BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1319
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
SB 1319 (Pavley) - As Amended: June 9, 2014
SENATE VOTE : 23-12
SUBJECT : Oil spills: oil spill prevention and response
SUMMARY : Extends the Office of Spill Prevention and Response's
(OSPR) marine oil spill program to all waters of the state.
Extends the requirements in OSPR's oil spill program to trains
transporting oil, oil pipelines, oil production wells, and oil
refineries.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes OSPR within the Department of Fish and Wildlife
(DFW) and requires it to administer the state's oil spill
program.
2)Establishes that OSPR has the primary authority to serve as a
state incident commander and direct removal, abatement,
response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all
aspects of any placement of petroleum or a petroleum product
in the waters of the state.
3)Requires the Governor to establish a state oil spill
contingency plan, which is referred to as the California Oil
Spill Contingency Plan (COSCP). Requires OSPR to submit to
the Governor and the Legislature an amended COSCP every three
years. Requires the COSCP to address oil spill contingency
planning for both marine and inland spills.
4)Requires the Department of Finance (Finance), no less than
once every four years, to conduct an audit on the financial
basis and programmatic effectiveness of the state's oil spill
prevention, response, and preparedness program.
5)Creates the Oil Spill Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to
provide public input and independent judgment of the actions
of OSPR. Requires the TAC to consist of 10 appointed members
with experience ranging from various industry activities to
environmental protection. Requires the TAC to provide
SB 1319
Page 2
recommendations to OSPR and other specified state agencies on
the state's oil spill program, including the promulgation of
all rules, regulations, guidelines, and policies.
6)Pursuant to the state's marine oil spill program:
a) Establishes that OSPR has the primary authority to
direct prevention, removal, abatement, response,
containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects
of any oil spill in the marine waters of the state, in
accordance with any applicable marine oil facility or
vessel contingency plan and the COSP. Requires the
administrator to cooperate with any federal on-scene
coordinator, as specified in the National Contingency Plan.
b) Establishes a process for OSPR to provide grants to
local governments for (1) training and certification of a
local emergency responder designated as a local spill
response manager by a local government and (2) oil spill
response equipment to be deployed by a local spill response
manager.
c) Requires OSPR to adopt and implement regulations
governing the adequacy of oil spill contingency plans that
must be developed by marine oil facilities (e.g., marine
oil production facilities and marine oil transfer
terminals) and vessels carrying large amounts of oil.
Requires the regulations to provide for the best achievable
protection of waters and natural resources of the state.
Requires that the oil spill contingency plan regulations,
at a minimum, provide the following:
i) All areas of the marine waters of the state are at
all times protected by prevention, response, containment,
and cleanup equipment and operations.
ii) Standards set for response, containment, and cleanup
equipment and operations are maintained and regularly
improved to protect the resources of the state.
iii) All appropriate personnel employed by operators
required to have a contingency plan receive training in
oil spill response and cleanup equipment usage and
operations.
SB 1319
Page 3
iv) Each oil spill contingency plan provides for
appropriate financial or contractual arrangements for all
necessary equipment and services, for the response,
containment, and cleanup of a reasonable worst case oil
spill scenario for each part of the coast the plan
addresses.
v) Each oil spill contingency plan demonstrates that
all protection measures are being taken to reduce the
possibility of an oil spill occurring as a result of the
operation of the marine facility or vessel.
vi) Each oil spill contingency plan identifies the types
of equipment that can be used, the location of the
equipment, and the time taken to deliver the equipment.
vii) Each marine facility conducts a hazard and
operability study to identify the hazards associated with
the operation of the facility, including the use of the
facility by vessels, due to operating error, equipment
failure, and external events.
viii) Each oil spill contingency plan contains a list of
contacts to call in the event of a drill, threatened
discharge of oil, or discharge of oil.
ix) Each oil spill contingency plan identifies the
measures to be taken to protect the recreational and
environmentally sensitive areas that would be threatened
by a reasonable worst case oil spill scenario.
x) Standards for determining a reasonable worst case
oil spill.
xi) Each oil spill contingency plan includes a timetable
for implementing the plan.
xii) Each oil spill contingency plan specifies an agent
for service of process.
d) Requires OSPR to review and approve oil spill
contingency plans. Authorizes OSPR to make inspections and
require drills of any oil spill contingency plan that is
submitted. Requires that an approved plan be resubmitted
every five years. Authorizes OSPR to require earlier or
SB 1319
Page 4
more frequent resubmission if warranted.
