BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2174
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
REVISED ANALYSIS
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Cathleen Galgiani, Chair
AB 2174 (Alejo) - As Amended: May 3, 2012
SUBJECT : Fertilizer: reduction of use.
SUMMARY : Defines the priority of funding for the Fertilizer
Research and Education Program (FREP), and identifies specific
entities to develop specialized programs, as stated.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Identifies the University of California Cooperative Extension
(UCCE), the California Resources Conservation Districts
(CRCD), other institutions of higher education or other
qualified entities to develop programs, as follows:
a) Technical education for producers, as specified, in the
development and implementation of nutrient management
projects that result in more efficient use of fertilizer
products and minimize environmental impacts of fertilizer
use, including but not limited to, nitrates in groundwater;
b) Research to assist producers, as specified, to improve
nutrient management practices resulting in more efficient
use of fertilizer products and to minimize environmental
impacts of fertilizer use, including but not limited to,
nitrates in groundwater; and,
c) Education to producers, as specified, to increase
awareness of the following:
i) Efficient use of fertilizer products to reduce the
environmental impacts resulting from over-use or
inefficient use of fertilizer materials; and,
ii) The use of these funds and eligibility for funding
of projects that promote efficient fertilizer use and
reduce environmental impacts resulting from the over-use
or inefficient use of fertilizer materials.
2)Requires the distribution of FREP funds, to be prioritized in
the order of a), b), and c).
AB 2174
Page 2
EXISTING LAW provides fertilizer materials definitions, an
advisory board, requires licensing, registration, inspection
requirements and fees, tonnage reports, label requirements,
sampling and analysis, establishes violations, procedures for
prosecution, and describes what is misbranding and adulteration.
Further, existing law establishes an assessment level not to
exceed two mills ($0.002) per dollar of sales of fertilizer
materials to fund the program and it permits an assessment not
to exceed one mill ($0.001) per dollar of sales of fertilizer
materials, to provide funding for research and education
regarding the use and handling of fertilizing material,
including, but not limited to, any environmental effects.
FISCAL EFFECT : Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill fiscal.
COMMENTS : The author states that the Salinas Valley and Tulare
Lake Basin lead the state in nitrate contamination in ground
water. On March 13, 2012, the University of California at
Davis' Center for Watershed Sciences released a report to the
Legislature detailing nitrate contamination in groundwater in
the state's two leading agricultural regions. It finds that
contamination is currently threatening a quarter million
people's drinking water safety, with millions more Californians
to be affected in the future. The report found that
agricultural activities are responsible for 96% of the
pollution, with chemical fertilizer making up 54% of the
sources.
This bill would use existing funds under FREP for implementation
projects to assist farmers and ranchers with best management
practices for fertilizer use. Giving technical assistance to
agricultural producers would lead to more efficient application
of fertilizers, resulting in cost savings to farmers who would
use less fertilizer, resulting in less contamination of the
state's water shed.
Supporters of AB 2174 cite that declining state funding for
technical assistance has undermined the exchange of needed
information between our best science advisors to farmers. Now,
more than ever, is the need to re-invest in technical assistance
for our growers, as the natural resource and stewardship issues
facing farmers have grown more complex.
AB 2174
Page 3
Opponent's concerns lies with the language to direct the outcome
of the funds and to circumvent the process for selecting grants.
They state that FREP funds are limited and should be allocated
to those projects deemed to have the most benefit by the
Technical Advisory Subcommittee of the Fertilizer Inspection
Advisory Board, and that the Legislature shouldn't seek to
predetermine the outcome of this process by creating caps or
priorities on the use of funds.
This information is not new; in 1988, the Director of California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) appointed a Nitrate
Working Group comprised of scientists from the University of
California, state agencies and industry, with the goal of
studying the nitrate problem relating to agriculture in
California. The CDFA Nitrate Working Group's 1989 report,
"Nitrate and Agriculture in California," analyzed the problem on
a state-wide basis. Using a computerized database that included
12 years of well testing results, as well as groundwater
information compiled by the State Water Resource Control Board,
the scientists reviewed and confirmed locations in the state
where groundwater contains elevated levels of nitrate.
The CDFA Nitrate Working Group report concluded with the
following five recommendations:
1)Identify nitrate sensitive areas throughout the state.
2)Establish a list of priority areas in which nitrate control
programs should be implemented.
3)In cooperation with local government and agriculture,
establish nitrate management programs in priority areas.
4)Develop best management practices to be incorporated into
local nitrate management programs.
5)Establish a research and demonstration project on nitrate
control through irrigation, fertilizer and manure management.
