The Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) funds, plans and develops boating facilities on waterways throughout the state.  The department, popularly known as CalBoating, is also responsible for licensing yacht and ship brokers, boating safety and education, overseeing aquatic weed control in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, and operating beach erosion control and sand replacement programs along California’s coastline. The department is in the Natural Resources Agency and its director is appointed by the governor. 

The Department of Boating and Waterways made its nominal debut on January 1, 1979, but its origin dates back to the 1950s.

As recreational boating in the state surged in the early 1950s, it became apparent there was a need for a state agency to monitor watercraft safety and provide facilities for boaters.  The first step came in 1957 with the creation of the Small Craft Harbors Commission and the Division of Small Craft Harbors, both of which fell under the purview of the Department of Natural Resources until 1961. The division was moved to the Department of Parks and Recreation that October.

The Department of Motor Vehicles was originally in charge of boat registration, but the state Legislature transferred this function to the Division of Small Craft Harbors in 1961.

In October 1966, names changed again.  The division became the Department of Harbors and Watercraft, while the commission was renamed the Harbors and Watercraft Commission.  Studies at the time found there were problems with boating law enforcement programs not being standard across the state, due primarily to lack of local funding. That changed with the passage of a 1969 statute that made boat registration money available to counties that were under-funded.

The department’s name was changed again in 1969 to the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development. As part of the governor’s reorganization plan, the new department took over functions and responsibilities from the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Office of Architecture and Construction where they related to boating facilities’ planning and designs.

The new department also absorbed beach erosion control from the Department of Water Resources and boat registration was transferred back to the DMV.

The agency was renamed the Department of Boating and Waterways on January 1, 1979.  The commission also was renamed—this time to the Boating and Waterways Commission—and its consent is required on all loans and grants made by the department for small craft harbor and boat-launching facilities’ construction.

A Brief History (DBW website)

The DBW plans, funds and develops boating facilities throughout the state. One of the department’s major objectives is to ensure the public’s right to safe and enjoyable boating.  The department provides funding for boating law enforcement to local agencies, and oversees California boating laws to make sure they are uniform throughout the state.

It is run by a director, appointed by the governor and approved by the state Senate. A seven-member commission, also appointed by the governor, must sign off on all boating facilities loans and grants proposed by department staff and advises the department on all matters within its jurisdiction.

The department’s work is essentially divided between law enforcement and environmental protection.

Its enforcement activities include maintaining a boating accident database,  running a law enforcement training program for anyone working in a maritime patrol environment, administering a grant program to help local agencies remove abandoned vessels from waterways, and operating a program to provide local agencies with financial assistance to augment their own safety and enforcement programs.

Environmental protection includes an aquatic pest control program that seeks to eradicate the water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) that threaten California’s waterways including the delta. Both plants are not native to the United States and spread rapidly.  Their aquatic colonies block sunlight to fish and native underwater plants, resulting in their dying from lack of oxygen.  The plants are so dense that they interfere with irrigation projects, hydroelectric utilities and urban water supplies.  The aquatic pests also slow water traffic and interfere with recreational and commercial activities.  The department is the only agency allowed to use herbicides against Egeria. Recognizing the futility of trying to eradicate both plants, the department has adopted a “control” program to try and contain the invaders.

The department also provides information on regulations and restrictions concerning two-stroke engine vessels, administers a vessel pump out grant program to help fund stations facilitating pleasure craft sewage disposal, and studies beach erosion problems.

Additional programs facilitate use of boating trails, furnish small craft harbor loans for constructing and maintaining facilities, and license yacht and ship brokers and salespersons.  The Small Craft Harbor and Recreational Marina Loan programs lend money to public and privately owned marinas for development of boating facilities. The loans it gives to cities, counties and other government agencies are for planning, construction and rehabilitation of small-craft harbors. Loans to private marina owners are for boating facilities accessible to the public.

FAQ (DBW website)

DBW Programs (DBW website)

Reporting a Water Hyacinth Sighting (DBW website)

Aquatic Weed Update (Lucia C. Becerra letter to the Delta Sun Times)

Small Craft Harbor and Recreational Marina Loan Programs Loan Compilation and Loan Process Review (Department of Finance) (pdf)

Unlike many state agencies, the DBW does not receive its money from the state’s General Fund.  Instead, much of its budget is supported by the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund, which receives money from boat registrations and yacht and ship broker licenses.  Money also comes from various other funds, including a Federal Trust Fund and the Public Beach Restoration Fund.