e) Establishes the Oiled Wildlife Care Network (OWCN),
which is a network of rescue and rehabilitation stations
for sea birds, sea otters, and other marine mammals injured
by marine oil spills.
f) Establishes the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration
Fund (OSPAF), which finances OSPR's marine oil spill
prevention and preparedness programs. Funds the OSPAF with
a fee not to exceed 6.5 cents that is imposed on each
barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil or petroleum products
piped in from a marine production facility or imported to a
marine facility (the fee is commonly referred to as the
"per barrel fee"). On January 1, 2015, sunsets the 6.5
cent fee to 5 cents, which was the amount set by the
Legislature in 2002. Provides additional funding with a
reasonable fee on nontank vessels in an amount based on
OSPR's costs in implementing the oil spill program as it
relates to nontank vessels.
g) Establishes the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund (Trust
Fund), which provides funding to clean up a marine oil
spill if the responsible party is unknown or not
financially capable. Funds the Trust Fund with a uniform
oil spill response fee on distributors, pipeline operators,
refiners, and marine oil terminal operators, in an amount
not exceeding 25[ for each barrel of petroleum product
received or transported. Imposes the fee until the Trust
Fund reaches its statutory level, which is approximately
$55 million.
h) Imposes civil and criminal liability related to marine
oil spills.
7)Requires the Public Utilities Committee (PUC) to take all
appropriate action necessary to ensure the safe operation of
railroads in this state. Requires the PUC to conduct focused
inspections of railroad yards and track, either in
coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),
or as the PUC determines to be necessary. Requires the
focused inspection program to target railroad yards and track
that pose the greatest safety risk, based on inspection data,
accident history, and rail traffic density.
SB 1319
Page 5
THIS BILL :
1)Extends the OSPR marine oil spill program to all waters of the
state.
2)Extends the requirements in the OSPR oil spill program
(including oil spill contingency plan requirements, financial
assurance requirements, oil spill reporting requirements,
civil and criminal liability), to trains transporting oil, oil
pipelines, oil production wells, and oil refineries.
3)In addition to the existing requirements for an oil spill
contingency plan, requires a rail to include all of the
following in a plan:
a) A list of the types of train cars that may make up the
consist;
b) A list of the types of oil and petroleum products that
may be transported;
c) A map of track routes and facilities; and,
d) A list, description, and map of any prestaged spill
response equipment and personnel for deployment of the
equipment.
4)Requires, as part of the COSP, that the regional and local
planning element provide provisions regarding the
"identification and mitigation of public health and safety
impacts."
5)Requires OSPR, in consultation with the appropriate local,
state, and federal regulators, to conduct a comprehensive risk
assessment of nonvessel modes of transportation of oil and
identify those operations that pose the highest risk of a
pollution incident in state waters.
6)Requires OSPR to conduct a study and evaluation to improve
response activities for inland areas of the state. Requires
the study to include an analysis of likely spill scenarios,
response requirements for oil of varying properties and urban,
rural, and sensitive environments, and spill response
equipment and resources.
SB 1319
Page 6
7)Declares that it is the policy of the state that communities
that face significant risks associated with the transport or
planned transport of significant quantities of oil through or
near those communities be notified of the quantities and
properties of the oil in a timely manner. Requires OSPR to
obtain and make publicly available, as allowed pursuant to
existing state and federal law, previously filed information
related to the transport of oil through, near, or into
communities.
8)Expands the OWCN program to cover all waters of the state and
authorizes the OSPAF to fund the OWCN up to $2.5 million
annually.
9)Repeals the 6.5 cent per barrel OSPAF fee and authorizes OSPR
to collect a fee sufficient to pay the reasonable regulatory
costs to carry out the prevention and preparedness activities
of the oil spill program. (The "reasonable regulatory costs"
will be vetted by the Legislature each year and will be
determined by the annual budget bill.) Requires the fee to be
collected from the person owning crude oil at the time the oil
is received at a marine terminal or refinery in the state by
any mode of delivery that passed over, across, under, or
through waters of the state.
10)Adds four members to the TAC: a person with demonstrable
knowledge of environmental protection and the study of
ecosystems, a person with demonstrable knowledge of the
railroad industry, and a person with demonstrable knowledge of
the oil production industry.
11)Requires the PUC to conduct expanded focused inspections,
either in coordination with the FRA or as the PUC determines
to be necessary, of bridges and grade crossings over which oil
is being transported and oil unloading facilities, including
movement within these facilities and onside storage. Requires
the expanded focused inspection program to target bridges,
grade crossings, and oil unloading facilities that pose the
greatest safety risk, based on inspection data, accident
history, and rail traffic density.
