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