Last year, the Sun reported on local controversy surrounding drone use, and how Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson intended to limit drone operation on private property.
Jackson’s march for drone control took a stumble in September when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 142, which would have created a “no fly zone” over private property from ground level up to 350 feet.
But it’s a new year, and the march is back on. Jackson’s current mission could affect drone regulations for private property as well as public areas, including La Purisima Mission State Park, the Santa Maria Health Care Center, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, the Santa Maria Refinery and the Santa Maria Airport—all in one fell swoop.
The common denominator: the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act, or Senate Bill 868, introduced last week by Jackson to limit drone use over “critical infrastructure, private property, and state parks.”
The bill proposes the following:
• Limit drone use within 500 feet of critical infrastructure, including bridges, power plants, hospitals, water delivery systems, and oil refineries;
• Limit drone use within 1,000 feet of a heliport or 5 miles of an airport without permission;
• Limit drone use within the immediate airspace of private property without permission;
• Limit drone use over state parks, state wildlife refuges, or within 500 feet of the State Capitol without a permit;
• Prohibit the weaponizing of drones, i.e. turning them into guns or bombs;
• Prohibit reckless operation of drones or using them to interfere with aircraft, regardless of whether they are being used to fight fires or transport people; and
• Require commercial drone operators to obtain liability insurance.
“We have this technology that, up until now, has been virtually unencumbered without any regulations,” Jackson told the Sun. “The goal is to create regulations that are going to protect our privacy and our safety.”
Jackson acknowledged that some of the bill’s current language, such as “critical infrastructure,” “immediate airspace,” and “reckless operation,” is not yet clearly defined.
“We will probably identify it all more specifically as the bill advances,” she said. “The idea here is to create regulatory framework to allow drone technology to flourish while also protecting our privacy and natural resources.”
Regarding “critical infrastructure,” Jackson said the term will likely cover areas with high traffic or where chemicals or sensitive information are stored. She also said she will be working with the Federal Aviation Administration, which controls certain areas of airspace, to define “immediate airspace” of private property.
Commercial drone operators include farmers and growers who use drones to monitor their land, as well as firefighters who use them to identify hotspots in fires and anyone else who uses drones for non-recreational purposes.
“Commercial drone operators actually are at this point in time required to get licenses to pilot these aircraft,” Jackson said. “So if they are going to be flying drones for any kind of commercial purpose, not just a drone enthusiast or amateur drone operator, they’re going to have to meet certain requirements as they fly their drones.”
One such requirement, as outlined in Jackson’s bill, would be to obtain liability insurance.
Jackson explained her aim to limit drones around wildlife habitats, saying that while the technology can come in handy to study animals, it also poses the risk of disturbing them.
“We really need to prioritize so we can protect those natural resources and wildlife, while at the same time being cognizant of the benefits of these technologies,” she said.
In response to concerns that drone regulations encroach on First Amendment rights, Jackson said her bill would make allowances for journalists.
“What we’re hoping to do is have a conversation with the news collectors,” she said. “We want to certainly support and protect the First Amendment and the right to collect news, but also to do it in a way that is sensitive to the pluses and minuses of the use of drones.”
Jackson said Brown vetoed SB 142 in part because it failed to adequately assign the responsibility of enforcement. The State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act puts that responsibility in the hands of the California Division of Aeronautics.
Additionally, the bill would authorize local governments to create added drone regulations in their communities.
“We want these to be common-sense rules,” Jackson said. “That’s the reason to have this discussion: to get to the point where we are working together to recognize and balance the various needs of all the various interest groups and the public.”
This article appears in Jan 21-28, 2016.
