BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1519
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 7, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Pedro Nava, Chair
AB 1519 (Ma) - As Introduced: February 23, 2007
SUBJECT : Landing rights: revocation
SUMMARY : Allows the state or any subdivision of the state that
operates a harbor or port district to revoke, rescind, or
suspend the landing rights of a person operating a vessel for
commercial purposes on navigable waters, if the person has
violated a state or federal water pollution law.
EXISTING LAW : Allows counties or cities to adopt restrictions
concerning the navigation and operation of vessels and water
skis, aquaplanes, or similar devices and to grant permits to
bona fide yacht clubs, water ski clubs, or civic organizations
to conduct vessel or water ski races or other marine events over
courses established, marked, and patrolled by authority of the
United States Coast Guard, city harbormaster, or other officer
having authority over the waters on which such race or other
marine event is proposed to be conducted.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, "water pollution is a
significant problem in California, as contaminated water within
the state's waterways kill's fish, marine wildlife and destroys
natural wetlands". In addition, the author contends that the
"public swims, recreates, and consumes fish caught in our ocean
waters, so it is important that waters be protected from harmful
toxic chemicals and substances that affect public health".
This bill allows local agencies responsible for the docking of
boats to suspend, revoke, or rescind the landing rights if a
person has violated state or federal water pollution law.
Author's Amendments : The author intends to take amendments in
committee to strike out reference to the revocation or
suspension of "landing rights" and replace it with the
revocation or suspension of "any contract granting dockage."
The author also intends to take amendments to exclude the
provisions of this bill from applying to ocean-going vessels
AB 1519
Page 2
engaged in interstate or foreign commerce or any other
commercial vessel otherwise regulated by the United States Coast
Guard that is not operated exclusively within California's
territorial and inland waters at the time of the violation, or
vessels in distress.
Specifically, the proposed author's amendments are as follows:
Delete page 1, section 1, lines 3 to 7 and page 2, lines 1 to 6,
and insert:
(a) The state lands commission or a subdivision of the state,
that operates a harbor or port district, may revoke, rescind, or
suspend any contract granting dockage to a person operating a
vessel for commercial purposes on navigable waters, if it has
been found that the person has violated a state or federal water
pollution law in connection with the operation of a vessel for
commercial purposes within the territorial and internal waters
of California.
(b) This section does not apply to dockage of a vessel operated
by a public agency.
(c) This section does not apply to ocean-going vessels engaged
in interstate or foreign commerce, any other commercial vessel
otherwise regulated by the United States Coast Guard that is not
operated exclusively within California's territorial and inland
waters at the time of the violation, or vessels in distress.
For purposes of this section, "dockage" means the right by
contract, license, or any other grant of authority, to dock or
moor a vessel at a publicly owned or controlled wharf, pier,
quay, landing, or other similar facility.
Committee concerns: The committee has a number of concerns with
this bill:
1)For some businesses (e.g., ferry service), the right to dock
is a lifeline without which, there can be no business. This
bill allows dockage rights to be revoked; a remedy of this
severity should include due process procedures.
2)This bill provides that any violation of state or federal
water pollution law can result in revocation of a business'
dockage rights but does not require that the violation be
commensurate with the penalty. Consequently, under this bill
AB 1519
Page 3
a single, minor violation could result in shutting down a
business.
3)The author's office offered as evidence of a problem that the
bill is intended to address a single incident in which a ferry
tour service was sighted discharging sewage into the bay. It
is unclear whether the problem is widespread or confined to
this single incident.
4)California has, arguably, some of the strictest water
pollution protection laws in the nation. The committee was
not able to ascertain from the author's office information as
to why the example of an alleged violation offered by the
author as the basis for this bill was not already addressed in
existing environmental laws.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by : Alejandro Esparza / TRANS. / (916)
319-2093