12)Authorizes the PUC to regulate essential local safety hazards
for the transport of oil more stringently than federal safety
regulation.
SB 1319
Page 7
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)Ongoing costs of $9.9 million (OSPAF) to expand the oil spill
response program to include all waters of the state.
2)Ongoing savings of $2 million (Trust Fund) resulting from
changing the funding source for the Oiled Wildlife Care
Network.
3)Ongoing revenues of at least $11.9 million (OSPAF) from
expansion of the per barrel oil fee base to include crude oil
received at refineries.
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement .
Significant shifts in the mode of transportation of
crude oil into and within California are expected to
occur in the near future. Previously, most crude oil
imported into California arrived by marine vessel.
According to the Brown Administration, the volume of
oil transported by rail is anticipated to increase to
up to 150 million barrels per year by 2016. This
would be 25 percent of all the crude oil refined in
California. This shift in transportation mode-with an
accompanying shift in the source of the oil being
refined in the state-means that the nature of the
risks associated with oil spills as well as the likely
locations of spills is also changing. It is time to
update California's oil spill preparation, prevention
and response.
2)Crude-by-Rail Spills (Background) . Recently, there has been a
dramatic increase in the amount of oil transported by rail in
the country: US freight railroads carried more than 400,000
carloads (or 280 million barrels) of crude oil in 2013,
compared to just 9,500 carloads (or 6.65 million barrels) in
2011. The hydraulic fracturing boom in other areas of the
country, particularly North Dakota with its Bakken oil shale
formation, has been a major reason for the increase.
Furthermore, the flexibility and economics of rail transport
as compared to new pipeline construction (including Keystone
XL) have made crude-by-rail an attractive option: as much as
SB 1319
Page 8
90 percent of North Dakota's crude is expected to move by
freight rail in 2014.
Linked to this rise in crude-by-rail, has been an increase in
oil spills. In 2013, the country experienced more oil spilled
from trains than in the previous 37 years combined. Moreover,
in the last year, there have been several major crude-by-rail
accidents in Canada and the U.S. that illustrate how
vulnerable the environment and public are to these types of
events. One of the most serious accidents was the
Lac-M�gantic derailment that occurred in the town of
Lac-M�gantic, Quebec on July 6, 2013. In this accident, a
74-car freight train carrying crude oil from the Bakken
formation derailed in the downtown area, killing 47 people and
destroying more than 30 buildings when multiple tank cars
exploded and burned. In addition, the Chaudi�re River was
contaminated by 26,000 gallons of crude oil. Most recently,
on April 30, 2014, in downtown Lynchburg, Virgina, a train
carrying crude oil derailed and burst into flames, with
several tank cars spilling into the James River and releasing
30,000 gallons of oil. The resulting fire and spill prompted
the city manager to declare an emergency and temporarily
evacuate part of downtown. There have been six other major
crude-by-rail accidents in the last year, including the
December 30, 2013 derailment in North Dakota (which spilled
400,000 gallons, ignited a fire, caused the evacuation of
1,400 people, and led to $8 million in damages) and the
November 8, 2013 derailment in Alabama (which spilled oil into
wetlands, caused a large fire, and led to $3.9 million in
damages).
California is already experiencing the effects of increased
crude-by-rail transportation due to the North American
hydraulic fracturing boom. In 2011, California moved less
than 2 million barrels of oil by rail; in 2013, that number
rose to more than 6 million, with a significant amount coming
from North Dakota. For the first quarter of 2014,
crude-by-rail numbers were up 104 percent compared to the
first quarter of 2013 (1,414,418 barrels versus 693,457
barrels).
There are currently at least five crude-by-rail refinery
projects being pursued in California: one in Pittsburg, one in
Benicia, two in Bakersfield, and one in Wilmington. According
to the California Energy Commission, if all are constructed
SB 1319
Page 9
and operated at full capacity, the amount of crude oil being
imported via rail cars could rise to 150 million barrels, or
25 percent of total imports, by 2016.
Many of California's rail lines pass over or near bodies of
water and through high density population centers.
Crude-by-rail also presents risks that may be particularly
relevant to environmental justice communities situated near
oil refineries and offloading terminals. Communities in more
remote areas may have fewer skilled emergency response
personnel. Since much of the oil transported by rail into
California comes from North Dakota's Bakken region, it should
be noted that the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a safety alert in January
of this year indicating that the type of crude oil being
transported from the Bakken region "may be more flammable than
traditional heavy crude oil."
