BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2174
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2174 (Alejo)
As Amended May 14, 2012
Majority vote
AGRICULTURE 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Galgiani, Bill Berryhill, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Hill, Ma, Mendoza, Perea, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Yamada | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Ammiano, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Defines the funding for the Fertilizer Research and
Education Program (FREP), and identifies specific entities to
develop specialized programs, as stated. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Identifies the University of California Cooperative Extension,
the California Resource Conservation Districts, other
institutions of higher education or other qualified entities
to develop programs, as follows:
a) Technical education for users of fertilizer materials in
the development and implementation of nutrient management
projects that result in more efficient and agronomically
sound use of fertilizer materials and minimize
environmental impacts of fertilizer use, including but not
limited to, nitrates in groundwater;
b) Research to improve nutrient management practices
resulting in more efficient and agronomically sound use of
fertilizer materials and to minimize environmental impacts
of fertilizer use, including but not limited to, nitrates
in groundwater; and,
c) Education to increase awareness of efficient and
agronomically sound use of fertilizer products to reduce
the environmental impacts resulting from the over-use or
AB 2174
Page 2
inefficient use of fertilizer materials.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides fertilizer materials definitions; an advisory board;
requires licensing, registration, inspection requirements and
fees; tonnage reports; label requirements; sampling and
analysis; establishes violations, procedures for prosecution;
and, describes what is misbranding and adulteration.
2)Establishes an assessment level not to exceed two mils
($0.002) per dollar of sales of fertilizer materials to fund
the program and it permits an assessment not to exceed one mil
($0.001) per dollar of sales of fertilizer materials, to
provide funding for research and education regarding the use
and handling of fertilizing material, including, but not
limited to, any environmental effects.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill will provide education, research and
technical assistance specified in this legislation and would
require about $350,000 of the $1 million spent annually by the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for current
FREP projects, if the funding is not already allocated to
multi-year projects.
Alternatively, the Secretary of CDFA may determine that rather
than shifting existing funding to this new activity, this bill
may require an increase in the assessment on fertilizer
licensees. Currently, the FREP mil assessment is at 0.5 mil
($0.0005) per every dollar of sales, resulting in $1 million in
funding for FREP. Current law gives CDFA the authority to
increase the assessment up to one mil ($0.001) per dollar of
sales.
COMMENTS : The author states that the Salinas Valley and Tulare
Lake Basin lead the state in nitrate contamination in ground
water. On March 13, 2012, the University of California (UC) at
Davis' Center for Watershed Sciences released a report to the
Legislature detailing nitrate contamination in groundwater in
the state's two leading agricultural regions. It finds that
contamination is currently threatening a quarter million
people's drinking water safety, with millions more Californians
to be affected in the future. The report found that
AB 2174
Page 3
agricultural activities are responsible for 96% of the
pollution, with chemical fertilizer making up 54% of the
sources.
This bill would use existing FREP funds for implementation
projects to assist farmers and ranchers with best management
practices for fertilizer use. Giving technical assistance to
agricultural producers would lead to more efficient application
of fertilizers, resulting in cost savings to farmers who would
use less fertilizer, resulting in less contamination of the
state's watershed.
Supporters of this bill cite that declining state funding for
technical assistance has undermined the exchange of needed
information between our best science advisors to farmers. Now,
more than ever, is the need to re-invest in technical assistance
for our growers, as the natural resource and stewardship issues
facing farmers have grown more complex.
This information is not new. In 1988, CDFA appointed a Nitrate
Working Group comprised of scientists from the University of
California, state agencies and industry, with the goal of
studying the nitrate problem relating to agriculture in
California. The CDFA Nitrate Working Group's 1989 report,
"Nitrate and Agriculture in California," analyzed the problem on
a state-wide basis. Using a computerized database that included
12 years of well testing results, as well as groundwater
information compiled by the State Water Resource Control Board,
the scientists reviewed and confirmed locations in the state
where groundwater contains elevated levels of nitrate.
The CDFA Nitrate Working Group report concluded with five
recommendations; the fifth recommendation was to establish a
research and demonstration project on nitrate control through
irrigation, fertilizer and manure management. FREP was
established to focus primarily on this recommendation.
FREP was established in 1990 when California Food and
Agricultural Code Section 14611(b) authorized a mill assessment
on the sale of fertilizing materials, "to provide funding for
research and education regarding the use and handling of
commercial and organic fertilizers, including, but not limited
to, any environmental effects." The mill assessment currently
generates close to $1 million per year going into the FREP fund.
AB 2174
Page 4
Since 1990, FREP's focus has expanded to include research on
many of California's important and environmentally sensitive
cropping systems, including almonds, tomatoes, cotton, citrus,
wine grapes, horticulture, lettuce, and other cool-season
vegetables. To date, 40% of FREP's projects have been related
to developing, testing, and demonstrating various nutrient
tissue and/or soil testing procedures.
According to CDFA's, FREP FACTS SHEET posted to their Web site,
"Over 20 years of FREP research projects have focused on
agronomic efficiency in the management of nutrients, precision
irrigation and fertigation practices Ýfertilization trough
irrigation], and soil and fertilizer interaction. Over this
period of time, FREP has funded $12 million for 160 technical,
research, and education projects. The funds have been spent in
the following breakdown of project types:
1)Nutrient/Soil Testing/Fertilizer Practice 46%
2)Irrigation/Fertigation/Precision Agriculture 26%
3)Educational
15%
4)Air Quality
2%
5)Compost/Cover Crop 3%
6)Other (Pest Interactions, Heavy Metals) 8%
A number of FREP projects have resulted in practical
applications and guides for growers and crop consultants,
including a nitrogen fertilization model for almond growers, a
nitrogen and water management production guide for coastal
vegetables and best management practices for nitrogen fertilizer
and water use in irrigated agriculture.
The FREP Grant Program is for projects that are generally one to
three years in length and are funded in the amount of
$50,000-$150,000. According to the August 24, 2011, FREP
meeting minutes, a discussion occurred regarding "the benefits
AB 2174
Page 5
of funding a few larger projects, rather than a multitude of
small projects." Also included in the minutes, a discussion
that FREP needs a strategic review to determine if the program
is conforming to its original intent; internal discussions have
focused on improving education and outreach; and, that the
program is on the right track, but has weaknesses in the areas
of outreach and education. Further, the minutes reflect
$900,000 will be available for research projects.
It should be noted that FREP is funded by products and materials
that make a label claim, such as percentage values of nitrogen
(N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), or other nutrients. Manures
and compost typically do not make nutrient value claims so they
do not pay the fertilizer mills or the FREP mill.
According to the UC Davis Report cited by the author, the
impacts to nitrogen contaminated ground waters vary widely, due
to the travel times of nitrate from source to wells range from a
few years to decades in domestic wells, and from years to many
decades and even centuries in deeper production wells. This
means that nitrate source reduction actions made today may not
affect sources of drinking water for years to many decades to
come. The scientific advances over this period of time have
improved the use of fertilizers and manures. This said, it is
most important that new knowledge of improved methods of
fertilizer use is delivered to farmers in a timely manner, which
may help reduce the legacy of contamination in the future.
Previous legislation: AB 856 (Caballero), Chapter 257, Statutes
of 2009, this bill expanded the definitions pertaining to
organic fertilizer materials, added new requirements, fees and
penalties.
Analysis Prepared by : Jim Collin / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084FN:
0003815