A California bill with the lofty goal of preserving 30 percent of land and water areas—including oceans—in the state by 2030, is currently being considered in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.
The bill, AB-3030, titled Resource Conservation: Land and Ocean Conservation Goals, was introduced by State Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose-27) earlier this year and has passed the state assembly.
The idea came from a group of scientists writing in the journal Science Advances the proposal of “30 by 30,” or protecting 30 percent of the Earth’s land and waters by 2030.
Kalra cites the state as a leader in conservation and facing a “biodiversity and climate crises,” the bill declares access to public lands and healthy lands should be a right for all.
To accomplish the goal, the bill would define “protect” or “protection” as “Measures on land, water, and oceans that support thriving biodiversity, contribute to climate resilience, and provide ecosystem services, such that their natural character, resources, and functions are conserved, protected, restored, and enhanced for current and future generations.”
In addition to protecting 30 percent of land and waters, the state would work with various stakeholders, including willing landowners, to preserve genetic diversity and sequester carbon by natural measures in the land and oceans by restoring and maintaining ecosystems.
The Assembly Natural Resources Committee analysis estimates 22 percent of the land is protected in the state and around 16 percent of the state’s ocean waters are conserved in 124 marine managed areas.
In the analysis presented to the committee, it states it is unclear with the adoption of the bill how it would “change the status quo.” However, it says the bill could serve as a call to action to increase the scale of conservation and bring together various stakeholders.
“On the other hand, given the bill’s lack of detail, it could also set up some contentious fights in pursuit of new protections and, depending on how the administration interpreted or implemented the bill, maybe lead to litigation,” the analysis states.
With the bill’s adoption, Kalra is anticipating it will attract funding from outside sources, including the recently signed into law Great American Outdoor Act, which sets aside $900 million annually for conservation purposes. The analysis states, “It is unclear in the current climate how the state would fund the work and projects to meet the proposed goals.”
It is unclear if there is money available in current bonds or if new bond measures will fund the proposal. California is currently facing a budget deficit of $54 million.
“California would be the first state to formally adopt a 30 by 30 goal by 2030,” said Kalra speaking to the California Globe.” I’m hoping it’ll survive. It’s an important goal that regardless of what else is happening… we cannot relent in our push forward to combat global climate change. Many people live here because it’s so beautiful in the environment. Let’s actually put some weight behind that.”
Drevet Hunt, an attorney at Natural Resources Defense Council, stated, “Assembly Bill 3030 does not restrict fishing or hunting access, even though that’s what opposition material would have you believe. Instead, this timely bill brings together the important goals of protecting and conserving biodiversity and increasing opportunities for access to nature for all.”
Opposition
The measure is opposed by over 40 organizations, including the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), California Farm Bureau, California Forestry Association, commercial and sport fishing organizations, and businesses that support fishing and hunting.
“Whatever abuses of land and ocean ecosystems that may exist around the world, the land, inland waters, and ocean waters off the coast of California are already well-protected through a combination of federal and state measures,” a coalition of hunting and fishing groups wrote to Kalra. “This protection already exceeds the 30 percent goal of this legislation. We are justifiably concerned this legislation, if not amended to recognize these existing protections and integrated approach, will serve as a vehicle to introduce additional closures to wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as fishing and hunting.”
Critics of the bill also cite the California Protected Areas Database, which shows 49 million acres of the state are protected, which is 47 percent of the state. This figure considers federal and state protected lands, including those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, California State Parks, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service.
A coalition of agricultural interests argues the bill does not accommodate the unique differences between natural and working lands. They state it would obstruct the use of existing public and private policy mechanisms, like the Williamson Act, which allows local governments to enter contracts with private landowners for land preservation.
They also note the potential effect the bill might have on conservation based on its definition of “protection” and raise concerns about the bill’s implementation, given it does not identify a lead agency.
Kirk Wilbur, CCA vice president of government affairs, told WLJ the bill’s definition of “protected” is too ambiguous and could have a potential impact on existing grazing both on private lands and state and county lands.
“We’ve advocated for responsible grazing on federal, state, and local public lands as a tool for reducing fire fuels (and thus reducing the threat and spread of catastrophic wildfires) and enhancing wildlife habitat,” Wilbur said.
“If those lands are ‘protected’ pursuant to AB 3030’s mandate, would grazing be permitted on those lands? If not, ‘protecting’ land could have dire ecological consequences. The bill defines ‘protected’ as the ‘establishment of enduring measures on land…such that their natural character, resources, and functions are conserved.’
“It’s unclear whether agencies interpreting AB 3030 would deem livestock grazing an ‘enduring measure’ that protects the ‘natural character’ of rangelands.”
Wilbur pointed out the environmental benefits of livestock grazing in the state, including protecting threatened species such as the tiger salamander and red-legged frog. Wilbur questions the need the for the bill and wonders how it will affect the status quo.
“There’s already a state regulatory process that sets qualitative (rather than quantitative) goals for the protection of the state’s ecosystems and biodiversity: California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s State Wildlife Action Plan which was developed in consultation with dozens of diverse stakeholders—that thorough policy process is preferable to this vague legislative effort.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
