BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1157|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1157
Author: DeSaulnier (D)
Amended: 8/20/10
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-2, 4/14/10
AYES: Romero, Alquist, Hancock, Liu, Price, Simitian
NOES: Huff, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Maldonado
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 4/22/10
AYES: Simitian, Corbett, Hancock, Lowenthal, Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Strickland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-3, 5/27/10
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Denham, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cox
SENATE FLOOR : 21-12, 6/2/10
AYES: Alquist, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, DeSaulnier,
Ducheny, Florez, Hancock, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal,
Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero, Simitian,
Steinberg, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Ashburn, Cogdill, Cox, Denham, Dutton,
Harman, Hollingsworth, Huff, Runner, Walters, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Correa, Oropeza, Strickland, Wiggins,
Wright, Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 47-27, 8/23/10 - See last page for vote
CONTINUED
SB 1157
Page
2
SUBJECT : Education: Healthy Schools Act of 2010
SOURCE : Parents for a Safer Environment
DIGEST : This bill requires, commencing on January 1,
2014, all schoolsites to adopt an integrated pest
management (IPM) program.
Assembly Amendments (1) delete the new fund created and
replace it with the mill assessment, (2) exempts family day
care homes from adopting an IPM program, and (3) make
technically and clarifying changes.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law :
1)Requires each school site (child day care facility,
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.
This bill:
1. Requires, commencing on January 1, 2014, all schoolsites
to adopt an integrated pest management (IPM) program.
2. Makes legislative findings about the health impacts of
pesticides and cites the bill as the Healthy Schools Act
of 2010.
3. Requires, commencing on January 1, 2014, all
schoolsites, except family day care homes, to adopt an
SB 1157
Page
3
IPM program, as established, administered, and enforced
by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).
4. 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
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.
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.)
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/24/10)
Parents for a Safer Environment (source)
American Lung Association
Breast Cancer Action
SB 1157
Page
4
Breast Cancer Fund
California Church IMPACT
California Nurses Association
California School Employees Association
California School Health Centers Association
California State PTA
Chinese-American Political Association
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
Community Action to Fight Asthma
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County Democratic Central Committee
Environmental Working Group
Mothers of Marin Against the Spray
National Nurses Organizing Committee
Pesticide-Free Sacramento
Pesticide Watch
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco-Bay
Area Chapter
Sacramento Area Chapter of Physicians for Social
Responsibility
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/24/10)
California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers Association
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Pest Control Operators of California
ServiceMaster
Western Plant Health Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Proponents argue that many studies
have found serious toxic effects of pesticides at levels
much lower than prescribed on labels for use. The
proponents cite a California State Department of Public
Health, Office of Environmental Health and Hazard
Assessment report published in 2005 that the following
chronic diseases were linked to pesticide exposure: asthma,
reproductive outcomes, cancer, dermatitis, learning
impairments, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and
chronic fatigue syndrome.
Proponents also cite that the Centers for Disease Control
SB 1157
Page
5
and Prevention's biomonitoring program found high levels of
pesticides in children with an average of seven pesticides
in each child. Supporters state that childhood diseases
and conditions linked to pesticide exposure have risen, and
there have been 502 cases of reported pesticide accidents
resulting in acute symptoms from 1992-2007 in California
schools.
Proponents state that "there are over 1,000 school
districts in the state with over six million children
spending on average 6 hours a day at approximately 9,900
school sites. Despite great effort by DPR, there was no
sustained increase in school districts adopting indicator
practices associated with least toxic pest management in
the last four years surveyed. Education is not enough."
Proponents believe that "it is crucial that SB 1157 be
passed to ensure an environment in which children are given
a chance to thrive. Every child and school staff should be
able to attend work at school without undertaking
unnecessary risk of a serious disease later in life that
would not only lower quality of life for the individual,
but be of cost to families, communities and our state."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents contend that this
bill is "based upon inaccurate assumptions about how pest
control is performed in and around schools. Pest control
today, especially structural pest control, is vastly
different than it was 25 years ago. Opponents note that in
the findings and declarations, the bill states that many
schools 'continue to use highly toxic pesticides,' and the
operative section of the proposed bill states (section
17615) enumerate several lists of materials that are
proposed to be banned for use in public schools."
According to the Pest Control Operators of California, most
of the material contained in these lists, and certainly the
most highly toxic materials are already prohibited from use
at schools.
The opposition continues to state that "the sponsors of the
bill cite numerous instances of pesticide accidents between
1992 and 2007 in California schools. Prior to 2000, there
was no comprehensive law governing the use of pesticides in
schools. The Healthy Schools Act was passed in 2000,
SB 1157
Page
6
establishing a new standard for the use of pesticides in
California schools." The opposition asks that the
Legislature review and compare data regarding pesticide
accidents on school sites pre and post 2000. The
opposition contends that, in their experience, the cases
have decreased dramatically.
The opposition believes that anyone using pesticides on
school premises be a licensed applicator to ensure the
safety of the students, teachers, staff and visitors.
However, the opposition insists that it is not in the
public interest and health and safety are not best served
by a complete ban on the use of pesticides in schools.
There are certain instances were it is necessary to use
pesticides to protect children from diseases such as
Malaria, yellow fever and West Nile virus.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Gatto, Hayashi,
Hernandez, Hill, Huffman, Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mendoza, Monning, Nava, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Conway, Cook, DeVore, Fletcher, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Huber, Jeffries,
Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva,
Smyth, Audra Strickland, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Furutani, Hall, Norby, Tran, Vacancy,
Vacancy
PQ:do 8/24/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****