BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 152
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 152 (Pavley) - As Amended: May 25, 2011
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:5-4
Local Government 5-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill repeals existing statute that prohibits the State
Lands Commission (SLC) from charging rent for a private
recreational pier built on state lands for the use of a nearby
littoral (near a shore) land owner. This bill instead allows
SLC to charge rent for the use of state lands such a pier, based
on market conditions, as the leases on such piers expire or as
they are constructed.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual costs to SLC of approximately $200,000 to administer
rental agreements on leases for use of state land.
2)SLC estimates annual rent revenue ranging from $225,000 in
2011-12 and gradually peaking at about $2 million beginning 10
years following passage of the bill.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. SLC (sponsor) contends private piers on public
trust land provide little public benefit; therefore, providing
the owners of such piers rent-free leases for the use of
public trust land is unwarranted and is an unconstitutional
gift of public property.
2)Background. The Public Trust Doctrine holds that tide and
submerged lands and the beds of lakes, streams, and other
navigable waterways are "public trust lands" held by the state
for the benefit of the people of California. These lands are
SB 152
Page 2
to promote the public's interest in water or water-dependent
activities such as commerce, navigation, fisheries,
environmental preservation and recreation. SLC is the steward
of the state's public trust lands.
Existing law allows SLC to lease public trust lands, enter
into boundary agreements, exchange public trust lands for
non-trust lands, and lift the trust from public trust lands.
However, existing law expressly prohibits SLC from collecting
rent for a private recreational pier constructed on state
lands for the use of any littoral land owner, which statute
generally defines as a person who owns littoral land occupied
by a single-family dwelling, or an association of such
persons.
This prohibition on rent results from passage of statute in
1977. In 1976, the Attorney General opined that private piers
on state lands did not provide public benefits and that
failing to charge rent for use of the public lands constituted
an unconstitutional gift of public property. In response, the
Legislature passed a bill that, among other things, declared
the numerous public benefits from the construction and
operation of private recreational piers on state lands,
including:
The provision of a safe harbor for vessels which
become disabled upon the waterways of this state.
A safe anchorage for vessels which become distressed
in times of severe weather conditions.
The protection of the public from navigational
hazards often found adjacent to shorelines along the
waterways of this state.
The elimination or retardation of erosion along the
shoreline of rivers and streams, and the provisions of
navigational aids to members of the public utilizing the
waterways of this state.
Given these purported benefits, it is unclear why statute
prohibits SLC from charging rent for the lease of state lands
only to owners of single-family homes on littoral lands.
Presumably, the public benefits of construction and operation
of private piers on state lands would flow from piers
constructed and operated by other classes or littoral land
owners, including owners of multi-family dwellings. Nor is it
clear why statute applies the prohibition on rent only to SLC
SB 152
Page 3
but not to other entities, such as local governments, that
hold state lands in trust on behalf of SLC.
In any case, since 1977, many littoral land owners have
constructed and operated private recreational piers on state
lands, rent free and consistent with the terms of leases with
SLC, especially in the areas of Lake Tahoe, the Sacramento
Delta and Huntington Harbor. Presumably, the value of such
littoral properties is enhanced by the privilege of rent-free
access to state lands with private piers built on them. These
land owners complain it is unfair for SLC to suddenly charge
them rent for use of state lands after they have made
considerable investments in construction and maintenance of
the piers and in littoral property under the legally accurate
assumption of rent-free access to state land.
1)Support . This bill is supported by the State Lands Commission
(sponsor) and Sierra Club California, who contend there are
few or no public benefits from the construction and operation
of private piers on state lands. Failing to charge rent to
the owners of littoral land with access to such piers as a
condition of use of state lands is therefore unjustified,
supporters contend.
2)Opposition . Policy committees received opposition from a few
dozen littoral land owners with access to private piers on
state lands. These land owners assert the public benefits of
the construction and operation of private piers. Moreover,
these land owners claim it is unfair for SLC to suddenly
charge rent for access to state lands after land owners have
made investments to construct and maintain private piers on
state lands and in property privileged with access to those
piers.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081