FREP was established to focus primarily on five of the
recommendations of the CDFA Nitrate Working Group report. FREP
was established in 1990 when California Food and Agricultural
Code Section 14611(b) authorized a mill assessment on the sale
of fertilizing materials, "to provide funding for research and
education regarding the use and handling of commercial and
AB 2174
Page 4
organic fertilizers, including, but not limited to, any
environmental effects." The mill assessment currently generates
close to $1 million per year for fertilizer research.
Since 1990, FREP's focus has expanded to include research on
many of California's important and environmentally sensitive
cropping systems, including almonds, tomatoes, cotton, citrus,
wine grapes, horticulture, lettuce, and other cool-season
vegetables. To date, 40% of FREP's projects have been related
to developing, testing, and demonstrating various nutrient
tissue and/or soil testing procedures.
According to CDFA's, FREP FACTS SHEET posted to their web site,
"Over 20 years of FREP research projects have focused on
agronomic efficiency in the management of nutrients, precision
irrigation and fertigation practices �fertilization trough
irrigation], and soil and fertilizer interaction. 2012
priorities include:
Comparisons of economically viable and commercially
ready, integrated fertility-water-soil management
approaches that preserve soil and water quality.
Nutrient requirements for high-value specialty crops or
emerging new crops in highly environmentally sensitive
areas.
Devising innovative techniques to improve fertilizer use
efficiency."
Over this period of time, FREP has funded $12 million for 160
technical, research, and education projects. The funds have
been spent in the following breakdown of project types:
Nutrient/Soil Testing/Fertilizer Practice 46%
Irrigation/Fertigation/Precision Agriculture 26%
Educational
?? 15%
Air Quality
2%
Compost/Cover Crop
3%
Other (Pest Interactions, Heavy Metals) 8%
A number of FREP projects have resulted in practical
AB 2174
Page 5
applications and guides for growers and crop consultants,
including a nitrogen fertilization model for almond growers, a
nitrogen and water management production guide for coastal
vegetables and best management practices for nitrogen fertilizer
and water use in irrigated agriculture.
The FREP Grant Program is for projects that are generally one to
three years in length and are funded in the amount of
$50,000-$150,000. According to the August 24, 2011 FREP meeting
minutes, a discussion occurred regarding "the benefits of
funding a few larger projects, rather than a multitude of small
projects." Also included in the minutes, a discussion that FREP
needs a strategic review to determine if the program is
conforming to its original intent; internal discussions have
focused on improving education and outreach; and, that the
program is on the right track, but has weaknesses in the areas
of outreach and education. Further, the minutes reflect
$900,000 will be available for research projects.
It should be noted that FREP is funded by products and materials
that make a label claim, such as percentage values of nitrogen
(N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), or other nutrients. Manures
and compost typically do not make nutrient value claims so they
do not pay the fertilizer mills or the FREP mill.
According to the UC Davis Report cited by the author, the
impacts to nitrogen contaminated ground waters vary widely, due
to the travel times of nitrate from source to wells range from a
few years to decades in domestic wells, and from years to many
decades and even centuries in deeper production wells. This
means that nitrate source reduction actions made today may not
affect sources of drinking water for years to many decades to
come. The scientific advances over this period of time have
improved the use of fertilizers and manures. This said, it is
most important that new knowledge of improved methods of
fertilizer use is delivered to farmers in a timely manner, which
may help reduce the legacy of contamination in the future.
The committee needs to determine if it is appropriate for the
Legislature to re-direct FREP's Technical Advisory Committee's
priorities for funding. FREP is in the process of developing a
Nutrient Management Plan Certification class for educating
Certified Commodity Advisors, who consult with farmers on how to
grown crops, similar to Pest Control Advisors consulting on how
to avoid or treat pests.
AB 2174
Page 6
Urban and residential consumers use a considerable amount of
fertilizer materials; as written, none of the FREP's funding for
technical assistance, research, or education could be used for
these users of fertilizer materials. The committee may wish to
consider striking the terms "producers, as described in Sections
55408 and 64507," and inserting "users of fertilizer materials."
The committee may wish to consider, for the purpose of
consistency in the statute, changing the term fertilizer
"products" to fertilizer "materials", as is referenced elsewhere
in this Chapter.
(Page 3, lines 1, 5, and 10.)
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION : AB 856 (Caballero), Chapter 257, Statutes
of 2009. This bill expanded the definitions pertaining to
organic fertilizer materials, added new requirements, fees and
penalties.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (Sponsor)
California Alliance with Family Farmers
California Climate and Agricultural Network
Clean Water Action
Community Water Center
Dixon Ridge Farms
FarmLink
Full Belly Farms
Hedgerow Farms
Swanson Berry Farm
The Ecological Farming Association
Opposition
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Grape and Tree Fruit League
California Pear Growers Association
California Rice Industry Association
California Seed Association
Western Growers
Western Plant Health Association
AB 2174
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by : Jim Collin / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084