The majority of DBW’s expenditures go toward its boating facilities’ operations that include small craft harbor loans and grants. As of August 1, 2008, the department had 170 active loans—133 for small craft harbors and 37 for recreational marinas—with $351.5 million committed to specific projects.   

On an annual basis, around 50-60% of the department’s budget is spent on aquatic weed control and local assistance programs to expand and improve boating facilities through public and private grants and loans. DBW spends $6.5 million annually on the program to control water hyacinth and Egeria densa in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. About 30% is spent on boating operations that include safety and education programs, yacht and ship broker/salesperson licensing, marine law enforcement training, and grants for removing abandoned vessels. Beach erosion control and administration divvy up most of the rest of the budget.   

2011-2012 Budget (Ebudget)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Boating Law Enforcement (DBW website)

Boat Landing, Launch Sites Linking Up in Bay (by Alexis Terrazas, San Francisco Examiner)

Derelict Vessels Draining Coffers (by Katie Worth, San Francisco Examiner)

Small Craft Harbor and Recreational Marina Loan Programs Loan Compilation and Loan Process Review (Department of Finance) (pdf)

Bogged Down in the Delta Weeds

The Department of Boating and Waterways has led an effort since the 1980s to control two invasive weeds, water hyacinth and Brazilian waterweed, that grow in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. The department spends about $6.5 million a year battling the non-native plants, which harm the ecosystem in multiple ways. They displace native plants, impede photosynthesis by blocking sunlight, deposit large amounts of silt and organic matter, clog irrigation systems, obstruct navigation channels and generally make aquatic pests of themselves.

There is no known way to eradicate them in the Delta, so an annual program that relies on permits from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Regional Water Resources Control Board attempts to merely “control” them using herbicides from April 1 to October 15. The infestation in 2011 was particularly virulent and, according to the DBW, was complicated by federal delays in granting permits to fight the water hyacinth.

“It's 10 times worse than last year,” Troy Shelton, dockmaster at the Stockton Marina, said in September. “We've never seen it like this.”

Keeping the weeds under control is imperative because they have the potential for growing exponentially. Water hyacinth “can double in size every ten days in hot weather and can quickly become a dense floating mat of vegetation up to six feet thick,” according to the DBW.

Recently, a third invasive aquatic plant has entered the picture and the department does not have a permit to fight it. The South American spongeplant, first spotted in 2003, has environmentalists alarmed. “Your jaw drops at what's going to happen,” said Lars Anderson, a weed scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's agricultural research service. “I think we're going to see a large expansion of spongeplant in the next three to five years if nothing is done. It's very serious.”

California Reeling Before Onslaught of Aquatic Invaders (Central Valley Business Times)

Fast-Spreading Plant Blanketing Waterways (by Alex Breitler, Stockton Record)

New Aquatic Weed Threatens the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta! (University of California Cooperative Extension)

New Delta Invader, Spongeplant Threatens to Clog Waterways, Pumps (by Mike Taugher, Contra Costa Times)

Aquatic/Riparian Weeds: State-Level Rapid Response Issues (by Lars Anderson, California Invasive Plant Council) (pdf)

Two-Stroke Engines

Fishermen and recreational boaters have been using two-stroke outboard motor vessels for more than 75 years. But the loud, smelly engines ran afoul of environmental agencies years ago and have faced regulatory control that has limited their manufacture and use in California waters. The California Air Resources Board issued strict standards for two-stroke engines in 2001, 2004 and 2008.

Although, for the most part, four-stroke engines have taken their place and there are some limitations on where they can be used, two-stroke vessels are still owned by many people and rumors never cease that an all-out ban is just around the corner. This has prompted the Department of Boating and Waterways to post multiple notices on its website assuring boaters that, in fact, “there is no statewide prohibition on the use of high emission two-stroke vessel engines statewide and there is no plan to prohibit them.”

There are, however, some restrictions. Eleven lakes, mostly in northern California, have use conditions for high-emission vessel engines. Any carbureted and electronic-injection two-stroke engines built before 1999 are considered high-emission engines. But there are no salt water or river restrictions based solely on that criterion. Two-stroke engines built since 1999 meet cleaner technology standards and can be used on all California waterways that don’t have more generic prohibitions.    

