More News

Suction Dredging Bill goes to governor for signature, will he sign it this time?

CSPA is one of many fishing, conservation and environmental organizations endorsing SB 670. CSPA also mounted a letter campaign, calling for its members and supporters write their legislators in support of the bill. Ed.

by Jerry Neuburger

July 29, 2009 -- Senator Pat Wiggin's bill, SB 670, the bill that calls for a moratorium on suction dredging was enrolled on July 27th and is  going to the governor for signature. The bill, an emergency measure, calls for an end to dredging until DFG can do the necessary research into the impacts that dredging does to the environment and develops a series of regulations that control its impacts on fisheries.

Opponents of the bill state that the damage done to streams and fisheries is completely overblown and is offset by the recreational and economic value of the practice. Some of the principal opponents are mining clubs such as the New 49ers.

In contrast, the proponents of the bill state that the practice, especially as practiced in California, destroys fish habitat, disturbs salmon and trout redds, kills large populations of aquatic insects, and dislodges settled mercury, releasing it back into the system where it can poison fish and other wildlife.

Other criticisms of the practice have to do with DFG's lack of adequate monitoring, the low cost of permits, and lack of regulations. While most western states heavily regulate suction dredging and limit the maximum size of the units, California allows dredges as large as 10 inches in diameter, capable of moving a thousand cubic feet of sand and gravel an hour. Permits for suction dredging are approximately the same price of a fishing license, $47, which does not even cover the administration of the program. DFG had been charged with conducting an environmental impact study (CEQA) on the practice in 2006, after a court ruling but did nothing, claiming budget constraints.

Because of DFG's inaction, a coalition of fishing, tribal, and environmental groups, including CSPA, filed a second law suit, claiming that taxpayer dollars were improperly used to subsidize the costs of the dredging program. The group asked for an injunction to dredging until adequate studies were conducted and new DFG fees and regulations were instituted. On July 27th of this year the California Superior Court in Alameda enjoined DFG from issuing any further permits.

The bill is now going to the governor for signature. In 2007, then Assemblywoman, Lois Wolk introduced a similar bill which was passed by the legislature but vetoed by the governor. What will the governor do this time considering that the bill passed both houses by an excess of 2/3 votes and the courts have stepped in with an injunction stopping licensing?

If the governor vetoes the bill, the assembly and senate can again call for a vote and attempt to override the governor's veto. If so, would it turn into a party vote and miss the 2/3 majority necessary for the bill's passage or will the members of both houses stand by their previous votes and pass the bill in spite of the governor's objections?