BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1117 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1117 (Monning) As Amended August 14, 2014 Majority vote SENATE VOTE : 33-0 ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 7-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Alejo, Dahle, Bloom, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, | | |Donnelly, Gomez, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian | | |Lowenthal, Ting | |Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, | | | | |Holden, Jones, Linder, | | | | |Pan, Quirk, | | | | |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, | | | | |Weber , Lowenthal | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to develop peer-reviewed methods for determining how pesticides are included on the Groundwater Protection List (List), among other reforms. Specifically, this bill : 1)Requires DPR to determine, to the extent possible, the toxicological significance of the pesticides listed on the List. 2)Requires the director of DPR (director) to regulate each active ingredient, other specific ingredient, or degradation product of a pesticide on the List that has the potential to pollute groundwater. 3)Requires the director, in consultation with a specified subcommittee, to create a peer review method to determine the potential of a pesticide to pollute groundwater using specific numerical values. 4)Authorizes the director to revise the peer review method, subject to peer review. 5)Requires the peer review to be conducted using an existing peer review process. SB 1117 Page 2 6)Requires DPR to continuously review new science and data that could impact the validity of a finding that a pesticide has not polluted and does not threaten to pollute the state's groundwater. 7)Requires the director to either mitigate the threat presented by pollution or subject the pesticide to further review if DPR determines that there is no new science or data that could impact the validity of a finding. EXISTING LAW establishes the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act (Act) to prevent pesticide pollution of the groundwater aquifers of this state that may be used for drinking water supplies (Food and Agricultural Code Section 13141 et seq.). FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill will likely result in absorbable costs for DPR and potential costs savings for the groundwater monitoring program due to a more accurate list. COMMENTS : Need for the bill: According to the author, this bill allows DPR to better ensure that harmful pesticides stay out of California's groundwater by enabling DPR to update the statistical method used to identify potential groundwater pollutants and to mitigate or cancel the use of a pesticide if its breakdown product is found to pollute groundwater. Importance of protecting California's groundwater: According to the Department of Water Resources, California's groundwater provides approximately 30% to 46% of the State's total water supply, depending on wet or dry years. Some communities in California are 100% reliant upon groundwater for urban and agricultural use. Since 1990, DPR's Environmental Monitoring Branch has sampled more than 1,700 unique wells for 91 pesticides and pesticide breakdown products as part of List monitoring. Need for updating the Act: This bill would provide DPR flexibility to revise the methodology to determine which pesticides to put on the List to account for scientific advances, layered with a peer review requirement. Modern statistical methods, such as multivariate analysis, will produce a more accurate prediction of a pesticide's potential to move to SB 1117 Page 3 groundwater. DPR is concerned that if a legislative change is not made, some pesticides will remain on the List that are unlikely to pollute groundwater, decreasing DPR's ability to focus resources on pesticides of greater concern. In addition, problems associated with degradation products were not fully realized or understood in the mid-1980's when the Act was passed, and have become more evident with new pesticides whose chemistry is very different than the pesticides that were predominant in the 1980s. At the time the Act was written, it was technically impossible to detect the difference between a parent product and a degradation product. Therefore, current statute only allows a pesticide to be put on the List if the pesticide is detected, not if its degradation product is detected. Analysis Prepared By : Paige Brokaw / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0004597