Cruise ships sailing to and from California ports would be required to have a law enforcement officer known as an ocean ranger onboard to protect passengers, if a bill now before the state's legislature is enacted.

The California Ocean Ranger measure cleared its first hurdle last week when the state Senate's Public Safety Committee gave it unanimous approval, pushing the bill to the next step in the legislative process.   

State Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) introduced the measure, asserting that the cruise industry was not adequately protecting passengers from crime nor complying with environmental laws. (For more, see "In the Hot Seat: Joe Simitian.")

The bill states that the cruise industry "has failed to adopt adequate measures to protect passengers from theft, rape, assaults and suspected homicides" and that it "has a poor record on self-policing environmental practices."

The bill stipulates that a ranger must be a licensed marine engineer and would be granted peace officer status, which in California confers the same authority as a police officer, including the power to make an arrest and the right to carry a concealed weapon.

The bill would require the ranger to be onboard for the duration of any cruise that calls at a California port, with special early debarkation arrangements for much longer itineraries. The ranger would be given accommodations equal to other onboard security personnel. The bill next goes to a hearing of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 14.

Simitian, who is the author of several bills targeting cruise ship pollution over the years, said there currently was no cruise ship authority whose first priority is protecting public safety and the environment.

"There is an inherent conflict of interest between the public relations goals of the employer and the public safety of the passengers," Simitian said.

The measure would require cruise lines to pay for the program by charging a $1 per passenger surcharge for each day the ocean ranger is onboard.

"Let's say somebody pays $1,000 for a five-day cruise to Mexico from California," Simitian said. "Would you be willing to pay an extra $5 to know there is some law enforcement onboard and to know that you were not at risk on your trip? Most people would say that's a bargain."

Terry Dale, Cruise Lines International Association CEO, attended the Public Safety Committee hearing last week. Dale said in a statement that while the bill's intent appeared to be protecting California citizens, which CLIA supports, "it attempts to man international ships with state-employed rangers to perform federally regulated law enforcement functions."

"CLIA believes the bill extends well beyond California's jurisdiction; may jeopardize criminal investigations; is overly burdensome given the track record of the cruise lines on environmental compliance and criminal reporting; will set a precedent for conflicting state, federal and international requirements; and may detrimentally impact California's ports," Dale said.

He said CLIA was working with Simitian on "legislation that recognizes ... California's right to prosecute offenders in a manner that complements federal jurisdiction."

Simitian said that while the ranger would not assert jurisdiction in international waters, California had the right to regulate access to its ports and could require cruise ships disembarking passengers in California ports to accept a ranger onboard. 

The bill would require a series of memorandums of understanding between the governments of Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Alaska, to get around jurisdictional issues between states.

 Even if the ranger did not have jurisdiction outside of California waters, Simitian said, he or she would know what to do, in the event a crime was committed, to collect evidence, secure a crime scene and report a crime. Most importantly, that person would not work for the cruise lines.

Simitian said that about 40% of crimes on cruise ships were committed by crew. If the ship's onboard security staff work for the cruise line, they are essentially being asked to pursue their own co-workers, Simitian said. In addition to posing an inherent conflict of interest, he said, the staff of the cruise line might not be willing to subject their employer to liability.

"This is not a system anyone would design from scratch," he said. "It has evolved over time and proved to be inadequate at best and tragic at worst."

Another name familiar to the cruise industry is also behind the bill: Gershon Cohen, co-author of Alaska legislation enacted in 2006 that put ocean rangers on cruise ships sailing in Alaska waters in addition to levying a $50 head tax.

Cohen is a project director with San Francisco-based Earth Island Institute, supporter of the California bill. He hoped that if it passes there, similar measures would be introduced in other states and Canada, "to see that there is uniform protection along the West Coast of North America. ...  The scenario that makes the most sense for the public and protection of resources is to have a uniform ocean ranger program."  

Unlike the California proposal, Alaska's ocean rangers monitor only ships' compliance with discharge and pollution laws. Cohen said that when he wrote the Alaska legislation five years ago, he did not realize crime on cruise ships was such a concern.

"If there is an area of town with a lot of crime, you put a cop on the beat," Cohen said. "This will be a public safety officer whose beat will be that cruise ship."

To contact reporter Johanna Jainchill, send e-mail to jjainchill@travelweekly.com.