RBOC and our national advocacy partner BoatU.S. are advocating for the inclusion of essential boating provisions in legislation addressing golden mussels and is opposing the bill unless they are included to provide balance, accountability, focus and access.
We embrace the objectives of AB 1772 [Papan] 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 Assembly Member Papan’s engagement and leadership.
Our organizations have been engaged in a collaborative process as AB 1772 has moved through the Assembly as an acknowledged work in progress. For a previous update: click here
Today we received confirmation of the amendments the author will be making to the bill for consideration in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water.
These amendments do not address several key issues that are critical to the recreational boating community and present concerns as well. The issues and concerns are of such significance that we have adopted a position in opposition to the measure unless it is amended to resolve them. We would support the bill if it were to be so amended.
It is important to recognize that the Department of Fish and Wildlife [DFW] is already engaged and is leading the effort to develop a uniform standard and procedures for decontaminating conveyances, even without the enactment of AB 1772. The legislation adds a comprehensive inspection and decontamination program and imposes an additional invasive mussel infestation prevention fee of $20 per nonmotorized vessel every 2 years.
Significantly, the measure as amended will not provide the balance, accountability, focus and access RBOC and BoatU.S. have consistently advocated. AB 1772 will not:
Prevent the continued introduction of invasive species by commercial vessel ballast water and to impose responsibility and financial accountability on the responsible entities.
Identify and implement alternative and equitable funding sources for prevention, control, and mitigation activities to respond to aquatic invasive species beyond fees imposed on the recreational boating community. This could be in the form of assessments on commercial activities, including on international cargo shipping operations that may impact the introduction of aquatic invasive species to California waters. Instead, the measure imposes a new fee on non-motorized boaters.
Ensure reciprocity so that boaters can leave a body of water that is not infested to travel to another body of water and launch their boats. This should be authorized, for instance, when a boat is leaving a body of water that is not infested, or when a boat has been decontaminated upon departure.
Provide for the anticipated future, post-infestation, when many water bodies are infested. The golden mussel that was first discovered in the U.S. in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta in 2024 has now been found as far south as the San Diego area. This could structured as reciprocity between the affected water bodies.
Provide for a potential termination of the program, if the invasive species threat is removed, e.g., if testing shows no further state infestations for 12 months.
The proposed amendments raise new concerns as well:
A vessel operator should have the ability to refuse to submit to decontamination or quarantine, and depart the location without entering the protected waterway, without the conveyance being quarantined or impounded, and without the conveyance being decontaminated involuntarily.
Non-governmental inspection and decontamination stations should not have the authority to issue a quarantine certificate.
The legislature should not be authorized to appropriate funds with arbitrary percentage limits, and without minimum funding to DBW or DFW. This could result in the Legislature appropriating the entirety of the funds for grants to entities and failing to support the department’s and division’s actual direct costs of administration.
As a condition of receiving grant funding an entity receiving funding should be required to implement an invasive mussel prevention and inspection program.
There are also technical issues that need to be addressed in the amendments:
The designated period of time in an order to dry should not be unlimited in duration and should be limited to the amount of time necessary to dry the conveyance.
The department should not have unlimited authority to impose “any requirements” in situations where there is a drying order.
There should be a prohibition against the removal or destruction of a tamper-proof device by anyone other than law enforcement or a qualified inspector.
There is no definition of the “minimum retention period for inspection and decontamination certificates.” This could be interpreted to mean the owner/operator’s retention of the certificate, or of the tamper-proof device, or retention of the conveyance or the certificate by the station.
Department recognition of other state certificates should not require inspection, decontamination and quarantine, and “achieving the same standards” is not the correct determination. It would be appropriate for the department to recognize other government-issued confirmation of compliance with standards and procedures that the department determines are at a minimum as effective as those established here.
There is no definition of a “notice of noncompliance.”
There is no definition of the WID Data Sharing System in one section, while it is defined in two others.
There is no assurance that boaters will be able to launch at a water body when the database confirms that a conveyance has not been in an infected water body.
There is authorization for the expenditure of non-motorized sticker fees for costs and grants without specific parameters or controls, for example, to “contractors issuing stickers.”
For the reasons set forth above, RBOC and BoatU.S, believe that AB 1772 as it will be amended will not achieve its stated purpose but will stand up expensive programs and staffing and place new obstacles in front of the recreational boating public. We therefore have an opposition position on the bill unless it is amended to resolve these concerns.
