BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2472
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 16, 2002
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON RULES
Joe Nation, Chair
AB 2472 (Simitian) - As Amended: May 14, 2002
E.S. & T.M. Committee : 8-0
SUBJECT : Pesticides
SUMMARY : Directs the Department of General Services (DGS) to
implement a demonstration project to study the use of integrated
pest management techniques at the State Capitol Park.
Specifically, this bill :
1)States findings and declarations regarding pesticide use in
state buildings and public health concerns.
2)Requires DGS, upon procurement of grant funds, to implement a
demonstration project to study the use of integrated pest
management techniques at the State Capitol and associated
grounds.
3)Requires DGS to submit a report to the Legislature on the
progress of the demonstration project within 6 months of
implementation.
EXISTING LAW includes the Healthy Schools Act, which requires
the state to establish a program to assist schools in adopting
integrated pest management programs. The bill further declares
"it is the policy of the state that effective least toxic pest
management practices should be the preferred method of managing
pests at schoolsites."
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose. This bill would require DGS to implement an
integrated pest management (IPM) demonstration project in
Capitol Park. Supporters believe that, the principles of IPM
are well established and proven to be effective in a wide
range of agricultural and non-agricultural settings, and that
a demonstration project will allow the state to test broader
use of IPM on state property.
AB 2472
Page 2
2)What state properties are covered? This bill examines pest
management alternatives at the State Capitol. The newly
amended version of the bill clarifies that Capitol Park
includes the area bounded by 9th and 15th , L and N Streets.
This area includes the State Capitol grounds and the State
Library and Courts buildings.
3)Definition of IPM . This bill defines IPM as "a pest
management strategy that focuses on long-term prevention or
suppression of pest problems through a combination of
techniques such as monitoring for pest presence and
establishing treatment threshold levels, using nonchemcial
practices to make the habitat less conducive to pest
development, improving sanitation, and employing mechanical
and physical controls. Pesticides that pose the least
possible hazard and are effective in a manner that minimizes
risks to people, property, and the environment, are used only
after careful monitoring indicates they are needed according
to preestablished guidelines and treatment thresholds."
4)Arguments in Support . In 2000, the Healthy School Act was
signed into law. Proponents of this bill believe that this
same policy should be applied in other settings including
public parks and public areas. Furthermore, proponents
suggest that this bill will reduce pesticide use that will
benefit the health of employees, visitors and downtown
residents of the Capitol Park area.
5)Arguments in Opposition . According to opponents of the prior
version of the bill, this bill severely restricts the ability
to use pesticides to disinfect and control pest infestations
because it does not consider the benefits in using pesticides
or ready-to-use disinfectants to help keep public buildings
clean. Furthermore, opponents maintain that an effective IPM
may warrant a treatment strategy that includes chemical
measures, such as disinfectant or insecticide products, if
they are used responsibly. Recent amendments have addressed
several of opponents' concerns (e.g., moving the bill's
provisions to the Government Code rather than the Food and
Agricultural Code, making the bill's operative provisions
consistent with its definition of IPM, modifying the findings
and declarations).
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 2472
Page 3
Support
Acterra
California League of Conservation Voters
Sierra Club of California
Opposition
Clorox
Analysis Prepared by : Lia Lopez / RLS. / (916) 319-2800