3)Crude-by-Rail Spills (Current Regulations) . Nationally, the
safety and operation of railroads is governed by the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and specifically the FRA,
which implements the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) and
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Pursuant to this
authority, the FRA has promulgated hundreds of rules
regulating railroad operations and safety. The PHMSA also
regulates the safe transportation of crude oil, ethanol, and
other hazardous materials by rail, coordinating with the FRA
on enforcement and implementation.
In California, the PUC is responsible for regulating railroad
safety where federal regulations do not preempt state
authority. The FRSA preempts state regulations that have the
purpose or effect of regulating aspects of rail transportation
and safety that are covered by federal laws and regulations.
The federal Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act (ICCTA), Locomotive Inspection Act, and Signal
Inspection Act also preempt conflicting state laws and
regulations.
These strong federal preemption provisions, combined with the
boom of crude-by-rail, raise important questions about whether
existing federal regulations are stringent enough, as well as
what states can do to protect public health and the
environment.
SB 1319
Page 10
4)Crude-by-Rail Spills (Recent Emergency Orders) . In 2013, in
response to the rise in crude-by-rail accidents, DOT issued an
emergency order requiring rail operators to test crude oil
before shipment to determine how susceptible the cargo is to
explosion or fire. Federal regulators also outlined a series
of voluntary steps in February 2014, including slowing oil
trains in major urban areas and conducting more track
inspections. The FRA, PHMSA, and DOT are considering
additional rail safety regulations this year. As one example,
FRA is collaborating with PHMSA on a rulemaking that addresses
tank car design standards.
After the recent derailment in Lynchburg, Virginia, DOT issued
an Emergency Restriction/Prohibition Order to large railroad
carriers that transport oil from the Bakken shale formation.
The order requires each railroad carrier to provide states
with notification regarding the expected movement of trains
carrying Bakken oil. The notification is required to identify
each county in the state through which the trains will
operate. As part of this order, DOT declared that "an unsafe
condition or an unsafe practice is causing or otherwise
constitutes an imminent hazard to the safe transportation of
hazardous materials." This declaration is based on the
"pattern of releases and fires involving petroleum crude oil
shipments originating from the Bakken and being transported by
rail."
5)Crude-by-Rail Spills (Federal Preemption) . States play an
important role in inspection and compliance under the federal
rail safety program; however, in general, their ability to
impose new regulations on rail operations and safety is quite
limited under FRSA, ICCTA, and other preemption provisions.
The FRSA provides that the rules regulating rail safety "shall
be nationally uniform to the extent practicable," and
expressly preempts state authority to adopt safety rules, save
for two exceptions.
One exception allows a state to adopt additional or more
stringent laws related to railroad safety if (1) it is
necessary to eliminate or reduce an "essentially local safety
or security hazard;" (2) it is not incompatible with a law,
regulation, or order of the United States Government; and (3)
it does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.
SB 1319
Page 11
The PUC tried to take advantage of the second exception in
1991 following two high-profile train accidents: Dunsmuir and
Sea Cliff. However, in a lawsuit brought against the state by
the rail industry, the Ninth Circuit of the United States
Court of Appeals explained that the meaning of an "essentially
local safety hazard" is quit narrow, applying to issues that
"are not capable of being adequately encompassed within
uniform national standards." In this case, the Ninth Circuit
was faced with the question of whether a California rail site
with an abnormally high derailment rate and the highest steep
grade/sharp curve combination in the state falls within the
"essentially local safety hazards" exception. The court found
that the site does not meet this exception, stating that there
was nothing essentially local about the steep grade/sharp
curve combination since other states have these types of
sites. The court explained that if the federal standards are
ineffective, they raise concerns for the numerous other
localities around the country that have similar mountainous
curves, and that such concerns could be easily and adequately
address by national standards.
The other exception allows a state to adopt laws and
regulations related to railroad safety or security if DOT has
not "prescribe[d] a regulation or issue[d] an order covering
the subject matter of the State requirement."
While DOT has adopted a regulation on oil spill "response
plans" for "rolling stock" (see 49 CFR 130.31), these
regulations do not "cover" state oil spill contingency plans.
This is supported by the rule making information contained in
the Federal Register, which states that the response plan
regulation "does not affect the applicability of other
Federal, State, local, or Indian tribe requirements that may
impose response obligations on the transporter." (61 FR
30533, 30537.) Additionally, the enabling statute for this
regulation is cited as Section 1321 of Title 33 of the United
States Code (which is part of the federal Clean Water Act).
