Includes all politicians who were in office at any point during the 2011-2012 Legislature.

SB 657 - An Act to Add Section 5653.2 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 5653.1 Of, the Fish and Game Code, Relating to Fish and Wildlife, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.

Vacuum or suction dredge equipment. 2011-2012 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that… More
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act exempts from its provisions, among other things, certain types of ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, and emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.

Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment by any person in any river, stream, or lake of this state without a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game. Existing law designates the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and suspends the issuance of permits, and mining pursuant to a permit, until the department has completed an environmental impact report for the project as ordered by the court in a specified court action. Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake, for instream mining purposes, until the director of the department certifies to the Secretary of State that (1) the department has completed the environmental review of its existing vacuum or suction dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (2) the department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (3) the new regulations are operative.

This bill would repeal the prohibition on the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, and would exempt the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment from the California Environmental Quality Act until January 1, 2014. The bill would require the department to refund a specified portion of the permit fee paid by a person issued a vacuum or suction dredge equipment permit and subject to the prohibition on the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2014, to complete an economic impact report on the prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge equipment.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
 
Status:
The bill was voted on by a Senate committee on April 12, 2011. 
There have been no votes on passage on this bill.
Other Votes:

An Act to Add Section 5653.2 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 5653.1 Of, the Fish and Game Code, Relating to Fish and Wildlife, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.

SB 657 — 2011-2012 Legislature

Summary
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act exempts from its provisions, among other things, certain types of ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, and emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.

Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment by any person in any river, stream, or lake of this state without a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game. Existing law designates the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and suspends the issuance of permits, and mining pursuant to a permit, until the department has completed an environmental impact report for the project as ordered by the court in a specified court… More
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. The act exempts from its provisions, among other things, certain types of ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, and emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service.

Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment by any person in any river, stream, or lake of this state without a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game. Existing law designates the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and suspends the issuance of permits, and mining pursuant to a permit, until the department has completed an environmental impact report for the project as ordered by the court in a specified court action. Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake, for instream mining purposes, until the director of the department certifies to the Secretary of State that (1) the department has completed the environmental review of its existing vacuum or suction dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (2) the department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (3) the new regulations are operative.

This bill would repeal the prohibition on the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, and would exempt the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment from the California Environmental Quality Act until January 1, 2014. The bill would require the department to refund a specified portion of the permit fee paid by a person issued a vacuum or suction dredge equipment permit and subject to the prohibition on the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2014, to complete an economic impact report on the prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge equipment.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Add Section 5653.2 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 5653.1 Of, the Fish and Game Code, Relating to Fish and Wildlife, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.
Author(s)
Ted Gaines
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Vacuum or suction dredge equipment
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/18/2011
    Referred to Committee
    Failed passage in Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water4/12/2011
    Passed Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water4/12/2011
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteSenate Committee on Natural Resources and WaterDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Environmental Quality.4/12/2011This motion DID NOT PASS the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water
    2 voted YES 5 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on Natural Resources and WaterSet, second hearing. Failed passage in Committee. Reconsideration granted.4/12/2011This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water
    8 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/18/2011
    2/18/2011Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
    2/19/2011From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 21.
    3/03/2011Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and E.Q.
    3/11/2011Set for hearing March 22.
    3/14/2011Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
    3/25/2011Set for hearing April 12.
    select this voteVote4/12/2011Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Environmental Quality.
    select this voteVote4/12/2011Set, second hearing. Failed passage in Committee. Reconsideration granted.
    4/12/2011Set, second hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 2. Noes 5. Page 620.) Reconsideration granted.
    1/31/2012Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

    Total contributions given to Senators from interest groups that…

    4 Organizations Supported and 21 Opposed; See Which Ones

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Add Section 5653.2 To, and to Repeal and Add Section 5653.1 Of, the Fish and Game Code, Relating to Fish and Wildlife, and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, to Take Effect Immediately.

    4 organizations supported this bill

    Gold Pan California
    Gold Pan California (n.d.). California Legislature Fails to Check Math: Proposed Gold Mining Budget Cut of $1.8 Million Increases Deficit by $23 Million, says Gold Pan California. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from PRNewswire.
    L & M Timber Company
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Proline
    (n.d.). California Legislature Fails to Check Math: Proposed Gold Mining Budget Cut of $1.8 Million Increases Deficit by $23 Million, says Gold Pan California. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from PRNewswire.
    Regional Council of Rural Counties
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .

