 |
California Bowen Bill Analysis
|
 |
|
California Bowen Bill Analysis
|
|
BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2439
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2439 (Bowen)
As Amended May 5, 1998
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-3
Ayes: Wayne, Bowen, Ducheny, Keeley, Knox
Nays: Prenter, Cunneen, Richter
SUMMARY : Excludes, beginning June 1, 2004, the use of watercraft
propelled by certain two-stroke engines with more than 10
horsepower from recreational uses in lakes or reservoirs serving
as sources of drinking water. Specifically, this bill :
1) Excludes, beginning June 1, 2004, the use of watercraft
propelled by a two-stroke engine that discharges unburned fuel or
oil as a function of its design, with a power rating greater than
10 horsepower, from recreational uses on a lake or reservoir that
serves as a domestic water supply or that is directly connected to
a drinking water supply distribution and treatment system.
2) Exempts from this exclusion two-stroke engines with a power
rating of 10 or fewer horsepower or those for use in certain
emergency response activities, such as search, rescue and
lifesaving.
EXISTING LAW allows water agencies to construct and operate
recreational facilities appurtenant to any lands, dams, reservoirs,
facilities or works owned or operated by the agency. At an agency's
discretion, recreational uses at these facilities can include the use
of watercraft propelled by two-stroke engines.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1) According to the author, emissions from two-stroke marine engines
rank among California's largest sources of toxic water pollution.
The high emissions are due to the inefficiency of the two-stroke
engine, which requires fuel and oil to be mixed prior to use,
causing incomplete combustion. A United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) study shows that approximately 25% of the
fuel/oil mixture from two-stroke engines is emitted, unburned, in
the exhaust.
2) USEPA certification data demonstrate that two-stroke engines produce
over eight times the hydrocarbon emissions produced by four-strokes,
on average. Discharges to water by these motors include known
carcinogens such as benzene and toluene. While approximately 10-15%
more expensive, four-stroke engines on the market today are more
efficient, contain internal oil systems not requiring pre-mixing
with (and thus discharge with) gasoline, and produce fewer air and
water emissions.
3) This bill does not constitute an outright ban on the use of
two-stroke motors. The author states that it is specifically
designed to protect domestic water supplies from the pollutants
discharged from the engines. With recent
revelations about the harmful and migratory nature of fuel additives
such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and their effects on water
supplies, the author believes that protective measures must be taken
immediately.
However, the author states that this bill is designed to address the
pollution cause by two-stroke engines, generally, and not the
effects of MTBE, specifically. Opponents charge that a ban on MTBE
is a direct solution to the immediate problems posed by it.
However, the author states that a ban on MTBE alone does not address
the emissions problems caused by two-strokes, including the
discharge of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm
that are inherent in the formulation of motor fuels. As 75% of
California's reservoirs allow motorized boating, harmful emissions
will continue to be released into the water supplies.
Opponents suggest that, as drafted, this bill serves as a complete
ban of two-strokes over 10 horsepower in all freshwater areas.
Since virtually all sources of freshwater lead to a drinking source,
this bill would have a profoundly limiting impact on motorized uses
of those areas. The author states that the language is narrowly
defined, specifically only addressing enclosed bodies of water such
as lakes and reservoirs that either serve as drinking water
supplies, or are directly connected to drinking water supply
systems. This is not intended to cover the entire universe of
freshwater areas and would necessarily exclude rivers and the delta
region, as well as non-drinking water lakes and reservoirs.
4) A ban on the use of powerboats on enclosed bodies of water serving
as drinking water supplies is not unique. For many years, several
water districts throughout the state have passed ordinances either
prohibiting or heavily restricting the use of boats powered by
internal combustion engines. The districts state that due to their
relative size, lack of ability to dilute, and costs involved with
treating the water to meet federal and state drinking water
standards, certain reservoirs and lakes are closed to all but
non-powered or electric-powered boats.
5) The issue has been raised that the provisions of this bill could
affect two areas subject to federal regulation that pre-empt the
state's ability to regulate. First, this bill will apply to
federally-controlled bodies of water that serve as a domestic water
supply (i.e., including Lake Shasta, Lake Berryessa and Folsom Lake,
which are operated by the Bureau of Reclamation as reservoirs for
the Central Valley Project). Opponents state that to the extent
that use limitations would apply to these facilities, with
accompanying revenue losses, federal pre-emption issues may arise
with respect to attempts by state law to regulate interstate
commerce.
Second, this bill will apply to non-federal facilities improved by
federal funds. Opponents cite a recent Federal Appellate Court case
that held that a ban on the use of personal water craft in the
Sacramento River by a City of Redding ordinance violated federal law
[ Buckley v. City of Redding , 66 F.3d 188, Ninth Circuit (1995)].
The court held, in part, that to the extent that federal funds were
used to build and maintain a boat launch facility, an outright
prohibition on access to the river via that facility violates
federal law. However, the court did state that it was within the
city's power to place horsepower limitations on boats using these
facilities, so long as it does not discriminate among those power
boats with common horsepower ratings.
Analysis prepared by : Scott H. Valor / aestm / (916) 319-3965
FN
038125
Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page