Two-Stroke Vessel Engines (DBW website)

Explanation of Two-Stroke Vessel Engine Regulations and Restrictions (DBW website)

Confusion Over Two-Stroke Restrictions (Continuous Wave)

The Future of Two Stroke and Four Stroke Outboard Motors (Smart Synthetics)

Is It Illegal to Have and Operate a 2-Stroke Motor in CA? (Yahoo! Answers)

Managing Its Loans

In March 2010, the Department of Finance (DOF) performed a special review of how the DBW handled its substantial loan portfolio ($351.5 million as of August 2008) and found its procedures lacking.

The DOF said the Boating and Waterways needed to develop written policies and procedures for its approval and monitoring of small craft harbor and recreational marina loans. It needed to improve interdepartmental communications and loan file maintenance, start an integrated loan tracking system and safeguard its assets better. The review did not attempt to assess the efficiency or effectiveness of program operations.

Newly appointed acting Director Lucia Bererra responded to the review by saying her department had filled the vacant position that oversaw the loans and was working on written policies and procedures DOF called for. She said the department’s accounting office would improve its communication with boating, loan, information and planning unit, loan file maintenance would be standardized and improved, loan underwriting requirements would be brought into compliance with current law, and a modern integrated database would replace its piecemeal system of data storage.  

Small Craft Harbor and Recreational Marina Loan Programs Loan Compilation and Loan Process Review (Department of Finance) (pdf)

In 2005, the independent Little Hoover Commission recommended elimination of the seven-member Boating and Waterways Commission and having the DBW absorb most of its functions.

That didn’t happen, and five years later Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger went Little Hoover one better and recommended that the department itself be abolished.  

The governor’s plan was to have the Department of Parks and Recreation take over the DBW functions, creating better coordination and management of boating access and safety programs and their related grants. The administration estimated the state could save about $600,000 annually with its proposal.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office basically agreed with the plan, albeit with some caveats. “We concur that opportunities for efficiencies and savings exist from reorganizing DBW’s current functions” and that merging the agency with the Parks and Recreation department would result in greater efficiency and cost savings. It also saw no reason another agency would “not be capable of administering” the department’s programs.

The analyst’s office argued that the DBW’s yacht and ship brokers licensing should be ended, and the state’s involvement in making loans for the planning, design and construction of public small craft harbors and private marina facilities be curtailed.  Instead,  the state would shift financing of these projects to the private sector.

The department survived, as it did in 1992 and 1996 when Governor Pete Wilson proposed its elimination and 2003 when there was a similar effort in the Legislature.

Governor’s Reorganization Proposals (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

Highlights of Resources Agency Secretary Mike Chrisman’s Testimony (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

California Water 101 (Center for Collaborative Policy) (pdf)

Proposed Elimination of the Department of Boating and Waterways (Letter to Governor Schwarzenegger)

Climate Change

While the broad scientific community is in agreement that the climate of Earth is changing, temperatures are warming and that humans play a large role in the process, public opinion in the United States has drifted toward skepticism in recent years.

Three years ago, 66% of Americans expressed concern in a Gallup Poll about global warming. In March 2011, that number was down to 51%. Concurrently, Americans now believe they understand the issue better than ever. In 2001, 69% said they understood it “very well” or “fairly well;” now 80% claim to have a grasp of the issue.

If Gallup is correct, skepticism may be rooted in a belief that the media is exaggerating global warming. Only 26% believe that the media is generally correct in its reporting, 29% believe it is underestimating the effects and 43% think the media is over the top.

This is not to say that Americans don’t believe the Earth is warming. But 43% of the public says changes to the environment are natural, not a result of manmade pollution, up from 33% in 2003.

In 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order that put California on the record as not being among the skeptics. The order called for an assessment of the effect rising sea levels from global warming would have on the state and what could be done to mitigate the damage.

The verdict isn’t in, but some of the studies are.  

Serious Danger Looms

The Department of Boating and Waterways, along with a group of researchers from San Francisco State University, believes that California faces massive economic losses because of rising sea levels.  The study they conducted, funded by DBW, focused on five communities: San Francisco’s Ocean Beach; Venice Beach and Malibu in Los Angeles;  Carpinteria in Santa Barbara; and San Diego County’s Torrey Pines State Reserve.  According to the study, all stand to lose millions, if not billions, of dollars in lost revenues from tourism and destruction of residences if sea levels keep increasing.