This statute requires oil spill contingency plans for rolling
stock "that, because of its location, could reasonably be
expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the
environment by discharging into or on the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines?" This statute contains a savings clause
that states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as
preempting any State or political subdivision thereof from
imposing any requirement or liability with respect to the
SB 1319
Page 12
discharge or hazardous substance into any waters within such
State, or with respect to any removal activities related to
such discharge."
One of the main elements of this bill is the requirement of
state oil spill contingency plans for trains transporting oil
into the state. Since these state mandated plans are not
preempted by federal law, they provide an important
opportunity for the state to establish significant protections
for the environment and public safety.
6)Crude-by-Rail Spills (Governor's Working Group) . In January
2014, the Governor's Office convened the Interagency Rail
Safety Working Group (Working Group) to examine safety
concerns and recommend actions the state and others should
take in response to this emerging risk of crude-by-rail. One
June 10, 2014, the Working Group released a report entitled
"Oil by Rail Safety in California: Preliminary Findings and
Recommendations."
According to the report:
Various state agencies engage in prevention, planning,
emergency response, and cleanup activities applicable
to crude-by-rail, including the Office of Emergency
Services (OES), the Office of State Fire Marshal
(OSFM), California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA), and the Office of Spill Prevention and
Response (OSPR). These state agencies are all
beginning to prepare for the heightened risks posed by
crude-by-rail. Local agencies, including the local
Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs), also play
critical roles in emergency preparedness and response,
and have expressed growing concern about increased
crude-by-rail transport.
Several aspects of the state's emergency response
framework are currently being updated: The CalEPA
Emergency Response Management Committee is revising
the Hazardous Material and Oil Spill annex of the
State Emergency Plan, OES is leading an effort to
review and update the six Regional Plans for Hazardous
Materials Emergency Response, and OES has also
re-started meetings of the State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC), the federally-mandated state
SB 1319
Page 13
coordinating body for hazardous materials release
response planning.
This report also makes the following 12 recommendations for
state action:
Increase the Number of California Public Utilities
Commission Rail Inspectors
Improve Emergency Preparedness and Response Programs
Request Improved Identifiers on Tank Placards for
First Responders
Request Railroads to Provide Real-Time Shipment
Information to Emergency Responders
Request Railroads Provide More Information to
Affected Communities
Develop and Post Interactive Oil by Rail Map
Request DOT to Expedite Phase Out of Older, Riskier
Tank Cars
Accelerate Implementation of New Accident Prevention
Technology
Update California Public Utilities Commission
Incident Reporting Requirements
Request Railroads Provide the State of California
with Broader Accident and Injury Data
Ensure Compliance with Industry Voluntary Agreement
Ensure State Agencies Have Adequate Data
With regard to the second recommendation (Improve Emergency
Preparedness and Response Programs), the report states the
following:
The Legislature should fund the proposal in the
Governor's Budget to extend the per barrel fee to
cover all sources of crude oil sent to refineries in
SB 1319
Page 14
the state, and to provide OSPR with the regulatory
authority and resources to establish an inland spill
preparedness and response program. This will enable
OSPR to expand its proven maritime oil spill program
to inland areas. The program will: support existing
prevention measures as appropriate, enhance
preparedness for spills (including training and
drills, cleanup contractor testing requirements,
industry drills and exercises, geographic response and
contingency planning, oiled wildlife rescue and
multi-agency coordination), and allow OSPR to oversee
responses to oil spills in order to maximize
containment, protect and restore natural resources,
and ensure effective cleanup. These activities should
be closely coordinated with the work of state and
local emergency response agencies.
This bill is very similar to the Governor's Budget proposal
released in January. The notable differences are that the
Governor's Budget proposal includes a 6.5cent per barrel fee
cap (instead of a fee based on the cost of the program) and
does not include the additional requirements imposed on the
PUC.
1)Marine Oil Spills (Background) . In the wake of the March
24,1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska (which spilled
approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil) and the
February 7, 1990 American Trader oil spill near Huntington
Beach (which spilled approximately 300,000 gallons of crude
oil), the Legislature passed the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil
Spill Prevention and Response Act (Oil Spill Act), which
created the marine oil spill program. This act established
OSPR and gave the administrator of OSPR primary authority to
direct prevention, removal, abatement, response, containment,
and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any oil
spill in the marine waters of the state.
