BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1246
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Nguyen |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Version: |4/5/2016 |Hearing |4/20/2016 |
| | |Date: | |
|-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------|
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Rachel Machi Wagoner |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Pesticides: aerial spraying: notice from aerial
pesticide sprayers and mosquito and vector control districts
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Regulates the use of pesticides and the business of pest
control, and requires a person who operates a pest control
business to be licensed by the Director of Pesticide
Regulation (DPR) and registered by the county agricultural
commissioner.
2) Requires a pest control aircraft pilot to be registered with
the DPR. A violation of those provisions is a misdemeanor.
3) Provides for the formation of mosquito abatement and vector
control districts, and prescribes the powers, functions, and
duties of those districts.
This bill:
1) Requires pest control operators, pest control businesses, and
mosquito abatement and vector control districts, at least 7
days before administering pesticides by aircraft or unmanned
aircraft systems over a residential area, to notify various
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 2
of ?
people and entities, including, but not limited to, State
Senate and Assembly Members, Members of Congress, affected
governmental agencies, school districts, and chambers of
commerce, except as specified due to the presence of an
emergency outbreak that threatens the public health or other
extenuating circumstances that warrant an immediate response.
2) Specifies the information required to be included in the
notice.
3) A violation of the bill's provisions relating to pest control
operators and pest control businesses would be a crime.
4) By imposing additional duties on local governmental agencies
and because a violation of the bill's provisions would be a
crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Background
1) Public Health and Vector Control.
In 1967, the California State Board of Health adopted a
policy statement entitled "Recommended Standards Relating to
the Use of Pesticides in Vector Control." This policy
statement stressed that pesticide use should be limited to
those vector populations which cannot be controlled
practicably by other means.
The State Board of Health clearly recognized the need for the
evolution of vector control from a reliance on pesticide
application to a program of integrated pest management (IPM)
that included source reduction and public education in
addition to the judicious use of pesticides.
The standards presented in this policy statement were
compatible with the pesticide use requirements of the
California Department of Agriculture and were intended to
serve as conditions for future cooperative agreements between
the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and local
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 3
of ?
vector control agencies.
On the recommendation of the State Board of Health, CDPH
published a document entitled "Acceptable Pesticides and
Their Use by California Mosquito Abatement Districts and
Other Official Mosquito Control Agencies." This document
included an "official list of pesticides" to be used for
vector control in California and specified how these
pesticides were to be used. Like the State Board of Health,
CDPH emphasized the use of preventive measures directed
toward the elimination of mosquito sources while also
recognizing that the judicious use of pesticides was needed
for mosquito control agencies to meet their legal requirement
to protect the public from disease-transmitting mosquitoes
and other vectors.
This document also directed that agencies apply specific
principles of pesticide use to protect the health of humans,
domestic animals, wildlife, and other non-target organisms.
These principles included precision of targeting and timing
to ensure pesticide application only to areas actually
producing or harboring vectors, and the use of proper
formulation and dosage of pesticides to protect public health
and minimize non-target effects.
Concurrent with these publications, state and local public
health leaders made convincing arguments to the Department of
Agriculture that pesticides used for vector control were
critical to protect the public from vector-transmitted
diseases and furthermore, that these pesticides posed little
or no significant risk to human health or the environment
when properly used per the product label at low dosage rates
typical of vector control operations. The Department of
Agriculture agreed and amended its regulations to allow local
agencies working cooperatively with CDPH to apply pesticides
for vector control that were defined as "injurious
materials."
The first "Cooperative Agreement" between CDPH and local
vector control agencies was established in 1967. The purpose
of this agreement was to:
"Provide for the protection of the public health and comfort
through a coordinated program of safe, effective, and
economical use of pesticides in the control of mosquitoes, by
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 4
of ?
qualified local governmental mosquito control agencies
organized and operated in accordance with provisions of the
California Health and Safety Code."
By signing this cooperative agreement, local vector control
agencies ("cooperating agencies") agreed to:
1) Use those pesticides listed on the CDPH "official list
of pesticides" only in the manner specified,
2) Maintain pesticide use reports for review by
appropriate governmental agencies, and
3) Ensure that pesticide use did not result in harmful
residues on agricultural products.
In return, cooperating agencies were authorized to use
pesticides listed on the CDPH "official list of pesticides"
even though these pesticides may be defined as "injurious
materials" by the Department of Agriculture. Cooperating
agencies were also granted significant exemptions from the
legal requirements for property owner consent and
notification of persons on property to be treated prior to a
pesticide application.
