RBOC shares the objectives of AB 1772 to enhance the current efforts to prevent the infestation and spread of nonnative, invasive golden mussels into additional waterways and water delivery infrastructure. This is a challenging issue and we appreciate the leadership of Assembly Member Diane Papan [D-San Mateo] as the Member develops provisions that will be incorporated into this legislation as it moves forward.
The Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee analysis that has now been published for the April 23 hearing on AB 1772 sets forth a series of amendments for consideration of the committee.
RBOC has several perspectives on the amendments that are consistent with and in furtherance of our communications with legislators, the committee, the administration and other stakeholders over the course of the past several months including as AB 149 [Chapter 831, Statutes of 2025] was developed and considered in the Legislature.
First, there are several important over-arching issues that remain partially addressed, unaddressed, or limited to the legislative intent provisions that will have no impact. These include:
A balanced approach that does not place the entire financial burden on recreational boaters and recognizes that our community is not responsible for the introduction of golden mussels and other invasive species.
Requirements to prevent the continued introduction of invasive species by commercial vessel ballast water and to impose financial liability on the responsible entities.
A recognition that the infestation of golden mussels is rapidly expanding at a pace that exceeds the consideration, enactment and implementation of legislation. As of today, infestations have been identified as far south as the Rialto and Santa Ana Valley pipelines, Silverwood Lake, and Sweetwater Reservoir [in San Diego!].
A focused approach on what would be most effective for prevention efforts (versus more costly control efforts after the fact) that do not create a bureaucratic infrastructure, financial burden, and other requirements on the recreational boaters who will continue following widespread golden mussel infestation protocols. Decontamination that is effective on golden mussels may not be effective against future invasives.
Clear authority for the private sector to act rapidly to establish and provide decontamination services for the recreational boating community.
In addition to these broad issues and concerns, we offer the following comments and suggestions that are specific to the amendments:
The provisions would apply to “conveyances,” which appears to be intended to pertain to objects that can convey aquatic invasive species. Perhaps ice chests, life vests, and more. It would be important to provide a definition including in-water work related to permitted construction activities.
The provisions would impose a label requirement on conveyances. Because many nonmotorized conveyances are not required to have state registration, they would be difficult if not impossible to identify.
The provisions authorize “authorized personnel” of the department to provide decontamination, but this needs to be clarified whether it would include the private sector.
The provisions do not identify the funding for decontamination.
The provisions refer to “launches” as a nexus for decontamination even though potential conveyances can enter waters without launching.
The provisions would require the state to develop decontamination standards but there is no reference to a process that would include stakeholder input.
The provisions focus on new fees on boaters without identifying other stakeholders and beneficiaries such as agriculture, ports and utility districts.
The Golden Mussel Response Framework notes the need to address other potential pathways of spread but also states that the spread of Golden mussel will happen anyway through state and federal water conveyance systems because there are no mechanisms to prevent it.
The provisions do not provide an assurance of reciprocity so that verified decontaminated boats can be placed into non-infested bodies of water.
The provisions ignore the continuing deficit in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund, as well as the cumulative impact to recreational boaters from the new vessel registration fees, the recently authorized increased invasive sticker fees, and the proposed non-motorized vessel fees.
The provisions fail to address whether recreational boaters and other conveyances will be able to enter and utilize bodies of water after they have been infested. The framework suggests 5 days of mandatory decontamination and should include decontamination of equipment related to in-water work (i.e., not related to vessels or other watercraft).
The provisions do not address and incorporate any additional efforts with other states, federal agencies and owners of private facilities who can also prevent infestation or spread from access points that are not state-managed, but these water conveyances are linked.
The provisions do not include a periodic, ongoing review of the program and potential termination (sunset), as well as fee reduction or elimination.
As discussed above there are several issues outstanding that are essential to an effective, balanced effort to prevent and control golden mussels and enable recreational boaters to enjoy the vast and unique waterways of this state.
RBOC has offered our continued engagement to accomplish this shared objective as AB 1772 moves forward through the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.