Oil spills: fishing: water closure: grants: liability.

Senator Laird’s measure reframes California’s oil-spill response by shifting closure authority from a standing requirement to a health-based framework that hinges on targeted findings by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and specific timeframes for action. After a spill or discharge notification, the director may close waters or restrict the take of fish or shellfish in the affected area, with closure triggered when OEHHA determines a public health threat exists or is likely. Consultation with OEHHA is required within 24 hours if certain spill conditions are met, including reported volumes and coastal impacts; if none of those conditions are met, the director may still consult with OEHHA regarding the likelihood of a health threat. Within 48 hours of closure, OEHHA assesses danger to public health and the director, in consultation with OEHHA, may revise or maintain closures to prevent potential contamination. If OEHHA finds no significant risk, closures may be reopened and testing requirements waived; otherwise, the director must order expedited tests of fish or shellfish within seven days to determine contamination and human-consumption safety, and it remains unlawful to take from waters closed under this regime.

The measure expands eligibility for oil-spill response grants to federally recognized tribes in addition to local governments and other public entities, and requires a regulatory framework for oil spill planning that includes training and alignment with local coastal programs and federal contingency plans. The administrator must promulgate regulations on the adequacy of oil spill elements of area plans and may offer grants to unified program agencies or federally recognized tribes to complete, update, or revise those elements. Each oil spill element must include training provisions for fire and police personnel and must be consistent with applicable planning authorities, including the local coastal program, the California oil spill contingency plan, the National Contingency Plan, and the area contingency plan. If a grant is awarded, the element is reviewed for adequacy; if deemed inadequate, it is returned with guidance and a modified submission is required within 90 days. The administrator also assesses the preparedness of grantees and tribes, and may seek legislative funds to continue or expand grants.

Liability provisions retain absolute liability for a responsible party but introduce defined defenses that apply unless specified compliance is achieved with related requirements. The defenses exclude damages in several circumstances, including acts of war, certain force majeure events, the injured party’s own negligence, third-party criminal acts, natural seepage not caused by the party, or discharges authorized by a permit. Defenses do not apply if the party fails to comply with related statutory sections, and courts may join additional potentially responsible parties. The bill provides for evidence-based determinations of responsibility, with the party bearing the burden to produce test results when feasible. It clarifies remedies by allowing costs and attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs, while granting costs to prevailing defendants if the plaintiff prosecuted the action in bad faith; liability, joint and several in general, does not apply to personal injury or wrongful death claims, and settlements or payments related to liabilities may be treated separately from public royalties or profits. The categories of recoverable damages include response and cleanup costs, property damages, natural resource injuries and restoration costs, subsistence losses, tax and royalty losses, profits, and loss of use or enjoyment of natural resources.

A dedicated Environmental Enhancement Fund is created to receive penalties collected under the oil spill regime, with funds designated for environmental enhancement projects rather than spill cleanup or restoration. The moneys would be available to the administrator upon appropriation for environmental enhancement initiatives, and penalties directed to Article 9 would otherwise be deposited into this fund, subject to specified exceptions. The Environmental Enhancement Grant Program is established to award competitive grants to nonprofit organizations, local governments, counties, districts, state agencies, and federally recognized tribes, and, where permitted by federal law, federal agencies, with selection criteria published in requests for proposals. Grant recipients must use funds only for the described project, with no substitution or excess funds required to be returned to the Environmental Enhancement Fund, and conflicts of interest must be disclosed with participation limited accordingly. Habitat acquisition projects are subject to the same governance provisions as other conservation requirements, and agencies are encouraged to engage the California Conservation Corps where feasible. A constitutional no-reimbursement clause accompanies these provisions, indicating that local agencies are not guaranteed reimbursement for costs arising from changes that create or modify crimes or penalties.

In sum, the proposal ties oil-spill responses and public-health decisions to explicit, time-bound assessments by OEHHA; broadens tribal eligibility for response grants and planning support; formalizes a new Environmental Enhancement funding and grant framework to support conservation-focused projects; and tightens the liability regime with defined defenses and procedural requirements, while restricting spill-cleanup funding to dedicated environmental enhancement activities. The changes hinge on regulatory development, interagency coordination, and the governance of grant programs, with explicit timelines and enforcement mechanisms that touch on fishing communities, tribal governments, local agencies, and the broader environmental management landscape.