PDA

View Full Version : AB 1806 legislative Alert...for California anglers...



Mike McKenzie
04-25-2008, 02:03 PM
Legislative Alert! ....................... April 25, 2008

Anglers, commercial fishermen, and the fish, need your help to pass critically needed state legislation. As you know, salmon, steelhead, pelagic fish, and the Bay-Delta ecosystem are in grave danger of extinction in the next few years. Our fishing groups are active and united in efforts to save the Delta ecosystem and fisheries. We are working closely with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk to address these serious problems. We can prevail on the need to have appropriate mitigation for the significant damages to the public’s fishery resources caused by the operation of the state and federal water projects, but we need your help now!

In order to save the estuary’s fisheries, those who use water exported from the Delta must mitigate the damages to the public’s fisheries caused by the state and federal water projects operations. AB 1806 by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk does just that. It will be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 21, 2008.

In addition to the provisions in the bill that require emergency preparedness to prevent future Prospect Island debacles, this bill requires mitigation for the direct and indirect fish losses caused by the federal and state water projects that divert water from the Delta. Assemblywoman Wolk, and our fishing groups working with her, would appreciate support from environmental and conservation groups and the public, to help pass the bill. The water contractors lobby has been very active in opposition, but this did not stop the bill from recently passing the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee. However, we now face far more difficult challenges that require your engagement if we are to be successful.

The next hearing of the bill will be in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Letters of support are needed to the State Legislature by May 14th.

Sample Letter

Date

Assemblyman Mark Leno, Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: AB 1806 - Fish Rescue Plans & Mitigation

Dear Chairman Mark Leno & Appropriation Committee Members:

[(your organization) or (you)] would like you to know of our strong support for AB 1806, as it would significantly reduce the potential for fishery disasters like the Prospect Island fish kill this past winter and it would require the State and Federal water projects to comprehensively mitigate for losses to the public’s fishery resources caused by the operation of their projects.



The emergency action plans the bill proposes would ensure state and public lands are provided protections from the likelihood of such events as the tragic Prospect Island fish kill in the future. We ardently support the mitigation measures required by this proposed legislation, as without such requirements the losses of the public’s fisheries caused by water export from the Delta will not be offset and our fisheries will continue to suffer long-term, significant degradation that prevent their recovery and eventual restoration.



The Delta's fisheries are in crisis. What is happening to them is being described as one of the largest fishery disasters in the country. The salmon season has been completely closed this year, an unprecedented action. Fishery experts note that there are multiple factors contributing to the salmon decline, the most significant are the ongoing impacts of the state and federal water projects.



The goal of realizing a sustainable ecosystem and fisheries in the Delta will clearly not be obtainable without requiring such mitigation. Time has run out for our fisheries in Delta and its tributaries. Actions to help recovery them are needed now or we will continue to see court decisions attempt to remedy the situation through export restrictions.



The SWP and CVP only mitigate for some of the losses of the fish they kill. They clearly lack a comprehensive program to address the destruction of the public’s fishery resources that result for the operation of the projects. The public cannot afford to lose their valuable fishery resources. Billions of dollars have been lost to the state’s economy from the fishery declines since the SWP and CVP began operations. These losses must be addressed now if we are to recover these irreplaceable public resources.

Sincerely,


Please cc:

Steve Archibald, Committee Consultant (at the same address above)

Assemblymember Lois Wolk, Attn: Diane Colborn
Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
1020 N Street, Suite 160
Sacramento, CA 95814
P.O. Box 94249
Sacramento, CA 94249-00119



Please contact David Nesmith (EWC / 510-893-1330) and/or John Beuttler (CSPA / Allied Fishing Groups / 510-526-4049) for more information and to organize strategy.

Thank you for your help!
John Beuttler & David Nesmith

JerryInLodi
04-25-2008, 08:28 PM
A printable flyer for club officers to take to meetings is available in PDF format at:http://www.calsport.org/LegislativeAlert4-25-08.pdf

Please visit the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance http://www.calsport.org/ at least a couple of times a week, the news on the fight to save California's fisheries is changing daily!

While there, why not sign up for CSPA Action Alerts and Advisories. http://www.calsport.org/action_alerts.htm

YOUR FISH really need YOUR active participation in saving their habitat and their environment.

Darian
05-05-2008, 11:04 PM
The Status page of Bills numbered AB 1806 and AB 2502 reflects a hearing date for both bills on May 7th. AB 1806 was originally scheduled to be heard on May 28th. The new hearing date is before the Assembly Appropriations Committee for both bills.

