AB 807 revises the definitions in the state's conservation and mitigation banking statute to recognize marine artificial reefs as eligible bank sites and habitat for issuance of credits. The text requires written agreements with the department (a "bank enabling instrument"), contemplates issuance of credits for impacts regulated under listed statutes, and mandates a perpetual conservation easement over bank sites.
Why it matters: by putting marine artificial reefs into the statutory vocabulary for conservation and mitigation banks, the bill creates a legal route for reef construction or restoration to be used as advance mitigation, CEQA offsets, or compensation for take under specified California statutes — shifting how coastal and marine impacts could be mitigated and who governs those projects.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the definitions section of the banking chapter to include marine artificial reefs within both "conservation bank" and "mitigation bank" definitions, requires a written bank enabling instrument with the department to govern credits and management, and calls for a perpetual conservation easement covering the bank site.
Who It Affects
Mitigation bankers and conservation sponsors who create or manage bank sites, coastal infrastructure and development projects seeking mitigation or CEQA offsets, and agencies that must review and approve bank prospectuses and bank enabling instruments.
Why It Matters
This change opens the door to using constructed or enhanced reef habitat as tradable mitigation credits, which could alter mitigation markets, create new restoration business models, and raise novel legal and ecological questions about permanence, equivalency, and enforcement for submerged sites.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes only the definitional scaffolding in the conservation and mitigation banking chapter, but those definitions determine what counts as an eligible bank site and how credits are issued. It explicitly names marine artificial reefs alongside terrestrial habitat and wetlands as features that can be conserved, created, or managed under a conservation or mitigation bank.
That means a sponsor could develop an artificial reef and, under a written agreement with the department, obtain credits that other projects buy to offset regulated impacts.
Credits must be tied to a written agreement described in the bill as a "bank enabling instrument," which governs establishment, use, operation, and maintenance of the bank. The bill also requires a prospectus — a written summary with enough detail for the department to review and comment before a bank proceeds.
For bank sites covering land, the statute mandates a perpetual conservation easement defined by Civil Code Section 815.1; the text applies that requirement to bank sites generally, which raises implementation questions for submerged or publicly owned seabed.The statutory language ties the use of bank credits to several specific regulatory frameworks: compensating for take or impacts under the referenced chapter (Section 2050 et seq.), reducing impacts regulated under Section 1600 (streambed/river/shoreline jurisdiction), and mitigating significant environmental effects under CEQA. The bill also includes habitat connectivity as a stated objective where feasible, and expands the statutory definition of "person" to a very broad list of potential sponsors and actors.
Collectively, these changes create the legal predicate for reef-based mitigation but leave operational details — monitoring standards, credit quantification, long-term funding, and which "department" performs oversight — to implementing policy or other statutory text not reproduced here.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds "marine artificial reef" explicitly to the definition of "conservation bank," allowing such reefs to be sites where credits can be issued under a written agreement with the department.
A "mitigation bank" definition is broadened to cover sites where wetlands or marine artificial reefs exist, have been, or will be created, and are managed under a department agreement for listed mitigation purposes.
The statute requires a "bank enabling instrument": a written agreement with the department that governs establishment, use, operation, and maintenance of the bank and the issuance of credits.
Bank sites must be covered by a perpetual conservation easement as defined in Civil Code Section 815.1, which the bill applies to the properties comprising the bank site.
The bill mandates a prospectus — a sufficiently detailed written summary of the proposed bank — to allow department review and comment before bank approval.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Core term: 'Bank' defined
This subsection sets the umbrella term "bank" to include conservation banks, mitigation banks, or combined conservation and mitigation banks. Practically, it aligns the chapter's vocabulary so later provisions can refer generically to a "bank" while including both terrestrial and marine modalities.
Bank enabling instrument requirement
Defines the "bank enabling instrument" as a written agreement with the department that governs key operational elements of a bank. This hooks the legal ability to issue credits and to use bank sites to a negotiated agreement rather than to an automatic statutory entitlement, meaning the department's approval and the instrument's terms will determine operational details.
Who can sponsor a bank
Identifies a "bank sponsor" as the person or entity responsible for establishing and operating a bank. This creates an identifiable party for contractual obligations, monitoring, and liability, and links long-term stewardship duties to whoever signs up as sponsor in the enabling instrument.