“In the near future, sea-level rise is expected to exacerbate the impacts of high tides, storm surges and erosion,” the report said in its introduction. “In the more distant future, sea-level rise could permanently inundate some coastal areas.”

The DBW is authorized by law to study erosion problems and “act as shore protection advisor to all agencies of government.” Its advice is to prepare for billions of dollars of damage.

By 2100, Venice Beach alone could lose up to $440 million in tourism revenue because of rising waters, according to the study, which estimated a sea level rise of 4.6 feet over current levels by 2100.

“Sea level rise will send reverberations throughout local and state economies,” said Philip King, associate economics professor at San Francisco State University and one of the report’s authors. “We also found that the economic risks and responses to a changing coastline will vary greatly over time and from beach to beach.”

The study points out that the various beaches the group looked at might suffer different degrees of damage to their economies. 

For instance, if that estimate 4.6-foot increase in ocean levels holds, San Francisco’s Ocean Beach would sustain an $82 million economic loss by 2100, while the more frequently visited Malibu beaches could lose nearly $500 million in tourist and visitor revenues.

San Diego’s Torrey Pines area could suffer nearly $340 million in damage to its land, road and railway lines being destroyed by high water and erosion.

Study Predicts Sea Level Rise May Take Economic Toll on California Coast (DPW website)

The Economic Costs of Sea-Level Rise to California Beach Communities (DPW and San Francisco State University) (pdf)

Groups Frame Climate as a Moral Cause (by Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post)

Global Warming Facts & Our Future (Marian Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences)

Climate Change: How Do We Know?  (NASA website)

Erosion Expected to Strip Economic Value of Ocean Beach (by Tom Prete, Ocean Beach Bulletin)

California Panel Urges “Immediate Action” to Protect from Rising Sea Levels (by Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times)

Rising Sea Levels Could Take Economic Toll on California Beaches (by Tony Barboza, Los Angeles Times)

Don’t Panic

While the broad scientific community is in general agreement that the Earth is warming, dissenters abound. The website Global Warming Hoax (where they “fight the new faith-based religion of global warming”) touts record snowfalls in Louisiana and Texas, alleges that purloined emails show a scientific conspiracy of lies and disputes that rising sea levels are related to human endeavors.  

The threat from global warming is likened by some skeptics to the Y2K computer scare at the turn of the century that failed to deliver a predicted tsunami of technological disaster, although some might argue that aggressive steps taken in anticipation of the crash helped ward off the danger.

A suspicion lingers among some that climate change is being used as an excuse for enacting more stringent, and expensive, environmental regulations that negatively impact business and development. They worry that a blame game which lays responsibility for global warming on humans will dictate constraints on an otherwise free and unfettered will to conquer adversity in the world. They worry about the cost, especially in difficult economic times, and fear that global warming is just an excuse for government to expand its activities. 

Where some people calculate the loss from a changing environment, others see opportunity for growth and innovation. In two articles produced by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a series of steps are outlined that can be taken over time to mitigate the threat of rising levels while enhancing the Bay Area. Offshore barriers could protect wide expanses with a single project; coastal armoring of the sort used to create San Francisco’s Embarcadero could act as a shield; elevated and floating structures could kick off a housing boom, spur new design ideas and protect against seismic activity;  floodable development could utilize cisterns to gather drinking water, create interesting water features and facilitate expandable central recreation areas; wetlands that once thrived could be nurtured back to life; and managed retreats inland could spur new development.

California Sea-Level Rise Reality Check (by Russ Steele, NC Media Watch)

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses (by J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean, Journal of Coastal Research)

Are Sea Level Increases Due To Global Warming? Be Careful How You Answer That (Global Warming Hoax)

Sea Level Rise and the Future of the Bay Area (by Laura Tam, The Urbanist)

Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise (by Laura Tam, The Urbanist)

Raynor Tsuneyoshi, 2001-2010

Carl Moore, 1998-2001 (Interim Director)

Charles Raysbrook, 1997-1998

Ron Del Principe, 1996-1997

John Banuelos, 1992-1996

Bill Satow, 1992 (Interim Director)

Willian Ivers, 1983-1992

Frank Torkelson, 1982-1983 (Interim Director)

Marty Mercado, 1975-1982