging the adequacy of the department's instream
mining regulations. The tribe alleges the regulations do
not adequately protect runs of Coho salmon and other state
endangered species on the Klamath, Scott, and Salmon Rivers
and their tributaries from suction dredging activities. As
part of the settlement, the court ordered DFG to perform a
CEQA review of the effects dredging has on these waters,
but DFG indicates it does not have the fiscal resources to
comply. DFG has selected a consultant and indicates it
will complete the court-ordered environmental review by the
end of 2010.
3)The precautionary principle is oftentimes employed in deciding
the appropriate response to potential threats to the
environment and public health. The principle implies that, in
the absence of scientific certitude or consensus, a policy
that might bring about catastrophic or irreparable harm should
be avoided or prevented until scientific information emerges
that justifies a relaxation of restrictions. In the context
of the near extinction of the state's salmon on some rivers
and tributaries, proponents of this bill claim the
precautionary principle justifies the banning of suction
dredge mining at least until DFG completes its environmental
review of the effects of its suction dredging regulations.
4)Related Legislation.
a) AB 1032 (Wolk) of 2007, which was vetoed by the
Governor, would have imposed seasonal limits on suction
dredging in streams in Northern California and the Sierra
that have been identified as habitat for salmon, steelhead
and wild trout, pending completion of the court-ordered
EIR, and also increased the fees for suction dredge
permits.
b) AB 4634 (Farr) - Chapter 1037, Statutes of 1988
increased permit fees for suction dredging and allowed the
closure of areas previously open for dredging when
SB 670
Page 3
unanticipated water level changes endanger fish and
wildlife resources.
5)Supporters, including commercial and sport fishing
organizations, several Native American tribes and numerous
environmental organizations, note the affect the closure of
the salmon fishery is having on thousands of commercial,
recreational and tribal fishermen and other businesses, and
the further risk these fish face from the effects of suction
dredging. Caltrout and others also point to DFG's sworn
statements that suction dredge mining harms fish, including
Coho salmon, which is on the brink of extinction. Others note
that many tribal members rely on subsistence fishing to
provide food for their families, and emphasize this bill will
protect habitat, water quality, and tribal cultural, religious
and subsistence practices. Still other supporters emphasize
concerns over water quality impacts, particularly mercury,
which they allege is stirred up by suction dredging.
6)Opponents , including the County of Siskiyou, the Regional
Council of Rural Counties, some tribe members, and the New
49ers (an organization of recreational and professional gold
prospectors) reject claims that suction dredging is harmful to
fish or has contributed to the decline of salmon fisheries.
The New 49'ers also note a prior EIR found that suction
dredging had positive impacts, creating additional salmon
spawning habitat by loosening concretized river gravels, and
that further restrictions on suction dredge mining will
violate property rights of those with mining claims. Siskiyou
County and the Regional Council of Rural Counties also cite
concerns regarding the economic impact of the proposed
restrictions on local communities, assert that the existing
regulatory permitting process is adequate, and argue that this
bill would circumvent the CEQA process.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081