BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2595|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2595
Author: Huffman (D)
Amended: 8/17/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/15/10
AYES: Florez, Hancock, Wolk
NOES: Hollingsworth
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/28/10
AYES: Simitian, Corbett, Hancock, Lowenthal, Pavley
NOES: Runner, Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-5, 8/12/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Yee
NOES: Ashburn, Emmerson, Walters, Wolk, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 66-1, 5/24/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Irrigated agriculture: pesticide use: water
quality:
requirements
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill prohibits county agricultural
commissioners from issuing an operator identification
number for the use of agricultural pesticides if the
operator is in violation of specified water quality
CONTINUED
AB 2595
Page
2
regulations.
ANALYSIS : California Food and Agriculture code requires
that pesticide use reports be submitted to the Department
of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) or county agriculture
commissioner (CAC) on a form and in a manner described by
DPR. The code also provides that penalties for violations
relating to pesticide statutes, or any regulations issued
pursuant to its provisions, are a misdemeanor punishable by
a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5000, or
imprisonment of not more than six months, or both the fine
and imprisonment. Upon a second or subsequent conviction
of the same provision, the fine will be not less than
$1,000, nor more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more
than six months, or both the fine and imprisonment.
California Code of Regulations requires that prior to
purchase and use of pesticides for production of an
agricultural commodity the operator of the property, or
their representative, must obtain an operator
identification number from the CAC of each county where
pest control work is to be preformed and provide that
number to each pest control business applying pesticides to
that property.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was created
by the Legislature in 1967. The joint authority of water
allocation and water quality protection enables SWRCB to
provide comprehensive protection for California's waters.
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
(Porter-Cologne) and the federal Clean Water Act, SWRCB and
regional water quality control boards (RWQCB) are the lead
agencies with the authority to regulate water quality in
California. SWRCB and RWQCBs have been designated as the
principal state agencies with primary responsibility for
the coordination and control of water quality in
California. There are nine RWQCBs responsible for the
development and enforcement of water quality objectives and
implementation plans that will best protect the state's
waters, recognizing local differences in climate,
topography, geology and hydrology. RWQCBs develop "basin
plans" for their hydrologic areas, issue waste discharge
requirements, take enforcement action against violators,
and monitor water quality. The task of protecting and
AB 2595
Page
3
enforcing the many uses of water, including the needs of
industry, agriculture, municipal districts, and the
environment, is an ongoing challenge for the SWRCB and
RWQCBs.
In 1999, the Legislature passed SB 390 (Alpert) that became
law, requiring RWQCBs to review their existing waivers and
to renew them or replace them with waste discharge
requirements. Under SB 390, waivers not reissued
automatically expired on January 1, 2003. To comply with
SB 390, RWQCBs adopted revised waivers. The most
controversial waivers were those for discharges from
irrigated agriculture. Discharges from agricultural lands
include irrigation return flow, flows from tile drains, and
storm water runoff and can affect water quality by
transporting pollutants, including pesticides, sediment,
nutrients, salts, pathogens, and heavy metals, from
cultivated fields into surface waters. According to SWRCB,
many surface water bodies are impaired because of
pollutants from agricultural sources.
As a result of SB 390, SWRCB developed the Irrigated Lands
Regulatory Program (ILRP) to regulate discharges from
irrigated agricultural lands and provide waivers in
accordance with the law. ILRP's purpose is to prevent
agricultural discharges from impairing the waters that
receive the discharges. To protect these waters, RWQCBs
have issued conditional waivers of waste discharge
requirements to growers that contain conditions requiring
water quality monitoring of receiving waters and corrective
actions when impairments are found.
RWQCBs have responded in various manners in order to
control and assess the effects of discharges from irrigated
agricultural lands. The Los Angeles, Central Coast,
Central Valley, and San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Boards have adopted comprehensive conditional
waivers. The Colorado River Basin and North Coast Water
Quality Control Boards have adopted conditional
prohibitions as a total maximum daily load (TMDL)
implementation plan incorporated into their respective
basin plans. The Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control
Board is in the initial phase of developing an irrigated
lands regulatory program. An estimated 25,000 growers, who
AB 2595
Page
4
cultivate over nine million acres, are subject to
conditional waivers in these regions. These RWQCBs have
made significant strides toward implementing their programs
and are committed to continuing their efforts to work with
the agricultural community to protect and improve water
quality. Regional Water Quality Control Boards 2 and 6
have no immediate plans to adopt waivers for agricultural
discharges but may do so eventually to implement TMDLs.
The number of acres and agricultural operations will
increase as other RWQCBs adopt conditional waivers for
discharges from irrigated agricultural land.
