BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1148
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1148 (Pavley) - As Amended: June 21, 2012
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 8-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill makes numerous, disparate changes to the Fish and Game
Code. Most significantly, this bill:
1)Requires the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Fish
and Game Commission (FGC) to adjust, as necessary, all fees
for licenses, tags, and other entitlements and permits to
ensure revenue fully covers, but does not exceed, all
reasonable administrative costs.
2)Makes numerous changes to DFG's fish management programs,
including (a) requiring DFG to maintain, rather than simply
conduct, an inventory of all California trout streams and
lakes, (b) stating a preference for native trout in stocking
operations, (c) requiring hatchery-produced fish to be marked
whenever feasible, (d) requiring all hatchery-produced fish
stocked in California waters be sterile, (e) requiring
pentennial updating of the department's Strategic Plan for
Trout Management and (f) requiring the establishment of a
Hatchery Independent Science Advisory Panel.
3)Establishes a program by which DFG reviews and approves
mitigation land bank proposals, and authorizes DFG to charge
fees to applicants to cover the cost of review of applications
and amendments.
4)Transfers, from the commission to the department, authority to
regulate commercial and recreational fishing in marine
protected areas (MPAs), and establishes a process for review
of additions, deletions or modifications of MPAs.
SB 1148
Page 2
5)Authorizes any person acting as a trustee for fish and
wildlife to seek damages, injunctive relief, and appropriate
civil penalties before superior court, provided all damages
for fish and wildlife and the reasonable cost of the
department are paid to DFG.
6)Provides that, except where otherwise provided, all violations
of the Fish and Game Code are strict liability offenses.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown workload costs to DFG and the commission to review and
adjust fees as needed (special funds). These costs should be
covered by fee revenue, which DFG and the commission can set
to ensure they do so. However, there may be a lag between the
time DFG and the commission develop and adopt fees and the
time any resulting revenue increase is realized. It is not
clear DFG or the commission has the resources to cover these
activities from other funds until they receive additional fee
revenue.
2)Ongoing costs of an unknown amount, but potentially exceeding
$1 million dollars annually, to DFG to mark all hatchery
produced trout (special fund).
3)Ongoing costs of an unknown amount, but potentially in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to ensure the
sterility of all stocked fish.
4)Ongoing cost in the tens of thousands of dollars to DFG to
support the Hatchery Independent Science Advisory Panel
(special fund).
5)Significant costs, likely in the low millions of dollars
annually, to DFG to plan, review, establish and monitor
conservation and mitigation bank programs (special fund).
These costs should be fully covered by the fees the bill
authorizes DFG to collect from applicants.
6)Ongoing costs, possibly in excess of $1 million dollars, to
DFG to regulate commercial fishing in MPAs (special fund).
These costs should largely be offset by savings to the
commission, which will no longer regulate fishing in MPAs.
DFG also attributes to this bill a number of other significant
SB 1148
Page 3
special fund costs, though at the time this analysis was
written, committee staff was not convinced that these costs
are accurate or should be attributed to the bill. DFG is
working on staff questions related to the cost claims but was
unable to respond in time for those responses to be considered
in this analysis.
Costs of nearly $30 million dollars ($4 million ongoing)
to maintain an inventory of trout streams and lakes.
Cost of approximately $340,000 to fund seven additional
positions in the Heritage and Wild Trout Program.
Cost pressure of nearly $30 million to construct and
operate a new fish hatchery, necessitated by increased
fishing license sales in response to the bill's purported
directive to produce 2.75 pounds of trout for each fishing
license.
Potential costs of an unknown, but potentially
significant amount to assist with investigations of alleged
violations brought by private citizens acting as trustees
for fish and wildlife.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author intends this bill to implement several
of the recommendations from the interim strategic vision
report released in 2011.
2)Background. AB 2376 (Huffman, Chapter 424, Statutes of 2010)
requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to
convene a committee to develop a strategic plan for DFG and
FGC. Members of the committee include state and federal
officials and stakeholders. In response, the secretary
appointed a state executive commission, a blue ribbon
citizen's commission and a stakeholder advisory group, who
worked together for a year to develop recommendations on how
to improve DFG and FGC operations to better protect and manage
the state's fish and wildlife for the benefit of Californians.
A draft interim strategic vision report was released in 2011
and a final Strategic Vision Report in February 2012. This
bill includes several of the recommendations made by the
report.
SB 1148
Page 4
3)Support. This bill is supported by several major conservation
organizations, who contend management of the state's wildlife
is long overdue.
4)Opposition . Earlier versions of this bill were not formally
opposed by any organization. The latest version of the bill,
however, is opposed by a long list of industry groups and
regulated parties who object to three amendments in the
latest version of the bill: (a) authorizing any person acting
as a trustee for fish and wildlife to seek damages, injunctive
relief, and appropriate civil penalties before superior court
(aka private right of action); (b) providing that, except
where otherwise provided, all violations of the Fish and Game
Code are strict liability offenses; and (c) transfer of
regulation of fishing in MPAs from the commission to DFG.
Opponents contend the first two changes create uncertainty and
invite frivolous lawsuits while the third change removes
opportunity for public input.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081