BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1157
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier)
As Amended August 20, 2010
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :21-12
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 6-3
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Nava, Chesbro, Davis, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Bradford, |
| |Feuer, Monning, Ruskin | |Huffman, Coto, Davis, De |
| | | |Leon, Gatto, Hall, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, |
| | | |Torlakson, Torrico |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Miller, Blakeslee, Smyth |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires, commencing on January 1, 2014, all
schoolsites to adopt an integrated pest management (IPM)
program. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings about the health impacts of
pesticides and cites the bill as the Healthy Schools Act of
2010.
2)Requires, commencing on January 1, 2014, all schoolsites,
except family day care homes, to adopt an IPM program, as
established, administered, and enforced by the Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
3)Requires, beginning January 1, 2012, the actual rate of the
mill assessment on pesticide sales to be augmented, by
regulation, at a rate adequate to reimburse DPR for the cost
of administering and enforcing the IPM program requirements
and for reimbursing local agencies and school districts for
the costs of implementing IPM programs at schoolsites.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires each school site (child day care facility,
SB 1157
Page 2
kindergarten, elementary or secondary school) to keep records
of all pesticides used at the school site; to provide notice
about pesticide products applied at the school site; and to
post a warning sign at each area of the school site where
pesticides will be applied.
2)Requires DPR to promote and facilitate the voluntary adoption
of IPM programs at schools and child day care facilities.
3)Prohibits the sale of pesticide products for which the mill
assessment is not paid according to specified requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee,
1)Annual costs to DPR ranging from $50,000 to $200,000 from
2011-12 to 2013-14 to develop regulations to augment the mill
fee. (DPR Fund.)
2)Ongoing annual costs to DPR of about $100,000, beginning in
2013-14, to disperse revenue to local agencies and schools.
(DPR Fund.)
3)Ongoing costs to DRP, beginning in 2013-14, of $200,000 to
$400,000, to ensure that public schools adopt IPM programs
through enforcement, outreach and education activities. (DPR
Fund.)
4)Annual increased mill fee revenue to DPR, beginning in
2012-13, of an unknown amount but presumably sufficient to
cover any costs incurred by DPR, local agencies and schools to
implement this bill.
5)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 by the increased mill assessment called for by this
bill. (Currently, the state has $3.2 billion in outstanding
mandate claims owed to public schools.)
COMMENTS : According to the author, a 2002 survey of
California's 15 largest school districts found that 54 pesticide
SB 1157
Page 3
active ingredients that are known or suspected carcinogens,
reproductive or developmental toxins, endocrine disruptors,
acute toxins and/or cholinesterase inhibitors may still be in
use in and around California schools. The author argues that
although school districts are moving towards effective,
efficient, and cost-effective pest control without using harmful
pesticides since the passage of the Healthy Schools Act of 2000
(AB 2260, Shelley), highly toxic pesticides are still in and
around California schools.
The Unied Staed Environmental Protection Agency reports that the
adverse effects of pesticide exposure range from mild symptoms
of dizziness and nausea to serious, long-term neurological,
developmental and reproductive disorders. Children are at a
greater risk from exposure to some pesticides.
The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 aims to reduce children's
exposure to pesticides in schools through the schools' voluntary
adoption of IPM and least-toxic methods of pest control.
California law defines IPM at school sites and daycare
facilities 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 non-chemical
practices to make the habitat less conducive to pest
development, improving sanitation, and employing mechanical and
physical controls.
Roughly 70% of school districts that responded to a 2007 survey
had voluntarily adopted an IPM program of some kind, but their
activities greatly varied and few schools seem to have a robust
program in place. While DPR has developed a comprehensive IPM
support program, because schools are not required to adopt IPM
practices, most schools' IPM programs appear to be to be q
quite underdeveloped. This bill would require all schools to
adopt adopt an IPM program.
Analysis Prepared by: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0006454
SB 1157
Page 4