Bart Jansen

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – The Senate is debating contentious legislation aimed at preventing states and cities from adopting drone laws amid an ongoing battle pitting the federal government and drone industry against local lawmakers.

The bill provoked a fight because dozens of states adopted laws on subjects such as banning weapons on remote-controlled aircraft or requiring police to issue a warrant to use drones for surveillance. The Federal Aviation Administration, however, contends it alone governs national airspace.

The U.S. Code states the federal government has complete sovereignty over airspace. To reinforce that position, pending Senate legislation governing the FAA initially said that no state could enact a law about the “design, manufacture, testing, licensing, registration, certification, operation, or maintenance of an unmanned aircraft system, including airspace, altitude, flight paths, equipment or technology requirements, purpose of operations, and pilot, operator, and observer qualifications, training, and certification.”

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed to drop that language. Her state has been a leader in developing local drone laws after complaints dealing with privacy and safety, such as high-flying drones grounding planes that fight wildfires.

“Reckless drone use varies significantly in different states and even within a state, which is why we need to maintain the ability for states to set their own standards of drone operation,” Feinstein told USA TODAY.

“One in five incidents of reckless drone use nationwide has occurred in California, and densely-populated areas with critical infrastructure like Los Angeles and San Francisco need flexibility to enact rules that address their unique challenges.”

State drone laws could clash with federal drone policy

A Senate vote on the FAA legislation could come as early as Thursday. The House version of legislation governing the FAA didn’t include that drone language.

The drone industry had sought to reinforce the federal government as the ultimate arbiter for rules of the remote-controlled aircraft because of the confusion that could result from a patchwork of state laws.

“In the absence of FAA action, we may soon be facing a legal quagmire,” Brian Wynne, CEO of the industry group Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, told a House panel in September. “Challenges to questionable state laws will tie up the courts and at significant expense to taxpayers. If the FAA feels it needs clarification of its authority, I would urge Congress to provide such clarity and legislatively settle this issue.”

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which represents general aviation, also urged uniform regulations covering drones.

"AOPA's primary concern is the safety of pilots and passengers of manned aircraft and the best way to ensure the safe integration of (drones) into the airspace is to have clear and uniform rules across the country," said Jim Coon, the group's senior vice president for government affairs. "Proposals by state and local governments in these areas have the potential to create a complicated patchwork of laws that may erode, rather than enhance, air safety."

As the FAA works to complete its first drone regulations for aircraft weighing up to 55 pounds, states have been debating and approving laws for years dealing with drones. Last year, 45 states considered 168 drone bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And 20 states approved 26 bills, according to the group.

At least 41 states have debated drone bills already this year, with six states adopting nine laws. For example, Idaho, Indiana and Wisconsin prohibited using drones for hunting, and Oregon prohibited putting weapons on drones. Utah banned flying drones near wildfires.

The National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of State Aviation Officials each opposed the Senate provision that sought to pre-empt local laws.

"It goes too far, and infringes on traditional state and local powers – such as the protection of basic rights of citizens, the operation of state and local agencies, and the protection of areas like public schools and state and city parks," the groups said in a joint statement supporting the Feinstein amendment.