BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1157 (DeSaulnier)
Hearing Date: 05/27/2010 Amended: 04/28/2010
Consultant: Brendan McCarthy Policy Vote: Ed. 6-2, EQ 5-0
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier), Page 2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 1157 prohibits public schools from using
certain pesticides on school property. The bill allows
exceptions to the prohibition, under certain circumstances. The
bill requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to impose a
fee on manufacturers or importers of specified pesticides, to
pay for the costs of implementing the bill.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Identifying pesticides $270 Special
*
and developing regulations
Providing information to $125 $125
$125Special **
schools on pesticides
Collecting fees $425 $425 Special
**
Mandate costs to schools Unknown Special
**
* Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund. Costs to be repaid
from future fee revenues.
** Healthy Schools Act fund of 2010. Costs will be offset with
fee revenues.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Under the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 (Shelley, Chapter 718,
Statues of 2000), public schools are required to provide notice
to staff and parents regarding pesticide use in the school.
Schools are also required to post notice of pesticide use,
retain records of pesticide use, and may not use certain
pesticides that have been approved for limited use in the state.
Current law requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation to
promote and facilitate the use of integrated pest management
programs (as an alternative to the traditional use of
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier), Page 2
pesticides).
Under current law, the Department collects a "mill assessment"
of 2.1 cents on every dollar of the sale price of pesticides.
The mill assessment is levied on the first sale of a pesticide
into the state. Revenues from the mill assessment are used to
fund the Department's regulatory program.
SB 1157 prohibits schools from using the "most highly toxic"
pesticides, as specified in the bill, on school property. The
bill includes specific criteria for determining whether a
pesticide qualifies as being most highly toxic. For example,
pesticides containing ingredients that have been identified as
being carcinogenic or causing birth defects by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency would be covered by the bill.
The bill exempts some uses of these pesticides, such as
antimicrobial pesticides, agricultural uses, and other specific
uses. In addition, the bill allows schools to use the most
highly toxic pesticides under limited emergency circumstances
when the use of these pesticides is necessary to protect the
health and safety of students or school employees.
The bill requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control to
assess a fee on manufacturers or importers of the most highly
toxic pesticides. Fee revenues must be sufficient to pay for the
costs of implementing the bill, including any mandate costs
incurred by schools in complying with the bill.
In order to asses the fee required under the bill, the
Department of Pesticide Regulation will have to determine which
pesticides sold in California meet the criteria to be considered
"most highly toxic" and then to identify the producers or
importers of those pesticides. In addition, the bill requires
the Department to adopt regulations to implement the fee. Staff
estimates that the Department will need at least two additional
positions in the first year of implementation to adopt the fee
regulation. In the first year, the costs incurred by the
Department are likely to be covered by the revenues from the
mill assessment, until the new fee has been established.
The Department will likely be called upon by schools to provide
assistance in identifying prohibited pesticides and potentially
identifying alternative pesticides. Staff estimates that
providing this assistance will require one additional position.
The Department will likely also need additional staff to collect
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier), Page 2
fees and audit manufacturers or importers of highly toxic
pesticides. Because this fee will be paid by a subset of
pesticide manufacturers or importers, the Department will have
to establish a separate collection process. In addition, because
the number of pesticides that meet the criteria of "most highly
toxic" may change over time, the Department will need ongoing
staff to keep the list of pesticides subject to the new fee
updated and to ensure that all applicable manufacturers or
importers are paying required fees.
Because the bill prohibits the use of certain pesticides in
schools, the bill may impose some additional costs on school
districts. For example, schools may switch to more costly
pesticides or incur administrative costs in selecting
alternative pest control strategies. It is not known whether the
Commission on State Mandates will rule that school districts
must be reimbursed by the state for any additional costs
associated with the bill. To the extent that the Commission does
rule that schools are allowed to seek reimbursement from the
state, revenues from the new fee would offset those mandate
costs.
As proposed to be amended by the author, schools would only be
prohibited from using the most highly toxic pesticides once fee
revenues are available to reimburse their costs. The Department
is required to begin collecting the fee on January 1, 2012. The
Department shall borrow funds from an existing special fund
until fee revenues are collected.