BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 896|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 896
Author: Eggman (D)
Amended: 8/18/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 8-1, 6/10/14
AYES: Pavley, Cannella, Evans, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Monning,
Wolk
NOES: Fuller
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 1/29/14 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Wildlife management areas: mosquito abatement
SOURCE : Mosquito and Vector Control Association of
California
DIGEST : This bill re-establishes certain provisions of AB
1982 (Wolk, Chapter 553, Statutes of 2004) and makes those
provisions applicable to local mosquito abatement and vector
control districts (districts).
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
CONTINUED
AB 896
Page
2
1.Provides for the formation of local mosquito abatement and
vector control districts (local districts) and authorizes the
districts to conduct programs for the surveillance,
prevention, abatement and control of mosquitoes and other
vectors.
2.States legislative intent that the local districts cooperate
with other public agencies to protect the public health,
safety and welfare from vectors and pathogens and to adapt
their powers and procedures to local circumstances and
responsibilities.
3.Authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to
protect, restore, rehabilitate, and improve fish and wildlife
habitats, and to manage wetlands and other wildlife management
areas under the DFW's jurisdiction.
This bill:
1.Expresses legislative intent to control mosquito production on
the DFW's managed wetland habitat while minimizing the use of
chemical control measures and costs, maintaining or enhancing
the wildlife values of the habitat and protection from
vector-borne diseases and increasing coordination and
communication between the DFW, local districts, and the
Department of Public Health (DPH).
2.Makes legislative findings that best management practices
(BMPs) for mosquito prevention on managed wetland habitat are
critical to the DFW's efforts to reduce mosquito production in
its wildlife management areas.
3.Defines "best management practices" as management strategies
jointly developed by the DFW, the DPH, local districts and
others, as specified, for the ecological control of mosquitoes
on managed wetland habitats.
4.Requires certain local districts to at least semiannually
notify the DFW of those areas that are of concern due to the
potential for high mosquito populations that may incur
associated mosquito control costs.
5.Requires, in order to reduce mosquito production at wildlife
CONTINUED
AB 896
Page
3
management areas, as defined, the DFW to consult with local
districts to identify those areas within wildlife management
areas having the highest need for additional mosquito
reduction through the implementation of BMPs.
6.Authorizes the DFW, if the wetland occupies land outside the
jurisdictional boundaries of a local district, to consult with
the DPH to determine which BMPs can be implemented in the
absence of an organized local mosquito control program.
Background
According to the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of
California, approximately half the land area and 85% of
California's population are within the current boundaries of a
mosquito control program. Local districts may include the
boundaries of wildlife management areas and managed wetland
habitat within their jurisdiction. The local district's
jurisdiction extends to areas that are sources for vectors and
vector-borne diseases entering the local district.
Mosquitos in the United States routinely transmit at least six
types of viruses, including West Nile virus which is an
increasing public health threat. The DPH reported 476 human
cases of West Nile virus in California in 2012 of which 19 were
fatal. This is higher than 2011 when there were 158 confirmed
human cases and nine fatalities. West Nile virus was first
detected in California in 2003 and has spread throughout the
state.
AB 1982 required the development and implementation of
ecological controls - known as BMPs - in wildlife management
areas in order to reduce the need for chemical treatment while
also controlling mosquito populations below established
thresholds. Consultation between the local districts, the DFW,
and others, as specified, was required to develop the BMPs. The
BMPs developed pursuant to this chapter include management
strategies that rely more on the timing of flooding, vegetation
control work, and other established habitat practices, instead
of on spraying alone. Monitoring, reporting requirements and
other specified actions were required of the DFW, local
districts and certain others.
AB 1982 sunset in 2010. According to information received from
CONTINUED
AB 896
Page
4
the DFW, there continue to be contracts in place between the DFW
and individual local districts for mosquito abatement and vector
control.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, there will be
minor and absorbable costs to the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund (special) to communicate with the mosquito abatement and
vector control districts.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/15/14)
Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California (source)
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Burney Basin Mosquito Abatement District
Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District
California Special Districts Association
City of Alturas
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Colusa Mosquito Abatement District
Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control District
Delta Vector Control District
Fresno Mosquito and Vector Control District
Fresno Westside Mosquito Abatement District
Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District
Kern Mosquito and Vector Control District
Lake County Vector Control District
Madera County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District
Merced County Mosquito Abatement District
Northern Salinas Valley Mosquito Abatement District
Orange County Vector Control District
Pine Grove Mosquito Abatement District
Placer Mosquito & Vector Control District
Rural County Representatives of California
Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District
San Gabriel Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District
San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Santa Cruz County Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control
Shasta Mosquito and Vector Control District
Solano County Mosquito Abatement District
Sutter-Yuba Mosquito & Vector Control District
CONTINUED
AB 896
Page
5
Tehama County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Turlock Mosquito Abatement District
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/15/14)
California Waterfowl Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The bill's sponsor, the Mosquito and
Vector Control Association of California, states that this bill
requires that the habitat management work plans for state
wildlife areas incorporate BMPs to minimize mosquito production
using existing resources. Additionally, this bill "simply
recognizes the need to prioritize BMPs based on appropriate
criteria. The [DFW] already uses BMPs in some of its wildlife
management areas. [?] If BMPs are not used and a mosquito
control district is forced to abate the mosquito production, the
[DFW] is legally required to reimburse the costs of abatements.
This [is] why AB 896 makes sense; it reduces the need for
abatement, enhances wetland habitat and ultimately saves the
[DFW] reimbursement costs while enhancing the ability to protect
public and wildlife health from mosquito borne diseases."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Waterfowl Association
states, "While [they] recognize the need to control mosquitos on
[state wildlife areas], this should neither interfere with the
wildlife conservation purposes for which those areas were
acquired nor be inconsistent with any applicable wildlife
management plans." They continue that provisions in AB 1892
that took into consideration wetland management needs are
omitted from the bill, there have been no peer-reviewed relevant
studies, mosquito abatement costs have remained high in many
state wildlife areas, and the bill provides no funding to the
DFW.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 1/29/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez,
Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Morrell, Mullin,
CONTINUED
AB 896
Page
6
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron,
Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Logue, Perea
RM:k 8/16/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED