Oct 24, 2011

Update on AB 311

On Thursday, October 20, the Assembly Natural Resources Committee voted in favor of an amended AB 311 (also known as the Sporting Heritage Bill). Unfortunately, the amended version of the legislation still incorporated changes to the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program that will likely have some negative consequences on the future of the program. However, the final language represents a significant improvement from earlier versions of the bill.

Thanks to everyone who contacted their legislators on this important issue over the past week. Your calls really made a difference! Gathering Waters staff spent many hours at the State Capitol in recent days, but constituent calls are always what matter most.

We are still analyzing the details of the amended AB 311, but we want to share our initial interpretation. The original legislation required Stewardship projects with any prohibitions of nature-based outdoor activities (i.e., hunting, trapping, fishing, hiking and cross country skiing) to be approved unanimously by the Natural Resources Board (NRB) . The amended bill instead requires four out of seven NRB members to vote in favor of prohibitions on future projects (there were two amendments on this topic at the hearing which can be found here and here). The amendments also preserved the existing narrow circumstances for limiting public access on Stewardship properties (i.e., to protect public safety or to protect unique plant or animal communities). In other words, the amended version of the bill is much closer to existing law than the original legislation.

However, as we mentioned above, we do still have some concerns. While requiring exactly four NRB votes in favor of a project seems reasonable, there may be unintended consequences. For instance, if any members of the NRB are absent from a meeting where a decision is made on a Stewardship project, then functionally a super-majority vote will be needed. Or, alternatively, if the NRB sets a policy that it will only approve Stewardship projects at meetings with all Board members present then projects could potentially be delayed for weeks, if not months. A cleaner approach that would reduce the risk of losing important Stewardship projects would be to stick with current law, which requires a simple majority vote of those NRB members in attendance at monthly meetings.

We also continue to believe that the requirement of an economic impact analysis on individual Stewardship projects would be unrealistic and unnecessary. This provision was not amended by the committee today. The economic impact of Stewardship should be carefully examined at the state and regional levels.

In order to keep the momentum going, we must begin refocusing our efforts in the State Senate (it is unlikely that further amendments will prevail in the full Assembly). AB 311 is likely to be referred to the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee. We remain hopeful that our ongoing concerns will be heard by long-time champions of the Stewardship Program in the Senate and that additional positive amendments will be made to the bill.