    21 organizations opposed this bill

    California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    California Trout
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Center for Biological Diversity
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Clean Water Action
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Defenders of Wildlife
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Environmental Law Foundation
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Environmental Protection Information Center
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Foothill Conservancy
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Friends of the River
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Friends Of The Trinity River
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Planning and Conservation League
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Sacramento River Preservation Trust
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Sierra Club
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    South Yuba River Citizen’s League
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    The Karuk Tribe
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    The Sierra Fund
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .
    Trout Unlimited
    (2011, April 8). Senate Committee Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from .

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Senators in office during the 2011-2012 California State Legislature, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2012.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Contributions by Legislator

    Namesort iconPartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$0$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$500$81,000
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$9,000$44,500
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$1,500$17,100
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$500$47,500
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$0$2,500
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$2,077$17,500
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$6,500$81,720
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$2,000$10,800
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$0$29,300
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$3,000$31,600
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$6,250$56,369
    Jean FullerRCA-18$5,750$37,800
    Ted GainesRCA-1$20,400$45,600
    Loni HancockDCA-9$0$10,800
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$5,900$37,000
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$4,087$27,200
    Bob HuffRCA-29$4,500$51,100
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$500$12,800
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$5,450$21,300
    Mark LenoDCA-3$1,250$19,000
    Ted LieuDCA-28$3,750$77,700
    Carol LiuDCA-21$0$20,200
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$2,619$16,400
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$4,000$25,600
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$0$47,000
    Curren PriceDCA-26$3,446$43,400
    Michael RubioDCA-16$1,087$59,100
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$11,700
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$0$4,000
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$0$36,400
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$2,500$49,900
    Juan VargasDCA-40$3,173$55,400
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$2,500$66,500
    Lois WolkDCA-5$500$17,200
    Rod WrightDCA-25$6,919$61,500
    Mark WylandRCA-38$2,000$49,400
    Leland YeeDCA-8$0$4,900

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Elaine AlquistDCA-13$0$0
    Joel AndersonRCA-36$500$81,000
    Tom BerryhillRCA-14$9,000$44,500
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-15$0$0
    Ron CalderonDCA-30$1,500$17,100
    Anthony CannellaRCA-12$500$47,500
    Ellen CorbettDCA-10$0$2,500
    Lou CorreaDCA-34$2,077$17,500
    Kevin De LeonDCA-22$6,500$81,720
    Mark DeSaulnierDCA-7$2,000$10,800
    Bob DuttonRCA-31$0$29,300
    Bill EmmersonRCA-37$3,000$31,600
    Noreen EvansDCA-2$6,250$56,369
    Jean FullerRCA-18$5,750$37,800
    Ted GainesRCA-1$20,400$45,600
    Loni HancockDCA-9$0$10,800
    Tom HarmanRCA-35$5,900$37,000
    Ed HernandezDCA-24$4,087$27,200
    Bob HuffRCA-29$4,500$51,100
    Christine KehoeDCA-39$500$12,800
    Doug La MalfaRCA-4$5,450$21,300
    Mark LenoDCA-3$1,250$19,000
    Ted LieuDCA-28$3,750$77,700
    Carol LiuDCA-21$0$20,200
    Alan LowenthalDCA-27$0$0
    Gloria Negrete McLeodDCA-32$2,619$16,400
    Alex PadillaDCA-20$4,000$25,600
    Fran PavleyDCA-23$0$47,000
    Curren PriceDCA-26$3,446$43,400
    Michael RubioDCA-16$1,087$59,100
    Sharon RunnerRCA-17$0$11,700
    Joe SimitianDCA-11$0$4,000
    Darrell SteinbergDCA-6$0$36,400
    Tony StricklandRCA-19$2,500$49,900
    Juan VargasDCA-40$3,173$55,400
    Mimi WaltersRCA-33$2,500$66,500
    Lois WolkDCA-5$500$17,200
    Rod WrightDCA-25$6,919$61,500
    Mark WylandRCA-38$2,000$49,400
    Leland YeeDCA-8$0$4,900

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated
    Timber companies, sawmills, & others engaged in cutting down trees$89,757
    Municipal & county government organizations$21,900
    Mining services & equipment$0

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Native American tribes & governing units$1,293,380
    Environmental policy$35,409
    Fisheries & wildlife$0
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range