If you support these bills and were delaying your comments until later, it's time to let the committee know what you think, now. Call the author's office or send the committee a note. Nothing complicated. Just tell them you support the provisions of these bills and ask them for their vote to pass. 8) 8) 8)

Mrs.Finsallaround
05-06-2008, 10:14 AM
So are we to send three or four letters to:

Assemblyman Mark Leno, Chair
Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Steve Archibald, Committee Consultant
Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114,
Sacramento, CA 95814

Assemblymember Lois Wolk, Attn: Diane Colborn
Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee
1020 N Street, Suite 160
Sacramento, CA 95814
P.O. Box 94249
Sacramento, CA 94249-00119

I've got the letter ready and waiting! 8)

JerryInLodi
05-06-2008, 10:50 AM
Robin, you can send the letters e-mail since I doubt that they will reach the people involved in time for the hearing, scheduled tomorrow if sent snail mail.

The e-mail addresses of the two principal people are:

assemblymember.leno@assembly.ca.gov

assemblymember.wolk@assembly.ca.gov

I'm sorry, I don't have the e-mails for the other two.

AB 1806 is up for a rough time and, if it clears committee, it may lack any funding sources which would make it toothless.

AB 2502 has a greater chance of clearing.

We should know all tomorrow night. I'll post the info as soon as I hear myself.

Darian
05-06-2008, 11:44 AM
Robin,.... There's a number of sources for legislators, the Assembly and the Senate. Each body of the legislature and each individual member of the Legislature have websites and an e-mail address as does each committee in the legisture. You can look up these addresses using Google or some other search engine. Another source is the telephone book. The Administration has a website that includes links to legislative websites, too.

Try:

www.assembly.ca.gov

www.sen.ca.gov

8) 8) 8) 8)

Mrs.Finsallaround
05-06-2008, 11:45 AM
Letters sent.... Thanks for the help guys! 8)

Darian
05-08-2008, 09:21 AM
Both of these bills were re-referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee as a result of the hearing on 5/7. Sounds like the condition of the budget is rearing up again.... :? :? :?

Mrs.Finsallaround
05-08-2008, 11:06 AM
SO, what does this mean for the two bills? Do we know WHY they were "re-referred"?

Darian
05-08-2008, 03:54 PM
IMHO (based on personal experience with legislation), these two bills are running into a case of fiscal and political reality. On the positive side, interest the bills is high, for now. Bills that are actively being reviewed for potential funding, amendment, etc., indicate a higher possibility of passage than those that show moderate or no activity.


On the negative side, the hearing date for AB 1806 was, apparently, moved up without notice and the committee analysis wasn't posted until the day preceding the hearing. thus, limiting the opportunity for input (....to avoid oppsition :?:). Appropriating any funding for either of these bills is not likely during this fiscal year. Finally, those opposed to passage of both bills are well funded water distributors/owners and, surprisingly, the California Central Valley Flood Control Association. :( :(

Of the two bills, AB 1806 has the least fiscal impact in terms of initial and ongoing costs but has some negative regulatory impacts on licensees, both federal and state. AB 2502 has significant initial and annual/ongoing costs to be funded, at least in part, from the General Fund. The author recognized this circumstance and gave the state agencies involved some wiggle room by giving them the discretion to carry out purchases required rather than mandating them. This allows agencies to act when they have the funding. When was the last time this state had any discretionary funds that were not contested by all of the other competing programs :?: :?: Also, since the requirements of this bill are discretionary, Dept of Finance is not likely to allocate money to this activity. :( :(

Now, it's early in the process. So, it may still be that both of these bills will pass. However, reality means that even if they do, the funding for AB 2502 may not materialize. It's more likely that AB 1806 will be passed (....maybe not in it's current form) and successfully implemented... :? :? :?

bonish
05-09-2008, 10:22 AM
This legislative session, any bill with a "price tag" over $50K is automatically placed into the suspense file. What this typically means is that the committee needs more time to consider the provisions of the bill or for the author to make amendments. Of course, it means a very quick and easy death in many instances.

Usually, there will be an upcoming committee meeting specifically to address bills in suspense. It's interesting these bills did not immediately go into suspense during policy committee (if that was indeed the case).

As far as timing of committee analyses, it is common for them to be done very close to the committee meeting, as the staff are usually slammed with a plethora of bills, especially those in fiscal committees.