Conservation banks can include marine artificial reefs
Expands the conservation bank definition to expressly include marine artificial reefs and ties credits to multiple regulatory purposes: compensating for authorized take, reducing impacts under Section 1600, complying with CEQA mitigation, enabling advance mitigation, and protecting habitat connectivity when feasible. The subsection frames reefs as a tool for both avoidance and compensation but leaves equivalency and quantification to the enabling instrument or guidance.
Perpetual conservation easement requirement
Requires a perpetual conservation easement, as defined in Civil Code Section 815.1, to cover the real property comprising the bank site. Applying a perpetual easement to bank sites establishes an intention of permanence for the conserved values, but it raises practical questions for submerged lands and for parcels where fee title is not privately held.
Mitigation bank definition includes reefs and wetlands
Expands the existing mitigation bank definition to encompass publicly or privately owned sites where wetlands or marine artificial reefs exist or will be created, managed under a department agreement for the same set of mitigation purposes. The language creates parity between wetland and reef-based mitigation in the statute's scope.
Broad definition of 'person'
Adopts a wide-ranging list of entities that count as "person," spanning individuals, corporations, local governments, the state, and agencies. That breadth clarifies who may act as sponsor or applicant but also means public agencies and districts can be bank sponsors.
Prospectus requirement
Requires a prospectus providing enough detail for department review and comment. This sets an early-stage information gate intended to allow technical review before a bank is approved, impacting timelines and due diligence for sponsors preparing reef construction or restoration proposals.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Mitigation bank sponsors and restoration contractors — the bill creates an explicit legal pathway to develop reef projects that generate tradable mitigation credits, opening a revenue stream for firms that can design, build, and manage artificial reefs.
- Project proponents (coastal developers, port operators, energy and infrastructure projects) — they gain an additional mitigation option for CEQA compliance, Section 2050-related take, or Section 1600 impacts that might be faster or more flexible than on-site avoidance.
- Conservation organizations and regional mitigation programs — these groups can use reef banks as a strategic tool to create advance mitigation or landscape-scale habitat improvements where appropriate.
- Fisheries and marine ecosystems — if well designed and monitored, reef creation can expand habitat and connectivity for certain species, potentially benefiting ecological objectives where natural habitat is degraded.
Who Bears the Cost
- Bank sponsors — required to establish and perpetually manage bank sites, secure conservation easements, prepare prospectuses, and enter into binding enabling instruments, which entails planning, construction, monitoring, and long-term stewardship costs.
- State permitting and management agency (the "department") — tasked with reviewing prospectuses and negotiating enabling instruments, the department will need technical capacity and resources to evaluate reef proposals, quantify credits, and monitor compliance.
- Project applicants purchasing credits — they may face higher mitigation costs if reef-based credits command a premium for ecological uncertainty, monitoring bonds, or market scarcity.
- Local and coastal regulators — additional coordination burdens will fall on agencies responsible for submerged lands, public trusts, and coastal permits, which may need to reconcile easement requirements with public ownership or other legal constraints.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding mitigation flexibility by allowing constructed reefs to compensate for impacts and protecting ecological integrity and public authority over marine resources: enabling marketable reef credits can streamline mitigation, but without tight standards and enforceable permanence, it risks substituting convenient offsets for genuine habitat protection and raising conflicts over who can bind submerged lands in perpetuity.
The bill authorizes reef-based mitigation in principle but leaves crucial operational mechanics unspecified in the excerpt: it does not define which agency "the department" is for bank oversight, it does not set credit quantification methods, monitoring standards, or financial assurance requirements, and it applies a perpetual conservation easement requirement without addressing how easements operate on submerged or publicly owned seabed. Those gaps will determine whether reefs function as robust, permanent compensatory habitat or as temporary measures that inadequately substitute for lost natural habitat.
There are also legal and ecological trade-offs unique to marine reefs. Artificial reefs can provide structural habitat, but species assemblages, productivity, and long-term trajectories differ from natural benthic habitats.
Measuring ecological equivalency, ensuring permanence against physical degradation or shifting baselines, and preventing perverse incentives (constructing minimal-quality reefs to generate credits) will require technical standards and enforcement capacity. Interagency coordination with coastal, fisheries, and federal regulators (for example, Corps or NOAA authorities) and reconciliation with public trust principles will complicate implementation and could constrain the ability to use perpetual easements on state-owned submerged lands.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.