This bill:
1.Requires the operator of a property or their
representative to obtain an operator identification
number (OIN) for pesticide use from the CAC of each
county where pest control work will be performed,
pursuant California Code of Regulations Title 3, Section
6622.
2.Specifies that as of January 1, 2012, a CAC shall not
issue a OIN if the SWRCB or RWQCB issues a notice to the
CAC that the property operator is in violation of the
following water quality requirements:
A. Failure to obtain an individual or general waste
discharge requirements.
B. Failure to furnish technical or monitoring program
reports.
C. Failure to enroll in the Irrigated Lands
Conditional Waiver Program or obtain an individual or
general waiver of waste discharge requirements.
3.Requires a CAC to immediately issue an OIN for pesticide
use upon receipt of a certificate of compliance issued by
SWRCB or RWQCB.
4.Authorizes a county agricultural commissioner to levy a
civil penalty of up to $5,000 against an operator who
fraudulently obtains an OIN.
AB 2595
Page
5
5.Authorizes DPR to adopt regulations, in consultation with
SWRCB and CACs, for implementation of this bill that
minimize disruption of issuing OIN for pesticide use.
6.Requires the SWRCB or RWQCB to notify DPR and the CAC if,
after exhausting all administrative proceedings and
appeals, the operator of the property is found to be in
violation of the following water quality requirements:
A. Failure to obtain an individual or general waste
discharge requirements.
B. Failure to furnish technical or monitoring program
reports.
C. Failure to enroll in the Irrigated Lands
Conditional Waiver Program or obtain an individual or
general waiver of waste discharge requirements.
7.Specifies that SWRCB or RWQCB may not transmit a
violation notice to DPR or CAC until 30 days after all
administrative proceedings and appeals are exhausted and
the operator of the property has not complied with the
order or paid any administrative or civil liability
imposed violation.
8.Requires SWRCB or RWQCB to issue a written certificate of
compliance to the operator of the property if the
operator has remedied the violation and paid any
administrative or civil liability imposed for a
violation.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12
2012-13 Fund
Water Board enforcement Minor costs Special *
County Agricultural Unknown costs, potentially
reimbursable Special ** /
AB 2595
Page
6
Commissioner costs
General
* Waste Discharge Permit Fund.
** Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/17/10)
California Coastkeepers Alliance
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Clean Water Fund
Community Water Center
Monterey CoastKeeper
San Francisco BayKeeper
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/17/10)
California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
Monterey Farm Bureau
Western Growers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters of this bill state that
an additional incentive for agricultural participation in
water quality programs by withholding a pesticide use OIN
if the operator is not participating in the proper water
quality program. The conditional agricultural waiver
program passed by the legislature in 2000 is intended to
improve water quality from discharges on irrigated
agricultural lands. Since implementation in 2003 and years
of litigation, warning letters and Notices of Violation the
SWRCB estimates 75 percent participation in the Central
Valley and 95 percent participation in the Central Coast.
This leaves an estimated 40,000 acres and 500-700 growers
not complying with water quality regulatory programs. This
bill will provide an extra incentive by withholding the
growers' ability to use pesticide products until they are
in compliance with the proper water quality program.
Further, in areas of the state that have yet to implement a
conditional waiver program, this bill would help them
reduce the potential costs of initiating the program,
increasing the penalty by limiting an operators ability to
AB 2595
Page
7
use pesticides if they are not participating in a
conditional waiver program.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents of this bill state
that current water law provides the SWRCB and RWQCBs with
enforcement authority and the ability to levy civil
penalties to ensure compliance and enrollment in water
quality programs. Requiring the CAC to withhold an OIN for
a grower not participating in a water quality program would
turn the CAC into the enforcement officer for water quality
programs with which CACs are unfamiliar or funded to
enforce. Some counties contain more than one RWQCB which
could lead to a lack of uniformity of enforcement by a
single CAC for a particular county as the different boards
may have significant differences in agricultural waivers.
CACs have raised concerns regarding the lack of funding for
the increased enforcement responsibilities of this bill.
Without the needed funding with the additional
responsibility of this bill CACs feel they would be
challenged to effectively implement the provisions of this
bill. Further, water quality programs monitor more than
just pesticide runoff. This bill could withhold an
operator's ability to use pesticides for problems unrelated
to pesticide use.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Harkey, Hayashi, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries,
Jones, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller,
Monning, Nestande, Niello, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra Strickland,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Yamada, John
A. Perez
NOES: Caballero
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Evans, Hall, Hernandez, Knight,
Mendoza, Nava, Nielsen, Norby, Salas, Saldana, Villines
AB 2595
Page
8
TSM:nl 8/17/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****