BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1157
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: August 2, 2010
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety and Toxic Materials Vote: 6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires public schools to adopt an integrated pest
management program (IPMP) to limit use of the riskiest
pesticides and to promote least-hazardous pest control
practices. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires public schools to adopt, by January 1, 2014, an IPMP.
2)Directs the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to
develop regulations to establish a fee on manufacturers and
brokers of pesticides used at public schools, to be collected
beginning January 1, 21012 and deposited in the Healthy School
Act Fund (HSAF), established by this bill.
3)Dedicates the fee revenue, upon appropriation, to DPR's costs
of administering and enforcing this bill, and to public
schools' costs for its implementation.
4)Directs DPR to borrow from the DPR Fund to cover the costs of
developing regulations and establishing the fee, to be repaid
from fee revenue.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual costs to DPR ranging from $50,000 to $200,000 from
2011-12 to 2013-14 to develop regulations and establish the
fee. (DPR Fund, to be repaid from fee revenue in the HSAF.)
2)Ongoing annual costs to DPR of about $100,000, beginning in
2013-14, to collect the fee from pesticide manufacturers and
brokers and disperse revenue to schools. (DPR Fund, to be
SB 1157
Page 2
repaid from fee revenue in the HSAF.)
3)Ongoing costs to DRP, beginning in 2013-14, of $200,000 to
$400,000 to ensure public school adopt IPMPs through
enforcement, outreach and education. (DPR Fund, to be repaid
from fee revenue in the HSAF.)
4)Potential financial exposure to the state of an unknown
amount, but possibly in the range of millions of dollars, to
the extent schools file a mandate claim with the Commission on
State Mandates and the commission determines the state owes
money to the schools for cost associated with this bill.
Presumably, any such costs would be covered by revenue
generated from the fee established by this bill. (Currently,
the state has $3.2 billion in outstanding mandate claims owed
to public schools.)
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Proponents argue that many public schools have not
adopted an integrated pest management policy under DPR's
voluntary program. These proponents add that many schools
that have not adopted such a program cite concern with costs.
As a result, proponents contend, some of the most dangerous
pesticides are being applied at school sites, despite the
existence of effective, less toxic alternatives. The
proponents intend this bill to result in more schools adopting
programs that reduce use of the riskiest pesticides and to
provide the funding for those schools to do so.
2)Background .
a) Pesticides and Schools . The Healthy Schools Act
includes several provisions regarding the use of pesticides
at school sites. Each day-care facility, kindergarten,
elementary or secondary school must maintain records for
four years of all pesticides used at the school site and
make this information available to the public. Schools
must also annually provide written notice to staff and
parents of all pesticides expected to be applied at the
school during the upcoming year, provide the opportunity
for school staff and parents or guardians of students to
register to receive notification of individual pesticide
applications, and post notices in areas where pesticides
are used.
SB 1157
Page 3
b) Integrated Pesticide Management Programs . Current law
requires DPR to promote and facilitate the voluntary
adoption of IPM programs for schools and child day care
facilities. To that end, DPR maintains a website with
specific pesticide and IPM information and provides IPM
training programs. The policy committee analysis cites a
2007 survey of schools, in which DPR reports almost all
school districts post warning signs and provide written
notification of pesticide use; 80% maintain a registry of
parents and staff to be notified about pesticide use; and
nearly 75% keep pesticide use records up to four years.
3)Support . This bill is supported by numerous public health and
environmental organizations concerned about the use of the
most dangerous pesticides in public schools.
4)Opposition. This bill is opposed by DPR, among others, who
describe the bill as creating a costly mandate.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081