BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 770 HEARING DATE: April 26, 2011
AUTHOR: Evans URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 25, 2011 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Marine protected areas: Native American tribes.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) requires the Department
of Fish and Game (DFG) to develop and implement marine protected
areas using science-driven ecosystem-based management as a way
to preserve and enhance fisheries and marine biological
diversity. Several MPAs have been developed or proposed, and one
is now pending on the north coast.
The Marine Life Protection Act presently does not have
provisions pertaining to Native American fishing rights.
Recognized Native American tribes retain certain fishing rights
through various mechanisms including treaties, presidential
executive orders, or congressional acts. Defining with
particularity those reserved rights is extremely contentious and
is often accomplished through the allocation process undertaken
by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, a regional group
established by federal law. In addition, numerous court cases
have made determinations that effect tribal fishing rights.
The Klamath basin has seen more than its fair share of acrimony,
litigation, and social unrest over this issue going back many
decades. The issue of tribal fishing rights is presently
affecting the ongoing discussion of the proposed north coast
marine protected area proposal. Last July, at Fort Bragg,
several tribal representatives and others (numbering nearly 300)
protested the proposal.
The California Resources Agency is currently working with tribal
representatives and other stakeholders in a process to resolve
1
these issues. The North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group for the
proposed MPA includes several tribal representatives. There is
general agreement that the traditional, non-commercial tribal
uses of the fishing and marine resources of the north coast
region should be recognized and protected in MLPA regulations.
An example from another state, Washington, may be useful to
California. The Centennial Accord, adopted in 1989, included 25
federally-recognized tribes and the State of Washington in an
agreement that included mutually acceptable procedures for
conducting negotiations on tribal fishing rights on a
government-to-government basis.
PROPOSED LAW
As recently amended, this bill would include within the MLPA the
following provisions:
1. That one or more recognized tribes could submit a proposal to
the Secretary for Natural Resources for limited or full
co-management of living marine natural resources. The proposal
would include information about the geographic boundary, the
covered species, and the respective roles of the tribe and
California state government in developing the necessary science
and how management would be shared.
2. The Secretary would consider the proposal, request additional
information if necessary, deem the proposal complete, and
instruct DFG to consult with the tribal governing body to
develop a memorandum of understanding that provides for tribal
access to its traditional fishing and gathering areas,
co-management of these areas, and developing conservation
strategies that will help meet the science-based goals of the
MLPA.
3. The bill requires that each co-management proposal shall
include a dispute resolution process.
4. The bill allows traditional tribal fishing and gathering to
continue without interruption prior to and during the
development of the memorandum of understanding.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
None received
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
2
None received
COMMENTS
According to the author, this bill could serve two possible
purposes: (1) it may assist the administration in its ongoing
efforts to resolve this issue administratively, which the author
believes is the preferable outcome. Second, should the
administration effort get bogged down, the bill could become a
legislative solution.
Assuming the bill moves forward, the author should consider a
time limit or other provision for the last subdivision of the
bill that allows traditional tribal fishing and gathering to
continue during the period that a memorandum of understanding is
developed. That provision, while respectful of existing tribal
activities, could be read as removing an incentive to reach an
agreement, even when the negotiations are conducted on a
government-to-government basis, as the author hopes.
SUPPORT
None Received
OPPOSITION
None Received
3