2)Marine Oil Spills (OSPAF Fee). The OSPAF was created by the
Oil Spill Act to fund the state's oil spill prevention and
preparedness programs. The fees that support OSPAF are a 6.5
cent per barrel fee on oil piped in from a marine production
facility or imported to a marine facility and a $650 to $3,250
nontank vessel fee that is collected from a nontank vessel
when the owner or operator submits an application for
certificate of financial responsibility, which occurs every
SB 1319
Page 15
two years. The 6.5 cent per barrel fee will decrease to 5
cent per barrel on January 1, 2015. The maximum nontank
vessel fee was recently established at $3,250 by regulations.
Unlike the per barrel fee, there is no statutory cap on the
nontank vessel fee.
3)Marine Oil Spills (Audits Ensure Integrity). The OSPAF and
the programs it funds have been audited by Finance (January
2005, December 2012) and by the State Auditor (August 2008,
August 2012). Current law requires Finance to audit the OSPAF
programs no less than once every four years. The audit is
specifically required to focus on "the financial basis and
programmatic effectiveness of the state's oil spill
prevention, response, and preparedness program." In its
December 2012 audit report, the Finance stated that "[b]ased
on our review, the Program has effective and efficient
prevention, preparedness, and response activities in place."
4)Marine Oil Spills (Oiled Wildlife Care Network). The OWCN is
the state program that rescues and rehabilitates oiled
wildlife in the state. It is an integrated system of more
than 30 organizations and facilities strategically sited
throughout California that is largely considered the most
proactive response organization in the world dedicated to
wildlife affected by catastrophic oil spills.
In 1995, AB 1549 (Sher) directed OSPR to establish regional
oiled wildlife rescue and rehabilitation facilities along the
California coast. In 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding was
signed between the Regents of the University of California and
OSPR assigning the administration of the OWCN to the Wildlife
Health Center at the University of California, Davis School of
Veterinary Medicine.
Between 1995 and 2001, much of the OWCN's efforts went into
increasing capacity for oiled wildlife rehabilitation along
the California coast. The OWCN constructed major facilities
in the San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, and
Humboldt regions. The OWCN also began working with wildlife
organizations throughout the state to upgrade existing
facilities and increase capacity to care for oiled birds and
mammals.
Since the completion of the initial construction and capital
improvement projects, the OWCN's focus has broadened to
SB 1319
Page 16
include all aspects of oiled wildlife response. These include
extensive training and preparedness, fostering inter-agency
cooperation, refining emergency response procedures, and
supporting research activities to improve oiled wildlife
response efforts.
Since 1995, the OWCN has responded to more than 75 oil spills
throughout California and has cared for nearly 8,000 oiled
birds and mammals.
The OWCN's budget is approximately $2 million, which has been
funded from interest earned from the Trust Fund. In 2011,
however, SB 84 (Budget) transferred $40 million from the Trust
Fund as a loan to the General Fund. This loan was made to
help backfill the revenue loss caused by the cancelation of
the sale-for-leaseback of 11 large state office buildings that
were included in the 2010 Budget. As a result of the loan,
the Oil Spill Response Trust Fund is generating virtually no
money for OWCN's budget.
The Oil Spill Response Trust Fund loan is intended to be
repaid on June 30, 2014 with interest earned; however, as
stated in the 2012 oil spill program audit by Finance, there
is no assurance of repayment. Moreover, Finance's audit
states that "[e]ven if the loan is repaid, due to the
economy's low interest rates, interest earned is no longer
sufficient to support the cost of the Program."
The 2012 Finance audit suggests that OSPR "explore feasible
options to obtain a dedicated funding source for OWCN." The
Director of the Department of Fish and Wildlife is treating
the OWCN funding issue as a "top priority." The Director has
stated that time is of the essence to find a dedicated funding
source, especially since oil spill contingency plan holders
rely on OWCN existing in order to meet regulatory
requirements.
This bill provides sustainable funding for the OWCN by
authorizing the OSPAF to fund it. This bill also increases
the OWCN's budget by $500,000 to pay for additional costs as
it expands its work to from marine waters to all waters of the
state.
5)Double Referral . This bill has also been referred to the
Utilities and Commerce Committee.
SB 1319
Page 17
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California League of Conservation Voters
Clean Water Action
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Natural Resources Defense Council
San Francisco Baykeeper
Surfrider Foundation
Opposition
California Chamber of Commerce
California Independent Petroleum Association
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
Western States Petroleum Association
Analysis Prepared by : Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092