Opinion

AB-2179 Fish and Game enforcement and penalties: AB 2179 was passed in the Assembly and has moved out of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water Committee. It now sits in the Senate Appropriations Committee before moving to the floor of the Senate.

The CA Fish and Game code imposes monetary penalties for specified unlawful acts for profit or personal gain. According to guidelines, these can run as high as $10,000 per animal. Under existing law, consultation occurs between the Dept. of Fish and Game (DFG) and the District Attorney on the appropriate civil or criminal remedies, with concurrence of the state Attorney General. The law allows for a hearing conducted under the Administrative Procedures Act (a complex and expensive process,) but practically this is used in only the most serious cases. The accused may also file with Superior Court for an independent judgment on the record, which is the most common approach.

AB 2179 eliminates consultation with the D.A. It increases the cap on DFG imposed administrative civil penalties to $20,000 for violation of code and implementing regulations. It provides “that the civil penalties shall be levied in an amount that is considered to be adequate to deter repeated offense of the illegal activity, and shall include consideration of the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the prohibited act, and the degree of culpability of the violator… “

It requires that “prior to imposition of administrative penalties, that the person assessed be given written notice and the right to request a hearing. “ (This hearing process would be much simpler and not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act.) It then allows appeal to the DFG Director “based on written or oral arguments and evidence received. “ It preserves the right of the accused to file with Superior Court for a review of the record and independent judgment.

Supporters of the bill claim that because the courts are backlogged, DFG misdemeanor code violations seldom reach court. “A lack of prosecution sends a message that violators do not have to fear the consequences of their actions.” Giving the DFG the ability to impose administrative penalties would ensure prosecution and allow the DFG to use discretion in imposing the fine.

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors is opposed to AB 2179. Other opponents argue “this bill gives penalty authority to civil service, un-appointed bureaucrats who have a vested interest in levying fines and penalties in order to fund their continued existence, and allows DFG to assume the role of accuser, judge and jury.”

CA Climate Change Regulations: (This is a postscript to my columns of the past two weeks) Just this past week, the California Manufacturers and Technology Assoc. (CMTA) released a report entitled “The Fiscal and Economic Impact of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The Act, also known as AB 32, directed the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop programs to reduce California’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

The detailed CMTA report projected the following “optimistic” outcome for the impacts of AB 32 on California: http://cmta.net/pdfs/CMTA%20-%20AB%2032%20Report-Final.pdf

(1) By 2020, it will have cost consumers $135.8 billion cumulatively – equivalent to almost two-and-a-half times the annual amount spent on K-12 education. (Cost range in analysis was a minimum of $85.2 billion to a maximum of $245.3 billion in the High Case.)

(2) In 2020, the direct costs for AB32 will total $35.3 billion – equivalent to about 40 percent of California’s General Fund revenues. (Cost range was from a minimum of $17.7 billion to $63.3 billion.)

(3) By 2020, escalating energy prices will increase household expenses for the average family by $2,500 per year. When combined with the lost earnings, AB 32 will cost the average California family almost $3,400 per year

(4) 26 percent of emissions reductions realized will actually stem from the economic slowing caused by AB 32.

(5) California will have 262,000 fewer jobs in 2020 because of AB 32.

(6) In 2020, AB 32 will reduce state and local tax revenues by over $7.4 billion annually. ($6.8 billion is lost from state revenues and $640 million from local revenues.) The State losses are roughly equivalent to the amount that is needed to fund the Governor’s entire Local Realignment initiative or more than a decade of funding Children's Medical Services program under the Department of Health Care Services.

(7) AB 32 lowers California’s 2020 Gross State Product (GSP) by $153.2 billion, amounting to a loss of 5.6 percent of GSP.