During the first year of the cooperative agreement, 49 local
vector control agencies signed this agreement with CDPH
(Womeldorf 1976), and by 1969, nearly all local vector
control agencies had signed a cooperative agreement. By
1974, the number of cooperating agencies had increased to 73
and CDPH included in the cooperative agreement a program to
provide for training and certification of pesticide
applicators as required by the 1972 amendments to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, as
amended)
(Womeldorf 1976).
From 1974 through 1991, revisions to the cooperative
agreement were coordinated between CDPH (then the Department
of Health 1974-77, and Department of Health Services
1978-91), the Department of (now) Food and Agriculture
(CDFA), the Department of Fish and (now) Wildlife, and
cooperating agencies involved in vector control.
In 1991, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR) was formed and all pesticide-related statutory
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 5
of ?
authority was transferred to DPR from CDFA. The local
enforcement of pesticide use was retained by the County
Agricultural Commissioners.
To protect the benefits of the cooperative agreement, and in
recognition of the shared responsibility of CDPH, DPR, and
the County Agricultural Commissioners to protect human
health, these three agencies signed a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to address the use of pesticides in
vector control. The current MOU assures that each agency is
able to exercise appropriate legal authority to protect
public health while eliminating any duplication of effort.
Principles of agreement are established in the MOU that
identify the roles of the three signatory agencies with
respect to pesticide use and reporting, registration of
public health pesticides, certification of public health
pesticide applicators, and reporting of suspected adverse
effects of pesticides on non-target organisms.
This MOU essentially shifts some regulatory authority for
pesticide use by vector control agencies from DPR to CDPH and
serves as the basis for the cooperative agreement between
CDPH and vector control agencies. Changes in Federal and
State statutes coupled with changing departmental
responsibilities and relationships have resulted in some
significant changes from the first cooperative agreement.
For example, CDPH no longer publishes an "official list of
pesticides" for use in vector control. Pesticides used for
vector control must now be labeled for this use and must be
used in accordance with the product labeling.
REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Signatory agencies must agree to:
1) Calibrate all application equipment and maintain all
calibration records for review by the County Agricultural
Commissioner.
2) Maintain pesticide application records for at least two
years for review by the County Agricultural Commissioner.
3) Submit a monthly pesticide use report in an appropriate
manner to the County Agricultural Commissioner.
4) Report any conspicuous or suspected adverse effects
upon humans, domestic animals or other non-target
organisms to the County Agricultural Commissioner and
CDPH.
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 6
of ?
5) Require employee certification by CDPH to verify
employee competence to use pesticides in vector control
operations and ensure employees complete the necessary
continuing education requirements to maintain status as a
"Certified Vector Control Technician."
6) Be inspected by the County Agricultural Commissioner on
a regular basis to ensure that the agency is in compliance
with state and federal laws and regulations pertaining to
the storage and use of pesticides.
7) Agencies signatory to the cooperative agreement are
reviewed biannually by CDPH to ensure compliance with the
requirements listed above. These requirements meet the
legislative intent in providing the many broad exemptions
to California laws and regulations provided to vector
control agencies and to ensure that all state and federal
pesticide use requirements are met.
1) Climate Change and Vectors.
Drought and high heat associated with climate change can
further lead to public health impacts by facilitating disease
spread as the distribution of vectors (e.g. ticks,
mosquitoes) carrying pathogens spread into new habitats as
regional climates change. For example, previous research has
shown that human outbreaks of Saint Louis encephalitis are
correlated with periods of several days when the temperature
exceeds 30?C (95?F), as has been the case in previous
California epidemics (Githeko et al. 2000).
Hot temperatures have also facilitated the spread of West
Nile Virus (WNV) by speeding up both the replication of the
virus and the development of the mosquito that carries it.
Mosquitoes digest blood meals more rapidly at higher
temperatures, leading them to feed more often. This leads to
an overall increase in mosquito populations that are biting
more often. The number of WNV cases in California more than
doubled in 2014 compared to the previous year.
Furthermore, higher temperatures along the coast could
increase the risk of West Nile Virus in these areas, which
have typically been at low risk. Somewhat
counterintuitively, droughts, which will likely increase with
climate change, can also favor mosquito breeding. Streams
that would normally be flowing become a series of stagnant
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 7
of ?
pools in which mosquitoes breed.
Tropical diseases, not previously observed in California, have
been found in mosquito populations of California, primarily in
Southern California. According to CDPH's website, two
invasive (non-native) mosquito species have recently been
found in several California counties, and there is a potential
for them to spread into other areas of California. They are
named Aedes aegypti (the yellow fever mosquito) and Aedes
albopictus (the Asian tiger mosquito). Unlike most native
mosquito species, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus bite
during the day. Both species are small black mosquitoes with
white stripes on their back and on their legs. They can lay
eggs in any small artificial or natural container that holds
water. For example, a water bottle cap can serve as habitat
for these mosquitos.
Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus have the potential to
transmit several serious viruses, including dengue,
chikungunya, Zika, and yellow fever. None of these viruses
are currently known to be transmitted within California, but
thousands of people are infected with these viruses in other
parts of the world, including in Mexico, Central and South
America, the Caribbean, and Asia.
The presence of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes
in California poses a threat that these viruses could spread
in California.
Comments
1) Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "current state law
does not provide for any requirement to notify the general
public about pesticide spraying activity over their
residential property. SB 1246 would require pest and
mosquito control operators administering pesticides by
aircraft over a residential area to notify elected officials
and Chambers of Commerce of their planned activity. This
increases public transparency by allow community leaders to
use their established media networks to notify their
constituents and members as well as respond to any questions
or concerns. Mosquito and Vector Control Districts must work
quickly to protect the public health of all Californians, but
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 8
of ?
property owners and tenants should be afforded the right to
know of pesticide activity that occurs over their residence.
2) Lack of clarity. The language of this bill is vague, leaving
questions on how a vector control district is required to
comply with the legislation. What constitutes notification
to the specified entities? Is an email blast sufficient or
is a personal phone call required? The list is broad and
somewhat vague - who exactly are districts contacting? What
qualifies as an "emergency outbreak" or "extenuating
circumstances that warrant immediate response"? How is that
measured and qualified? It could be asserted that all vector
control agencies believe that pesticide application to
control outbreak of vector-borne diseases is always an
"emergency" or "extenuating circumstance that warrants
immediate response."
3) To what benefit? It is unclear what the desired public
benefit of this bill is. As elected officials and other
entities (i.e. governmental agencies, school districts,
chambers of commerce or similar entities, California State
Assembly Members, California State Senators, United States
Congressmen, and United States Senators), do not have
statutory responsibility, authority or more often than not,
expertise to weigh in or influence the use or timing of
aerial spraying, what does this bill accomplish for public
health, safety and benefit? Are the desired benefits
adequately weighed against the risks associated with delayed
action on the part of a vector control agency?
In fact, additional statutory obligations on the vector
control agencies to notify elected officials, local chambers
of commerce and other entities as well as other government
agencies in addition to the standing public health and
communication protocols used during pesticide application
could delay application for days or weeks resulting in the
spread of the vector and greater risk to public health, as
well as a need to spray a greater geographic area because the
delay allowed further spread of the vector.
It does not appear that this bill is addressing an outcry
over poor communication between vector control districts
across the state and the elected officials and other
governmental and business entities that they serve, but
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 9
of ?
rather a specific incident in the author's district that may
be better addressed on the local level.
SOURCE: Author
SUPPORT:
Todd Spitzer, Orange County Supervisor, Third District
OPPOSITION:
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District
Butte County Mosquito and Vector Control District
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
City of Diamond Bar
City of La Caņada Flintridge Mayor David Spence
Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District
Colusa Mosquito Abatement District
Fresno Westside Mosquito Abatement District
Glenn County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District
Health Officers Association of California (HOAC)
Kern Mosquito and Vector Control District
Merced County Mosquito Abatement District
Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California (MVCAC)
Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District
San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District
San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District
Sutter-Yuba Mosquito and Vector Control District
Tehama County Mosquito and Vector Control District
West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District
Peggie Howell, Vice-President, Board of Trustees, Contra Costa
County Mosquito and Vector Control District
1 Individual
ARGUMENTS IN
OPPOSITION:
The Health Officers Association of California (HOAC) states
"this bill would delay vector control responses to potentially
life-threatening mosquito-borne diseases."
HOAC states that "in recent years, due largely in part to the
SB 1246 (Nguyen) Page 10
of ?
drought, we have seen invasive species of mosquitoes pose new
challenges to the health of our state's residents. Last year,
deaths from West Nile virus in California reached a record high,
and with the recent emergence of other invasive mosquito species
in our state have the potential to transmit viruses like dengue,
yellow fever, chikungunya and Zika, it is critical that we do
not impede life-saving efforts, which can include aerial
spraying, to control and abate mosquitos. The decision for a
vector control agency to use an aerial spraying application over
a residential neighborhood is never taken lightly, but when the
decision needs to be made, it is often done on a
minute-by-minute basis. In order to combat the threat of many
lethal mosquito-borne diseases, vector control agencies often
need to be able to respond in real-time. Vector control
agencies cannot postpone action without the risk of an invasive
mosquito population growing to uncomfortable size and traveling
to neighboring communities."
-- END --