SACRAMENTO — The State Assembly unanimously approved a bill proposing procedural and technical changes to California’s Fish and Game Code on Aug. 18. Senate Bill 1473 (SB 1473) would also repeal an outdated statute if ultimately signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown.
The State Senate unanimously approved SB 1473 on April 28.
“The recommended changes update and modernize the code by conforming procedural rules to current practices and the [Administrative Procedures Act], improve the organization of the code, and eliminate obsolete language,” an analysis by the State Senate’s Committee on Natural Resources and Water stated.
SB 1473 now heads to Brown’s desk for approval or veto.
State officials conducted a comprehensive review of the Fish and Game Code pursuant to a legislative request in 2012. The review would recommend changes to state legislators of how to update, clarify and modernize the code.
A portion of the Fish and Game Code granting tidelands to Los Angeles County in 1967 would be repealed as an outdated statute, according to the approved bill.
“This provision being repealed was never implemented and is now obsolete. The State Lands Commission has asked that the statute be deleted to avoid confusion,” stated a legislative analysis of SB 1473. “The State Lands Commission explains that in 1967, the California Legislature conditionally granted public trust lands to the County of Los Angeles. To be operative, the grantee was required to submit a land use plan to the State Lands Commission for approval.
“The land use plan was not submitted and the land reverted back to the state. It is currently under the State Lands Commission’s jurisdiction. This bill would repeal the granting statute to clarify jurisdiction and lessen confusion when projects are proposed on the land,” the legislative analysis continued.
SB 1473 also aims to clarify all Fish and Game Commission regulations that govern take or possession of wild animals are subject to general rulemaking procedures.
The bill, according to a legislative analysis, would have a negligible financial impact on the state.